Dame Harriett Baldwin
MP for West Worcestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon.”
“I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024?”
“Could the Leader of the House make a commitment that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the House on the first day we are back from recess?”
“With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council. He said in his statement that this is about making “real improvements to people’s lives and…communities”.”
“In recent weeks in West Worcestershire, I have met local police and the police and crime commissioner; the police and crime commissioner is being abolished, and the police are being reorganised. I have met the local health commissioners; they are being reorganised, and Healthwatch is being abolished.”
“Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given that the other place is sitting next week, there is nothing to stop him tabling a business statement to enable this House to sit next week? Given the enormity of the events happening in the Government next week, does he not think that would be a good idea?”
The complete record
Every one of 3,832 lines we hold for Dame Harriett Baldwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 77.
“Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I beg to move amendment 21, page 1, line 6, leave out “of or including” and insert “predominantly of”. This amendment would narrow the definition of a steel undertaking so that it had to be a business consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel.”
“They may now claim to their Back Benchers and union backers that this is something to celebrate as true socialism, but the reality is that it is an outcome that the Government wanted to avoid. The Government failed to negotiate a good outcome with the Chinese owners of British Steel. The Prime Minister and the Business Secretary went all the way to China and failed to get a deal. Whenever this Government negotiate, the taxpayer loses out. The Conservatives do not think that the Government should nationalise British Steel, because we do not think politicians should be running businesses. Since the Government intervened last year, it has cost taxpayers over £1.3 million every day. The Bill is deeply flawed, and it is in a spirit of goodwill that I offer the Government the chance to adopt the Opposition’s amendments.”
“Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and his real-life expertise in the steel business. He is truly a rare example on the Government Benches of someone who has deep private-sector experience and really knows his subject—I salute that. My own private-sector expertise is as an investor, so most of the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends are trying to protect the taxpayer from some of the financial risks the Bill lands them with. The fact is that nobody wanted to nationalise British Steel. The Government told us last year, when they brought in emergency legislation—and brought Members back on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war—that they did not want to nationalise British Steel.”
“If I may, I would also like to speak to the other amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and, before I do that, approach the Bill with the serious concern it deserves. Today’s amendments reflect some of the points the Opposition made on Second Reading: that the Bill is a chaotic, unplanned intervention that risks landing taxpayers with an open-ended and potentially unlimited bill. Without addressing those issues as we make this legislation, we need to really focus on the things that are currently making the domestic production of steel unprofitable, such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies. Before I turn to the amendments in detail, I put on record how much I respect the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon.”
“The Bill expropriates businesses, and that will deter inward investment into our country. You do not have to take my word for it, Dame Caroline, as it is also in the Government’s impact assessment that one of the Bill’s potential impacts is that it chills the investment environment in this sector. That is why we have tabled the amendments the Committee is considering today.”
“As a west midlands MP, I absolutely recognise that. In fact, I was with a constituent in Worcester on Friday, Mr Michael Outwin of Industrial & Tractor Ltd, who is going to have to pay a 50% tariff. I tried to table some amendments on the tariff regime, but unfortunately, they were not orderly, so I will limit myself to agreeing with my right hon. Friend. There are many types of steel that will be affected by the tariffs that do not seem to be made in the UK. I would like the Minister to clarify how he expects people to continue manufacturing from the steel that they have been importing for some time, once the tariffs are in place. On the Opposition amendments, I am sure that everyone in the Committee agrees that the Bill as it stands exposes the taxpayer to unlimited liability for an unlimited length of time.”
“The Minister mentioned that he was willing to meet Members who have concerns about the steel tariffs, which are a separate issue. May I urge him, over the next 24 hours, to try to find some time in his diary so that they can raise specific examples with him?”
“Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who sought assurances that the blast furnaces will continue. I am not sure we heard that on the record. When the Minister next gets to the Dispatch Box in these days of debate, will he clarify his intentions as far as that is concerned? Will the Minister provide clarity on the public interest test? Sensible remarks were made about the Regulatory Reform Committee and how the public interest test is too broadly defined. How can it ever be reversed once it has been invoked? I did not hear anything about limiting the contingent liabilities or the sunset clause, or the possible impact—mentioned in the impact report itself—on investor confidence in this country.”
“It is wonderful to see so many people interested in following this debate until 10 pm, which when our scrutiny of the Bill ends today. I will make just a few remarks, if I may. Despite the fact that we still have another day tomorrow, there were a few things in today’s debate that I have not heard sufficiently answered. First, I pay tribute to the wise remarks from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I encourage the Minister to take on board his points about the wide scope of the powers the Minister is taking in this legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General, so his remarks should be heeded with a great deal of seriousness. I reiterate the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon.”
“Indeed; and, as we have heard, one of the suppliers is still in administration. I think that the Minister needs to rethink that deadline, and I hope he will find time in his diary, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to meet Members on both sides of the House to discuss the issue. With no more ado, Ms Ghani, I will now attempt to press as many of the amendments as you will allow, and we will test the view of the Committee. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 21. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn . Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5).— (Dame Harriett Baldwin.) This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers .”
“The Employment Rights Act is one of the reasons given by one in eight business leaders for considering leaving Britain. Indeed, 30% of the Sunday Times rich list have already fled this high-tax socialist Government. The family business tax is another. Will the Minister please lobby the Chancellor for another U-turn, this time to adopt our policy of scrapping the family business tax?”
“I will carry on with the same theme, because it is clear from all sides that there are real issues with the element of the steel strategy that imposes a 50% tariff on 1 July. It is affecting manufacturing businesses up and down this country, and it is being done in a way that not only threatens manufacturing jobs, but increases inflationary pressures. Can the Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done on the effect of these measures on inflation and on jobs?”
“Rural drivers in West Worcestershire will be delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has seen the political reality that it would have been mad to put another 5p on petrol on 1 September, but can she explain to my constituents why we are not allowing oil and gas extraction from our own basin yet we are allowing an increase in Putin-produced oil and gas?”
“When will the full set of files that this House requested relating to Lord Mandelson’s role, and particularly any advice, correspondence or due diligence connected to his appointment, be released to the House? Finally, the Minister has a large trade envoy programme under his responsibility. What due diligence are the Government doing on appointees to that trade envoy programme, and do those appointees follow a code of conduct that governs their behaviour?”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of both the long and short versions of his statement. We support the Humble Address and continue to support full transparency in this matter. I have just a few questions. I think the Minister said that this is just the start of a full disclosure. Will he share with the House whether there will be further disclosure, or is this the final amount? If there are to be further tranches, will he give the House a clear and final timetable for when the process will be complete? Is the absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process evidence that the Government raised no questions at the time about the appointment? Where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time?”
“This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.”
“Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector? This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.”
“This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one? If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return?”
“They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June. This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities?”
“There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector. We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti).”
“I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing. We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely.”
“Labour Members describes it as growth coming from an interventionist Government, but they are wrong. Growth comes from entrepreneurs who take risks. Growth comes from businesses that invest and hire. Growth comes from workers who strive and succeed. That is why we have set out a clear alternative: a serious plan, a credible programme.”
“In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) highlighted the impact on jobs for young people, and in a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke about solar farms and the shocking information about self-swab rape kits. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about rural businesses and rural deprivation, and made an outstanding contribution on turning things around for his constituents in Mid Norfolk. Turning to the King’s Speech, what do we see? We see a King’s Speech full of more intervention, more regulation, more taxes and more uncertainty. There is even—I am not making this up—a regulating for growth Bill: more compliance burdens dressed up as protections and more top-down control from Whitehall.”
“I thank colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have contributed to today’s debate, and spoken powerfully for their constituencies and the businesses that they represent. Their speeches were beams of light shining into this Chamber from the real world. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) spoke about debt and chaos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the importance of small businesses and deregulation, and the impact on them of national insurance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the debt markets and the pressing need for welfare reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an outstanding speech, spoke about his local businesses, and said that the last thing they need is another holiday tax.”
“Debt interest is spiralling towards £140 billion a year. We are now paying more to service debt than to invest in our future. That is the direct result of a Government without a plan. So what will happen if we get a new Labour Prime Minister? Will that help businesses and the economy? No, because Andy Burnham wants higher taxes and more borrowing, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants higher taxes and more borrowing, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) wants higher taxes and more borrowing. Businesses can see where this ends. It ends in low growth and unsustainable debts. Perhaps the IMF will have to be called in, as it was under Denis Healey.”
“It all started with the Chancellor’s first Budget. Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has increased the cost of employing someone by around £900 per person and, as a direct result, youth unemployment is at a shocking 15.8% on Labour’s watch. For an average pub with eight employees, national insurance means an extra £7,200 bill every year. At the same time, Labour has squeezed our high streets with rising business rates. The result of all this is that one in eight business leaders are planning to leave Britain and 30% of those on The Sunday Times rich list have fled high-tax, socialist Britain. That is a vote of no confidence in this Government. The damage is not confined to business; it is spreading across the whole economy. Inflation is up. Borrowing costs are surging, with gilt yields at their highest level in decades.”
“When this Labour Government came into office, they had a choice. They wanted to deliver growth. They could have backed business. They could have supported enterprise. Instead, they delivered higher taxes, higher costs and higher uncertainty, and I am afraid that the consequences are now undeniable. Business confidence has collapsed to record lows. The Institute of Directors reported its lowest-ever confidence reading in March 2026, and the Confederation of British Industry says that businesses expect their activity to fall. Jobs are being lost, payroll jobs are down, and the ITEM Club has forecast that there will be 160,000 further job losses this year because of a slowdown in growth and rising energy prices. Retail sales are weak, and nearly half of all businesses are now worried about business rates, which are rising sharply.”
“I want to focus in this debate on a simple truth that many businesses across this country have come to recognise, which is that when it comes to backing business to create economic growth, Labour does not know what it is doing. Labour does not know how to govern when times are tough. It entered government without a plan and we are seeing the consequences. I am afraid that this goes deeper than the Prime Minister. Only one Labour Cabinet Minister has started a business, and none of the Prime Minister’s wannabe rivals has worked in a business or a start-up. This matters because it goes to the core of this Government. Whose side are they on? Time and time again, Labour shows that it is on the side of “Benefits Street”, not on the side of people who work, who strive and who save.”
“It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to this debate on backing business to create economic growth. I would like to start by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion. It seems like only moments ago that she was a colleague on the Treasury Committee, and now she is in charge of the whole nation’s spending, so I wish her the most enormous amount of luck. I also want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be mentioning by name some colleagues who have not been in the debate, but I have warned their offices that I will be doing so.”
“Beyond those Bills, we have plans to scrap stamp duty to get the property markets moving, to properly fund our armed forces, to reform welfare, to get people back into work and to approve new North sea licences for energy security. Because growth is not achieved through slogans—”
“We will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism for the offshoring of emissions, axe the carbon tax, which pushes up energy bills, and repeal the zero emission vehicle mandate. That will lower costs and lead to stronger industries—jobs kept in Britain. Fifthly, we will tackle energy costs—many hon. Members raised energy costs in their contributions today—with our cheap energy Bill. We will cut electricity bills for businesses by 20% and household bills by £200 by taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and scrapping the Energy Secretary’s renewables subsidies. That will give businesses immediate relief and greater competitiveness, and lead to stronger growth.”
“We will introduce permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which will support 250,000 of the smallest businesses with lower bills, leading to stronger high streets and protecting jobs. While Labour targets family businesses and farmers with punitive taxes, our plan is simple: we will scrap the family business and family farm tax, and back those who grow our food, create jobs and create wealth. Thirdly, we will cut red tape with our deregulation of business Bill. We will scrap unnecessary environment, social and governance reporting requirements, which cost businesses millions every year—less bureaucracy, more time to grow and more investment. Fourthly, we will restore industrial competitiveness with our save British industry Bill.”
“I am going to make a bit of progress on our serious, credible plan—a pro-growth alternative King’s Speech, with 16 Bills designed to get Britain working again. First, we will give people jobs and hope with our get Britain working Bill. We will repeal the job-destroying elements of Labour’s Employment Rights Act, saving businesses up to £5 billion a year. We will restore flexibility in the labour market, and reintroduce minimum service levels to protect essential services from strikes. That means more jobs and lower hiring costs—a labour market that rewards work. Secondly, we will back our communities with our back our high streets Bill.”
“I am afraid it is the historical role of my party to clean up the mess that Labour Governments leave behind. Growth is not achieved through slogans; it is delivered through serious and sustained planning. In conclusion, the debate comes down to a clear choice: Labour’s approach—”
“Ultimately, this is about values. Labour has the wrong values. It is for “Benefits Street”, and we are on the side of people who work, people who strive, people who save. Only the Conservative party has a plan to reduce costs and deliver the growth that we all want. Only the Conservative party is ready to govern. Only the Conservative party will back great British businesses to build a stronger economy for the future.”
“The hon. Member mentions Liz Truss from a sedentary position. Is he not aware that gilt yields are now higher than at any time during that brief period? I am sure he will be welcoming the higher taxes and more borrowing that his Government have caused, the higher energy costs imposed on his local businesses, the more regulation that has led to less growth—or he could adopt the Conservative approach: lower taxes, lower costs and less regulation. [ Interruption. ] The Business Secretary says “More growth” from a sedentary position. He may be referring to the first quarter of this year when the biggest thing that happened for growth in this economy was vehicle repair. I call that the pothole growth strategy, and I am afraid that that is the reality if we dig into the growth numbers. Our approach is less regulation and more growth.”
“It seems to me that there are two different ways in which a Minister can inadvertently mislead this House: one is by the things that they say, and the other is by the things that they do not say. That is why I am particularly interested in the letter from Lord Case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised, because it seems to have been written to the Prime Minister in November 2024, advising that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be preceded by full security vetting before being announced. It was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2024. Did he write that he wanted his decision to be subject to Peter Mandelson passing the full security vetting? What did he write on his box note?”
“When the Prime Minister was in the middle east, did the subject of the UK’s dependence on helium come up? It is an element that we do not produce in the UK, and it is vital for things such as MRI scans in the NHS.”
“I thank the Minister for confirming that this Parliament has not ratified the treaty. As Parliament and the British public heard more about the deal, one of the things they found most inexplicable was that it involved us paying a substantial amount of money—how much has not yet been confirmed to Parliament—to the Mauritian Government. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box today that, because Parliament has not ratified the deal, he will not be paying any money to the Mauritian Government?”
“Q9. The Prime Minister says that he is concerned about the cost of living, so can he explain why he allowed his Local Government Minister to give permission to Reform-led Worcestershire county council to inflict that 9% council tax hike on my constituents?”
“Given the current crisis, does the Chancellor regret in her first Budget increasing unfunded borrowing by £150 billion over this Parliament, which the Office for Budget Responsibility said at the time was “one of the largest fiscal loosenings of any fiscal event in recent decades”?”
“Many of our constituents will want to react to this announcement today by increasing the amount of money they give. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to offer an aid match option? Given that 0.7% is still technically on the statute book, will the Foreign Secretary bring forward a named vote in this Parliament to make the changes she is announcing today?”
“Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has announced our cheap power plan, which will slash energy bills for businesses and households. The Conservatives will axe the carbon tax, scrap extortionate subsidies for wind and solar, repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, and end the ban on new oil and gas licences to maximise domestic extraction and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. Could the Secretary of State please copy this approach? This is a Government who are subsidising decline and reaching for protectionist tariffs. After the botched nationalisation of Scunthorpe and the surrender of the Chagos islands, we can see from this steel strategy that when Labour negotiates, the British taxpayer loses.”
“Have the Government carried out any impact assessment on the tariffs, and will jobs not be lost in those other sectors? The Government say in the strategy that electric arc furnaces are the future, but without competitive energy, green steel will simply become no steel. If electric arc furnaces are the future, when will the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe be decommissioned, and how many jobs will be lost in that process? Where will the £2.5 billion go? Is it all going into the Scunthorpe blast furnaces? How is this £2.5 billion spending spree fiscally responsible? What is the Secretary of State cutting to pay for it? The so-called National Wealth Fund is rapidly become the national slush fund. The shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon.”
“This steel strategy does not include any exit strategy, risking a permanent drain on taxpayers, and now the Government are negotiating handing taxpayers’ money to a Chinese business that they said was worth nothing, while hitting British users of steel with a 50% tariff hike. Given that the previous Secretary of State said that British Steel had zero value, will the current Secretary of State confirm whether compensation will be paid to Jingye? How are these new tariffs going to affect the cost of living for our constituents? How much will the tariffs raise? They represent a massive tax hike on our world-leading automotive, defence and aerospace sectors, which will make building homes, bridges and railways more expensive.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives very much believe in a sovereign steel industry, but what we see today is a multibillion-pound shot in the dark, and it heralds the end of primary steel production in the UK. Just to set the record straight, there would no longer be any steel production in Wales without action from the last Government. This steel strategy has no plan to make the industry stand on its own two feet, and it risks a permanent state-funded drain on taxpayers. British Steel was losing £700,000 a day when the Government took emergency action last year, and now the taxpayer is losing an estimated £1.3 million a day and there is a subsidy of £110,000 per job to keep the Scunthorpe blast furnace operational.”
“The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?”
“Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail? Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it?”
“But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail? I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance.”