(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described.
If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline.
Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK.
For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public.
I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The timelines he is outlining have not been met, but that has coincided with a remarkable increase in the cost, particularly of first-class stamps, in the past five years. Does he agree that that is what drives the downward trend in the community’s trust in Royal Mail to deliver, and it needs to modernise and be more efficient?
David Reed
I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. A recent Gallup meta-analysis of about 1.8 million employers found that a meaningful increase in employees’ wellbeing leads on average to a 10% increase in productivity. In the light of that evidence, does he agree that it would be beneficial for the chief executive of Royal Mail to meet urgently with the Communication Workers Union to ensure that existing agreements are honoured and that the wellbeing of the workforce is genuinely prioritised?
David Reed
That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member.
Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way.
Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation.
I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here.
The same applies to those paying out of their own pockets. Our constituents are paying increasing amounts for stamps and not getting the service they have paid for. Again, there is little accountability. I am sure we will hear similar experiences from colleagues today. If Royal Mail cannot provide an answer to a Member of Parliament about delivery failures—I gave it ample opportunity to do so, on many occasions—it raises serious questions about what an ordinary member of the public can expect to experience when they ask the same questions.
This is the United Kingdom, not Russia or North Korea. When people pay for a service, they rightly expect it to be delivered well. When it is not, they expect, at the very least, a clear explanation and reassurance that the problem will not happen again.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I send my commiserations to the hon. Member’s constituents for not receiving his newsletter. On a wider point, I have visited the hard-working postal workers at the Garforth and Seacroft delivery offices in in my constituency and, as he says, they work hard and take pride in their work. Does he agree that the fault does not lie with them? There is a toxic culture at the top of Royal Mail. It needs to work with the Communication Workers Union and the Government to sort things out and protect the universal service obligation.
David Reed
At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We have been talking about this issue for many months, and yet there has been no improvement. There are still delays. In one office in my constituency, there is a staffing shortage of 10, so there is a fundamental problem with motivation and staff feeling valued. Does he agree that this cannot go on? People are missing hospital appointments and essential mail. The Government need to fix it sooner rather than later.
David Reed
The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly.
I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly.
My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so it will be difficult to get every Member in. I am going to impose a two-minute limit to start. It is not in my gift to stop this, but if Members take interventions, that may further restrict the time that people have to speak. That is in your gift.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the posties in my patch. The Blyth and Ashington sorting offices have been absolutely brilliant.
This issue has been raised before, and we are raising it again today. The people at the pick point—the people on the factory floor and the people in the sorting offices—have a different story to tell from the directors of Royal Mail, and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth here. We have seen horrendous issues, certainly in my constituency. If the Minister takes one thing away from this debate, I plead with him to have a look at the allegations by people in the sorting offices about management receiving bonuses to ensure that the universal service obligation is not adhered to and to prioritise parcels over letters. Please, Minister, investigate that allegation, because if it is true, it needs to be dealt with.
We have lots of issues in my constituency, including to do with the democratic process. We had an election in which 73 votes came after the close of poll. We have disabled people suffering and potentially being evicted from their properties. We have people with speeding fines who normally would get their wrist slapped facing court judgments. We have medical appointments being cancelled. We have a whole array of difficulties.
This is deliberate sabotage by Royal Mail—that is my view. The answer is to ensure that the Government renationalise Royal Mail. It is a treasured service in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I reiterate that there is a strict two-minute time limit on speeches.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.
The debate is particularly timely because, just yesterday, my office received three separate phone calls about three separate addresses in Fell Lane in Keighley, none of which have received their post for the last two weeks, despite those residents specifically expecting letters. I do, however, commend the work of postal workers across the country, without whom we could not function. Let me be clear that my contribution today is aimed not at them, but at the management structures that sit within Royal Mail.
I have had various correspondence and meetings with Royal Mail—one in September last year, and two following on from that—specifically raising the cases of my constituents. One pensioner, for example, waited more than two weeks for a new bank card to arrive. In that time, she could not access her pension and do the basics of her weekly food shop. Another constituent waited 10 days for a hospital letter to arrive. He is undergoing chemotherapy, so ended up missing a vital appointment. Distrust of the postal service has become so bad that one of my constituents hand-delivers documents to the court herself, unable to trust the system after receiving papers late in the post.
Royal Mail’s website still says that if someone buys a second-class stamp, they can expect that post to be delivered within two to three working days, or indeed on a Saturday, yet in my meetings with Royal Mail staff, they tell me that that is not internally the expectation of the delivery of their service. There is therefore a discontinuity between what they are telling the public and Members of Parliament and how they are operating internally. That must change, and I expect the Minister to hold Royal Mail to account on behalf of my constituents and those of all Members of Parliament here.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Unfortunately, in Oxford East, we have had a series of problems with the reliability of Royal Mail deliveries. Initially, there was an unwillingness to acknowledge those problems. I undertook one visit to a sorting office that had apparently been cleaned up in advance of my visit, with all the mail put out of the racks and into boxes. I was told about that, so I then did an unannounced visit and saw the real state of play, which was very different.
Following those unfortunate events, the management engaged more with me and local residents, and a number of changes were instituted following a public meeting. The east Oxford sorting office counter is now open for longer. There is a special system for NHS letters in Oxford, pioneered by Oxford posties, and measures have been introduced to improve retention of staff. Both my local residents and I have been advertising recruitment events for the local Royal Mail. I underline to the Minister that the one thing that worked in Oxford, even though we still have big problems, was engaging with the local posties and residents. We should listen to them, because they know how to improve the service. We really need to see that from the management of Royal Mail, as was rightly underlined by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).
Secondly, we need to stop the unfair competition with delivery cowboys. We have all seen this, unfortunately, in our constituencies. I have heard some appalling tales from people who are employed under really dreadful terms and conditions. They do not even have time to go to the toilet. They cannot eat, apart from when they are driving. They are paid a pittance. They have completely impossibly expectations placed on their shoulders. Ultimately, they are undercutting the Royal Mail model. We need to deal with it. We need the Employment Rights Act 2025 enacted in full and we need more action to stop that unfair playing field.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Just last week, a resident in Bramhall told me that his sister in Scotland sent two letters—one to himself in Greater Manchester and another to Australia. I am pretty sure that everyone can guess what happened. The letter to Australia arrived not one, not two, but 10 days earlier than the letter to Manchester. Joan from Heald Green had a similar issue, with no post being delivered to her in about three weeks, although her parcels were being delivered. When she asked the postal worker about the letter delivery, she was told that no staff were available to deliver the letters, and that parcels were being prioritised as they were a more lucrative side of the business.
Ironically, one of my constituents almost missed lifesaving surgery, with the letter arriving on the same day that the surgery was supposed to take place. This issue disproportionately impacts older and more vulnerable people. As Cheadle has one of the oldest populations in Greater Manchester, this causes particular concern for me.
Time and again, I have raised this issue with Royal Mail, and time and again I get the same response back, highlighting how terrible it is for my constituents and assuring me that they will look into it, but nothing changes. I have asked for meetings, but they never get arranged. The utter contempt that Royal Mail has shown Members of Parliament raising this issue is absolutely staggering.
It is about more than post; it is about people’s lives—their hospital appointments, bank statements, birthdays and christenings. It is a service that so many people rely on and trust. Without an effective and timely mail service, many people in my constituency will be cut adrift and isolated, which is why this is so important.
Mismanagement should have consequences, and the Government must take urgent steps to ensure that Royal Mail is held to account. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will do to ensure that my constituents get the postal service that they deserve and that bosses get their act in gear and start doing the job they are paid handsomely to do.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this vital debate. I want to make three points about Royal Mail performance that are of particular concern to my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and particularly in the town of Glenrothes.
Despite the fantastic efforts of our local postal workers, there have been significant delays in my constituents receiving mail, particularly over the Christmas period. A major factor in this is the understaffing of our delivery offices. Royal Mail is recruiting additional staff to address local pressures, but it is vital that there is action on recruitment and retention in the service for the longer term. Royal Mail must work with CWU to address the issue of its contracts creating a two-tier workforce.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Two-tier contracts have been raised in my constituency, with new employees being brought in on poorer terms and conditions. Moreover, the backlog has increased because, when people come back from sick leave, their overtime is cut, which causes real issues in building the backlog and causing staff members to come back to increased workloads. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot fix Royal Mail’s problems without fixing these two-tier contracts?
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend is completely correct, and as always makes the point eloquently. It is vital that Royal Mail management listen to her and CWU.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) was absolutely right about hospital appointments. Appointments letters arriving on the day of the appointment or after the appointment has taken place causes huge distress, as well as inefficiency for our local health services. Unfortunately, in Scotland, we do not have the NHS app enjoyed by colleagues in England, so these deliveries are all the more important, particularly for older people. They are not being prioritised—they are not being sent first or second class, but via an economy method. Royal Mail provides a barcode to prioritise deliveries, but it is not clear that has always been used; I am pursuing that with NHS Fife.
Finally, tougher targets are being set for Royal Mail in the years ahead, and I want to seek reassurance from the Minister that he will work with the Royal Mail and, crucially, the CWU to improve the vital service that the Royal Mail provides—not least with the forthcoming elections in Scotland, in which we will look to Royal Mail to deliver postal votes and electoral communications on time—so that our constituents can have confidence in this vital public service in the coming years.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this important debate. Like all Members here, I have received a significant amount of correspondence from constituents—by email, I hasten to add—who are concerned about the performance of Royal Mail.
To be clear, I do not lay the blame at the feet of the posties; their hard work, day in and day out, is vital. However, delivery delays are having a huge impact on my constituents’ lives, and I will raise some of their concerns today. I have had numerous reports of areas in Bromley and Biggin Hill that my constituents receive only one delivery of letters a week, while parcels seem to be delivered with no delays. When letters do arrive, they are bundled together—sometimes a week’s worth in one go. One constituent even described a Christmas card being delivered three months late.
I appreciate that not all letters are time sensitive, but an issue of particular concern that has been raised by other hon. Members is whether NHS appointment letters are lost or delayed. One lady preparing for an ophthalmology appointment expected to receive a letter in advance to explain what she needed to do to prepare, but it arrived after the appointment.
Another of my constituents explained that her husband was recently referred for a CT scan, and subsequently heard nothing about when the appointment was scheduled for. When they phoned the hospital, they discovered that a letter with an appointment date was sent to them four months previously. They never received that letter, so they naturally did not keep the appointment.
Bromley and Biggin Hill is not in the middle of nowhere. It simply should not be the case that my constituents are waiting for weeks for letters to be delivered. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on what can be done to ensure my constituents receive the service they deserve and need from the Royal Mail.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I think that we would be hard pressed to find an MP or member of the public who does not support their local postie. We know their value, and they were considered the fourth emergency service during the pandemic. What a shame that we did not hold on to that mantle for them as, if we had, I suspect that the service would be much better today.
We have heard a lot about two-tier delivery in Parliament and across the media in the past week. Prioritisation of parcels means that days and days of urgent mail is often left in the sorting office. Despite dedicated posties requesting overtime to clear backlogs, the message from Royal Mail management is clear: they want the service to fail. They are making the job harder for staff on the ground by freezing overtime and forcing unsustainable workloads, and we are seeing a managed decline of a treasured British institution. Since 2022, worse pay and drastic watering down of terms and conditions have seen 27,000 new employees leave in the first year. The Royal Mail used to be a job for life.
I have an excellent relationship with the posties in the CWU east London postal branch and in my own constituency in Dagenham and Rainham. That is due to the late Lee Waker, a councillor who was a dedicated postie and a CWU political officer—a legend.
Last year, Ofcom concluded their assessment of postal service reforms. It announced that the specification for the universal service obligation will change, and referenced letter decline as a key driver. Tell that to the millions of people waiting for medical appointments or facing late fees, which hon. Members have mentioned. If things do not change, we might be telling people that their postal vote was not counted because Royal Mail bosses have delayed people’s votes—their democratic right.
Royal Mail need to listen to the CWU and to Government. I want to say in the strongest possible terms that this is not the fault of our posties; they pride themselves—
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I am really worried that we will get to a point where people in Yeovil will lose their money, damage their health or worse because of the failings of Royal Mail.
Residents such as George from Chard have missed vital hospital appointments because confirmation letters arrived after the scheduled date. They are now on a waiting list and hoping for a cancellation. Mary and too many others have reported that bank cards and financial documents have been delayed or lost entirely, which has led to additional interest being added to unpaid bills. One constituent has had prescriptions sent to the wrong address repeatedly for months; meanwhile, another has been receiving someone else’s important legal documents. Another Yeovil resident, Bernice, told me that the situation got so bad last year that she did not receive mail for four weeks, and was then delivered it all on the same day and could not get in her front door. Of course, this is not a reflection on the hard-working posties and Royal Mail staff in Yeovil; I will keep saying that. The poor pay and conditions for Royal Mail staff are not good enough.
I appreciate that the Minister understands and shares the concern of our constituents, but this powerlessness has to change. Can he set out what discussions he has had with Ofcom on holding Royal Mail to account for failing to uphold the universal obligation and its improvement plan, and clearly operating a parcel-first policy? Can he also set out what assessment he has made of the impact on the wellbeing, health and finances of rural residents as a result of delivery failures by Royal Mail? Finally, can he tell us what his Department is doing now to empower the Government to better hold Royal Mail and its bosses to account?
Government powerlessness has to end. Residents and Royal Mail staff in Yeovil deserve much better.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the dedicated postal workers in Sheffield Central, who work tirelessly to ensure that people receive their letters and deliveries throughout the year.
I have also been contacted by constituents in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield who have complained of delays and missing post. Some residents have missed important work papers, legal documents and hospital appointments, while others have found themselves waiting endlessly for their gas or electric cards. One constituent in particular is responsible for planning decisions in the Peak district, and is still waiting for official committee papers posted first class nearly a month ago. That has directly impacted his ability to do his job.
Many described receiving nothing for weeks on end, and then finally receiving a bundle of post on one day. Missing vital mail has become a danger to people’s health, wellbeing and financial security. Despite contacting Royal Mail, it has not responded to a single one of my emails; it is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what Royal Mail is telling us and what their workers are saying is happening on the ground, particularly about the deliberate strategy within the company to devalue those who are doing their jobs in the sorting offices?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for providing the opportunity to speak about this issue.
We are seeing the breakdown of vital services in my Strangford constituency and in Ards. We are hearing stories of cancer screening invitations arriving a week after the appointment date. We are seeing small business owners—the backbone of our local economy—having to apologise to customers for parcels that are sitting in the sorting office. We are seeing elderly neighbours waiting for pension letters or bank cards that never come.
The staff on the ground are working hard but they are being asked to do the impossible. A system designed for letters has been choked by the sheer volume of parcels and, in the race for profit, it is the humble first-class letter—the one containing peoples’ hospital results or bills—that is being left on the floor. We are told it is a recruitment issue. We are told it is the weather. For the people of Northern Ireland it feels like a postcode lottery. A letter could be a contract or a connection. We are not asking for the world; we are simply asking for a postal service that works for everyone, regardless of their address.
I have a quick example of how things are going wrong. I am currently dealing with a child with diabetes who has been accepted for a personal independence payment, but due to Royal Mail delays—it is not the child’s fault, but someone else’s—his form is late and his parents are missing out on more than a month’s worth of payments that they should be entitled to. It is clear that Royal Mail needs to buck up its ideas. Ofcom recently fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing national delivery targets, but that will not get my constituent the backdated PIP money that they are due.
Email is beyond many of our older people, and they depend on the so-called snail mail, which must return to being dependable once more. The staff are phenomenal, but root-and-branch changes must take place. The Minister is a good man and I spoke to him about this issue yesterday. We need it sorted Minister; the ball is at your toe.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I refer Members to my registered interests. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate.
“Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”—
I could not agree more with that quote, which was leadership pledge No. 5 from the now Prime Minister, then simply the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, when he was bidding to become the leader of the Labour party.
Public ownership really does offer the best solution for ending the managed decline of Royal Mail. It would put an end to the reductions in service provision; to the cuts to resources, including recruitment and retention issues; to the prioritisation of parcels over letters; and to the disgraceful imposition of low wages and inferior conditions for new starters in 2022.
Postal workers across Alloa and Grangemouth are sick of their working conditions. Every day, they see a national institution being ravaged by private capital. No wonder morale is at an all-time low. We, as Back-Bench or Front-Bench Labour MPs, are here as trade unionists. What is happening to our postal workers is against everything we believe in. Our postal workers need us to be in this place for them. It is not too late for us to step in to stop the asset-stripping of Royal Mail and nationalise it. What would a Labour party in opposition say about the situation? I would put everything I own on that Labour party agreeing with leadership pledge No. 5.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
In 1884, parts of London would receive up to seven deliveries per day. By 1879, that had increased to 12 daily deliveries—can Members imagine? Today, in some parts of Sutton and Cheam or Worcester Park, we are lucky to see one delivery a week. That is 150 years of progress.
Luke Taylor
I agree primarily with the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who listed promises made by the Prime Minister. I would like to see the Prime Minister held to account a little more for his promises, which are undelivered—just like the mail in Sutton and Cheam.
Sutton residents in SM1, SM2 and SM3 cannot rely on the post any more. When Royal Mail fails to do its job properly, everyday people are left dealing with the fallout: prescriptions do not turn up, hospital letters land after the appointment has passed, Mother’s day cards arrive when the moment has gone and parking fines arrive after the grace period has expired.
However, the plural of anecdote is not data, so when I saw that this debate had been scheduled, I decided to get my own. Last Wednesday I sent out a batch of first-class letters from my constituency. In the letter I asked people to tell me when their delivery turned up and how long it had taken. The results: out of 23 replies so far, only 15 arrived the next working day, five took two days, and three took three days or more to arrive, with the latest arriving this morning. Yes, that is a small sample size—my credentials as an engineer will not let me fail to mention that—but Royal Mail’s target to have 93% of first-class mail arrive the next day was failed catastrophically, with my experiment placing its success rate closer to 65%.
When someone pays for first class, they are not making a complicated request: next-day delivery—that is the promise. Royal Mail may be a private company, but it delivers a public service, which is supposed to be overseen by Ofcom. A private company failing to deliver the public services it is mandated to do and getting away with it because of rubbish regulators—that covers at least 50% of the speeches delivered in this Chamber. It feels so familiar to me, having done it over and over. The Government are further eroding the confidence of our public by not showing improvements in any of these services.
Let me conclude with some questions for the Minister. Local elections are approaching in May, and the Government know that many people rely on postal votes to express their democratic right. The Minister has only to look across the Atlantic for recent experience of the undermining of faith in the electoral system when there is a lack of confidence that ballots will arrive on time and be counted. What assessment has been made of the impact of delays on local elections? What plans do the Government have to require Royal Mail to remove the shackles on local delivery offices to help them to clear rounds at this critical time? Will the Minister give a read-out of what firm actions and conclusions were agreed in his meeting with Ofcom last Wednesday, after his statement in the Chamber last week?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Over the past week, the delivery offices that serve Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have both been ranked in the top five in their regional area for delivery failure. This matters for customers waiting for vital posts and for staff under immense pressure. It is not the fault of the posties; the responsibility lies with the owners. Poor decisions have created a weakened system, chaotic revisions and a recruitment crisis driven by low pay and worse conditions for new starters. The result is a workforce that is overstretched and a service that is letting customers down.
As for the USO, the six-day delivery remains a vital national guarantee, but changing specifications alone will not fix a service that is being run down. Ofcom has allowed an uneven playing field when it comes to competitors, such as Amazon, that benefit from the universal network without contributing to its cost. Royal Mail carries the burden of serving over 30 million addresses while others extract profit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a good point about bogus self-employment among competitors. If we do not get this right, we will undermine the impact of the Employment Rights Act. That is why the CWU is right to call for a universal service fund so that all operators contribute fairly to the network they rely on.
Ofcom’s broader approach risks a race to the bottom—it is not pursuing efficiency. If we are serious about improving performance, we have to have a fundamental rethink. I have raised this with the Minister on previous occasions, and I raise it again today. This is a mess and it is collapsing. An obvious solution is staring us in the face: take Royal Mail back into public ownership, and do it quickly.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
My constituents in Hartlepool report letters arriving late, entire streets going days without deliveries and, in some cases, post turning up only once every 13 days—this is not once or twice, but a pattern lasting for months. Let me be absolutely clear, as other Members have been, that this is not the fault of our posties. I have met them and they are hard-working, committed and deeply proud of the job they do. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they know the service is not what it should be.
The failure lies not with the workforce but with the system. The Royal Mail as an organisation is simply not delivering the service that the public are entitled to expect. We should be honest about why. The privatisation of Royal Mail has gone the same way as rail and water: a public service turned into a private asset, focused no longer on delivery—quite literally in this case—but on what can be extracted. Profit first, service second, and the public and our hard-working posties left to pick up the pieces.
The consequences for my constituents are not abstract but real and serious. Bills arrive late triggering penalties, appointments are missed, and important correspondence simply does not turn up on time or at all. Financial penalties, missed healthcare and the real anxiety caused by a service that is not functioning are not minor inconveniences. Yet these issues are raised with Royal Mail, we are told that they are not long-term problems, but just down to short-term staff absences. With respect, that does not pass the most basic credibility test.
Who gets it in the neck at the end of the day? Our posties on the doorstep. This is profoundly unfair. Royal Mail is failing the public and its workforce. It is a pattern: privatise a public service and it fails the public. So I urge the Minister, who I know is deeply committed, to take on the Royal Mail, and if it does not improve, take it back.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Royal Mail leadership is failing our hard-working posties and failing Eastbourne. Eastbournians are missing vital medical appointments because letters from doctors have arrived late. Others are being forced to reschedule legal hearings because of to delayed documents, and some are missing important deadlines for paying fines and bills.
Time and again, the Royal Mail has unacceptably attempted to pile the blame on our hard-working posties by citing long-term sickness and absence as the primary cause of the failures. That is not true. The problem is a toxic culture at the top—a culture in which staff feel unable to take well-deserved annual leave, and when they do, they return to weeks of backlog and are left playing catch-up because cover is not taken seriously. This is pushing our posties to breaking point: amazing posties like Manuel, my postie, and others across town, in particular Barry, who covers King’s Drive too.
I make one short and simple request of the Minister in order to support us in Eastbourne to stand up and be heard. Will he meet with me and hard-working local posties, as well as representatives of the CWU, to hear directly from those on the frontline about what is going on in Eastbourne, the challenges they face, and the upstream changes that are urgently needed to make Royal Mail great again?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you Mr Twigg, for chairing today’s debate.
What started with a pension deficit led to corporate excess, and then of course, the Lib Dem-Tory coalition escalating the risk to the Post Office with their Postal Services Act 2011. And now we see business failure with obscene consequences: a two-tier workforce, with wages below the real living wage, conditions falling, and the price of stamps increasing to the point of unaffordability. We know that the billionaire leader of the company is now striving to cut the universal service obligation. This is a failed business that the Government must pick up and drive forward.
I commend York’s posties for the incredible work that they do. I met with them recently to hear their stories. One said to me:
“I’m bringing to your attention the dire state we find ourselves in due to the business not caring about customers’ mail. Mail gets left every day in our office, birthday cards, hospital letters, everything. The staff here are exhausted as we keep getting unachievable work loads.”
We know from the workforce that they have got the solutions in their hands. They know how to drive the business forward. The CWU and Unite, as their unions, will be able to work with the business and help the Minister to ensure that it thrives again. Recruitment challenges because of the unmanageable workloads have resulted in 27,000 staff leaving since 2022.
As with rail, we know that the best efficiency and value would come from the Government bringing Royal Mail back into public hands for the public good, and keeping its public commitment. Let us be bold and brave, and let’s have it back.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The performance of Royal Mail is an issue of significant concern across North Somerset. Issues with deliveries are having real consequences for residents and businesses alike. In the light of concerns highlighted to me, I launched a survey in mid-February to ask constituents about their experiences with Royal Mail. I have also been working constructively with local CWU representatives and meeting staff in sorting offices to understand the challenges Royal Mail is facing and to find practical solutions. I am grateful for the engagement and look forward to continuing those conversations.
The issue was brought into sharp focus for me in January when I hosted a town hall for constituents. Many residents unfortunately received their event invitations after the town hall had already happened. One property business in Clevedon shared its experience. The business deals with house and flat sales, where deadlines carry real legal weight. The business went nearly two weeks without a single delivery. Royal Mail said it is either a staffing issue or that other delivery routes are taking priority. The property business asked whether it might be able to collect its post directly from the local sorting office, but it was told that that would not be possible.
According to my survey, 87% of respondents in North Somerset are experiencing delays, and 53% said that delayed deliveries had caused them to miss appointments and deadlines. Those figures reflect a level of disruption that goes beyond what most North Somerset residents would consider acceptable, and it is a concern shared by staff. One of my survey respondents has stage 4 cancer. They manage over 50 medical appointments alongside work and caring for a four-year-old child. They depend on NHS letters to manage care and plan their life around it, and one key appointment letter sent in December has still not arrived. As a pharmacist, I see that risk as unacceptable.
Our posties are a pillar of our community, working tirelessly in all weathers to deliver a vital postal service. I want to be clear: my concerns are with systemic issues in our postal system. Perhaps, as the CWU asks, Royal Mail should be back—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Unfortunately, we are now going to have to move to a time limit of a minute and a half. I am still trying to get everybody in.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
As the proud son of a Blackpool postie, I declare my interest in this debate and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I start by thanking all our posties in Blackpool and across the country for their vital service. Despite the privatisation of Royal Mail, they maintain a sense of pride as public servants, knowing better than anyone their role in our communities as a recognisable face, a trusted person and a point of contact. It is vital that we protect them and the service they deliver.
Posties in Blackpool South have told me they are forced to prioritise parcels over letters—allegations that are echoed across the country and in Westminster Hall today—but every undelivered letter abandoned at a sorting office until tomorrow represents a real-world consequence: a missed medical appointment for an elderly constituent, a missed benefit notification for a single parent or an important notice for local business. Those communications are a national priority for local residents—something no other courier can compete with. That is why we need to ensure that Royal Mail delivers its national service.
Rather than setting itself apart, Royal Mail appears to be intent on joining the race and becoming just another parcel courier with gig economy terms and conditions for its workforce. We have a responsibility to ensure that that is not allowed to happen. Improvements to service quality are impossible unless the company agrees to an urgent pathway to equalising workers’ terms and conditions. We must ensure that the new owners stick to their agreements with the CWU and the Government, and for the sake of preserving this 500-year-old institution—
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to put on the record my thanks to the posties across the Hexham constituency. They traverse extremely rural areas to deliver post in some pretty challenging circumstances. It is a pleasure to represent them and their families.
Unfortunately, like some of the post in my experience, most of my speech will go undelivered, but I do want to speak a little bit about the impact of Royal Mail’s management, particularly its neglect of rural communities. A constituent recently arrived at the local sorting office to collect 15 items of important undelivered mail, including a cancer test result with a postmark dated two months earlier. My constituents and I find that there is a serious lack of accountability at Royal Mail, and that includes a failure to recognise the scale of the problem in my constituency and the scale of the issues affecting the rural constituencies who rely on the postal service as a lifeline.
There is much I would like to go into, but I want to focus particularly on the case of a constituent who I have been supporting. They requested for legal documents to be sent between two solicitors’ offices via recorded delivery, with proof of postage, at the beginning of December 2025. The documents never made it to the intended recipient. My constituent contacted Royal Mail customer service on numerous occasions, and spent 60 minutes on hold—they also got in contact via email, online and in person at the sorting office. All Royal Mail could say was that the documents are now considered lost.
I am sure we all want to hear assurances that Royal Mail will take action to improve its service and make full use of the Government’s commitment to support that. I urge the Government to press Royal Mail to ensure that future plans explicitly consider the needs of our most rural and sparsely populated communities.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The service provided by Royal Mail in my constituency is simply not good enough. Hundreds of residents have written to me over the past year with shocking, but unfortunately almost identical, stories. In the worst-affected areas of Abbeymead and Abbeydale, most residents I speak to do not get post for three to four weeks, only for a pile of letters to arrive at once. I know that to be true because I live there, and my post arrives monthly as well.
In Tuffley, Matson and Hempsted, they are experiencing similar issues: people are waiting on hospital appointments, new debit cards and other important post. I hope that most of the Mother’s Day cards have now arrived—I pray that all the Christmas cards have been delivered. Something has to change.
I want to be absolutely clear that this poor service is not down to our hard-working posties in Gloucester. I visited the Gloucester North delivery office last week and spoke with them, and they are working really hard in difficult conditions. The post arrives late from the Bristol sorting office; the posties are waiting later and later in the morning for that delivery from Bristol, which impacts how many hours they can deliver for. Parcels are being prioritised over post—that is what the posties tell me, but management are still denying it. The posties also told me in detail about the two-tier workforce system, which means that most staff now leave in six months.
To make matters worse, they are being undercut by other companies that pay their staff more. Amazon recently opened a large depot in Gloucester, and is paying £4 an hour more than Royal Mail offers. The Minister knows that I have been raising this repeatedly with the Department for Business and Trade. I have written to Ofcom, which still says that it is fining those companies and that will improve things. It will not; they are baking those fines into their business cases. Can we please give the regulator more teeth so that we can actually improve the service?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The situation at Royal Mail is a systemic failure, from imposed revisions to delivery offices, to a toxic managerial culture and a recruitment model built on low pay and insecure conditions. The optimised delivery model has failed but Royal Mail is pressing ahead with it regardless, despite the workforce’s suggestions that offer a more viable way forward. There is the underlying resource crisis; since 2022, new entrants have been offered wages barely above the legal minimum, with fewer hours and diminished terms and conditions. The results are stark: thousands are leaving the job.
There is regulatory imbalance in the sector, as we have heard, and it cannot be right that companies like Amazon can benefit from national delivery infrastructure without paying a single penny towards it. The proposal for a USO network fund, requiring all operators to contribute, needs to be taken forward. That is not only fair but essential. Finally, I must address the conduct of the new owner, EP Group. Commitments made to workers have not been honoured. That breach of trust undermines confidence and raises serious questions about the company’s long-term intentions.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for introducing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who has turned private investigator. I was very impressed by his efforts.
There is no doubt that there is a real crisis in the postal service. I have just read “Precipice” by Robert Harris; it tells the story of a love affair between Prime Minister Asquith and a young socialite. It is recorded in the many, many letters delivered between them each day. The book is about the letters between them, half of which survive. The letters to the Prime Minister, I believe, were destroyed, but the letters to the socialite survive and form the basis of the book. Mr Harris invented the other letters—love letters to the Prime Minister: imagine that. Now we have email and texts, and no doubt future writers will look at political emails.
Times have changed, and we must acknowledge that. In Denmark, the letter post has, unbelievably, completely stopped. Here, the universal service remains an obligation, not an option. Our people expect that. I urge the Government to get a grip on this. If the solution is indeed public ownership, let us simply do that.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
As the proud daughter of a postie, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The performance of Royal Mail in parts of Sherwood Forest has been poor. Constituents in Clipstone have had no reliable postal service for over five months. At first, the Mansfield sorting office said that it was due to demand over the holiday period, but we are now in March. I have reached out nationally to Royal Mail, but had no response.
As I said, this issue is deeply personal to me. My dad was a postie for over 30 years; I lost him on 6 September last year. It is clear that Royal Mail used to represent something more than it does now. It provided good, secure jobs; the jobs were tough, yes, but Royal Mail workers were respected, supported and had strong terms and conditions. Over the years, those terms and conditions have been eroded. Posties in my constituency tell me that the job has become near impossible, with chronic understaffing, ever-changing regulations, different terms and conditions for people doing the same job, and top-down ideas that simply do not work on the ground. These posties are not people who want to see Royal Mail fail; in fact, they are quite the opposite. However, in my recent meetings with the Communication Workers Union, I was told that 50% of new Royal Mail staff leave within their first year, which amounts to 27,000 workers leaving since 2022.
Royal Mail is not just another company; it is a proud British institution, part of the fabric of our communities. There is something fundamentally British about the idea that, six days a week, someone in a red and blue uniform walks our streets to deliver mail. For constituents in Clipstone, for my communities across Nottinghamshire and for Royal Mail workers across the country, I urge the Minister to act, and act now.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Many people in Worcester are very frustrated by the delays in the Royal Mail service, which are impacting their healthcare and their access to money. However, having spoken to Citizens Advice, I know that this is not an issue of the moment, nor one restricted to Worcester; it is much bigger than that.
I thank the Minister for his action on this issue. However, having met Royal Mail representatives myself, what is even more concerning than everything else is how hard it is to get acceptance from the company about the issues that exist, a straight story and openness. That makes us question the character as well as the competence of Royal Mail’s management. We need meaningful discussions, and truthful and realistic dialogue.
We also need to reflect on reality and to consider our part in this situation. Royal Mail is under obligations that are not commercially sustainable and it does not receive the money to meet them. It is now in a doom loop of increasing prices and declining demand.
We all deeply value Royal Mail. We want it to be healthy, thriving and serving us well. We need to tackle this issue head-on, so I urge the Minister to help us to get everything on the table, get everyone around the table, and fix this situation.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.
I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for highlighting all the impacts on their constituents, in the form of missed medical appointments, financial appointments or legal appointments. Exactly the same is true in my Witney constituency. Obviously, I speak for the whole Chamber; we are all getting correspondence about this issue in our mailbox, because it is causing so much trouble. The other thing that has come out so strongly in this debate is the stress, the distrust and the unfairness that the posties themselves have to live with. That situation causes a huge amount of unhappiness, but there seems to be no end to it in sight, which is a real problem.
The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high and the work practices are harsh. Yet we rely on our local posties, and almost without exception they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I will give a particular shout out to my postie, Tony, who on Christmas eve worked way beyond his scheduled hours. He should not have had to do that and should have been paid for it. However, he is representative of everybody working for Royal Mail around the country, and that situation does not just happen on Christmas eve; it happens week in, week out.
The work practices are just getting tougher and tougher. That comes out in the latest quarterly report, which makes for miserable reading. For example, delivery targets were not met in a single postcode across the first three quarters of 2025-26. In Oxfordshire, just 67.2% of first-class mail arrived, against the target of 93%.
In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million, saying that it urgently needed an improvement plan. However, five months later Royal Mail is still saying that it cannot publish that plan until talks with the postal workers union—the CWU—conclude. All the while, our constituents and our posties are left paying more and suffering more for an inadequate and wholly unreliable service.
Charlie Maynard
I have been here for 17 months. We could rehash things from 14 or 17 years ago. I believe that in 2009 the Labour Government sought to take a 30% stake out of the Royal Mail, but I am not interested in going back through that because we are where we are. Let me try to finish my speech, and I will talk about where I think we should be heading now.
The Government and Ofcom need to urgently make it clear to Royal Mail executives that they must get a grip on the situation. Although letter numbers have fallen, there is still plenty of demand for Royal Mail’s delivery services. Crucially, everyone across the country and all of us here in Parliament place huge value on retaining the universal service obligation. What seems clear is that the incentives are wrong.
The new owner of Royal Mail is a commercial operator that bought International Distribution Services, the holding company of Royal Mail, in June 2025 with a full understanding of the Royal Mail’s USO requirement. The business seems to be prioritising its profitable parcel business, General Logistics Systems. The owner also has a clear commercial incentive to cut costs on the Royal Mail side of the business and to keep lobbying Ofcom to continue to loosen the USO requirements even further. Such a strategy serves the owner of Royal Mail very nicely, but is a terrible outcome for the many millions of people up and down the country who depend on the USO, and for the posties.
I am sure the Minister and Ofcom recognise that predicament and also recognise that the USO is a key public good. I am interested in the extent to which the Minister considers the situation similar to or different from the telecoms industry levy, which is used to fund the broadband universal service obligation. Does the Minister agree that insisting on much clearer operational transparency from the Royal Mail would be good to establish more detail on whether parcels are being prioritised over letters and the impact of that? It could be managed by Ofcom requiring root-level data on delivery performance and clear reporting on parcels versus letters prioritisation to make it harder for USO traffic to be quietly deprioritised. What steps is the Minister considering taking to stop a situation where Royal Mail keeps trying to bounce Ofcom into cutting the USO further?
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister.
I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire.
The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. 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. 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?
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?
Robbie Moore
On Royal Mail’s website today, it says that if a customer buys a second-class stamp, they can expect delivery within two or three days, including Saturdays, but since 28 July last year, delivery has not taken place on a Saturday. There seems to be an inconsistency between what Royal Mail is saying publicly and what it is actually delivering. What does my hon. Friend feel that the Minister should do to address this clear anomaly?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I look forward to the Minister responding to that, but I think we have heard today that even that weaker delivery obligation is not being met.
We also need to consider the wider business context that we are living in. Many businesses like Royal Mail have had to pay this additional jobs tax. The Employment Rights Act is having an impact on hiring across the economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that his own Government’s decisions have affected the situation? What assessment has he made of the impact of Government tax policies on Royal Mail’s financial resilience?
In conclusion, this debate is about ensuring that a service relied upon by millions is restored to the standards that the law requires. What steps immediately can the Minister take to restore a reliable six-day service? What action will he take to hold Royal Mail to its legal obligations? What reforms will he pursue to ensure that Ofcom is an active, effective regulator rather than a passive observer? When will the public finally see improvements to the service in the way that they have been promised for years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing today’s important debate. He spoke about falling confidence in Royal Mail. I think the debate has shown that there is growing anger about failures of service. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Tom Collins), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and others spoke about how, when raising those concerns on behalf of constituents, they heard a completely different version of events in response. That has added to the sense of the frustration, particularly when hon. Members are so connected to their local posties, who understand what is happening on the ground.
I join others in paying tribute to our hard-working posties across the country. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and others rightly said that any criticism of Royal Mail service is not a criticism of the posties themselves.
The Government remain absolutely committed to the universal postal service, which is an essential part of our economic infrastructure. It can and should be delivered. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the impact of service failures on the work of democracy. They have talked about bank cards not arriving and the isolation that causes. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the human impact of missed hospital appointments, and there are also consequences for legal hearings and business deals.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) that I am also not getting love letters through the post—
Blair McDougall
Seriously, though, it is galling that Royal Mail is increasing the price of its services but is not meeting delivery targets. Our constituents rightly expect that, if they are paying more, they should get the service and deliveries on time. It is simply not good enough.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always very responsive; I appreciate his responses today and in the past. I spoke about a person who applied for PIP and found that there was a delay in the post. That young boy, a type 1 diabetic, was denied one month of his benefit as a result. Will the Minister please look at that?
Blair McDougall
I will happily look at that. It is another example of a service that is simply not good enough.
As was mentioned, I recently met Royal Mail’s chief executive to press these issues directly. He was left in no doubt about the level of anger and concern across the House, and he was clear that the service is not where he wants it to be. He gave me a firm commitment that he will work towards restoring confidence in the service.
Where service has fallen short locally, whether due to staffing pressures, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned, operational challenges or external disruption, customers need to see sustained and structural improvement, not just short-term fixes. I understand that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has met Royal Mail to discuss these issues. I have been advised that there are currently three vacancies in the Exmouth office, and I expect that Royal Mail will fill them to ensure there is an improvement in service locally.
Across the country, our constituents deserve visible improvements in reliability, and that expectation underpins every discussion that I and other Ministers have with Royal Mail. That is why, before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured significant commitments from the new owners of the business, including a commitment to prevent dividend payments until quality of service improves.
As many hon. Members said, service improvement is also intimately linked to workers’ terms and conditions and the reform of Royal Mail’s operation. It is critical that the Royal Mail workers are on board with the operational changes, and that their experience informs that work. The Government continue to engage with EP Group on that; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a joint meeting with the owners of EP Group and the CWU last month to help to unblock the outstanding issues. That engagement continues.
Hon. Members also referred to my detailed discussion with Ofcom last week about its expectations of Royal Mail and the steps it is taking to protect consumers. I highlighted hon. Members’ significant concerns about the delivery performance and the negative real-world impact that that is having on our constituents. It is fair to say that Ofcom has heard the strength of concerns, particularly those expressed in the Chamber last week. One outcome of that meeting is that Ofcom is clear, as it has been for some time, that Royal Mail is required to publish a detailed improvement plan that results in significant and continuous progress, and that it expects that one should appear within days of an agreement with the union. Where failures continue, Ofcom will not hesitate to act again, and last year’s £21 million fine was a clear signal.
We are in a context where, as has been said, the performance of many other parcel providers makes Royal Mail’s performance look positively glowing, and Ofcom is also looking at that wider context. None of us is blind to the wider context and the structural pressures. Letter volumes have halved over the past decade. As hon. Members have said, to ensure that the USO is sustainable, Ofcom has made changes to Royal Mail’s obligations.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made clear, those changes and reforms cannot be imposed from the top down. Royal Mail must work constructively with its workforce and unions to ensure that operational changes translate into better services for customers across the country—a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).
There is wisdom in every sorting office; staff there understand how the business works. We have taken a close interest in the negotiations, the new operating model and workers’ conditions. I mentioned that the Secretary of State recently met with EP Group and the CWU; a further meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. I am hopeful that Royal Mail’s owners and the union will work together in the interests of Royal Mail’s employees, its customers and the business.
Several hon. Members raised concerns about the impact on postal votes. We have sought strong reassurances from Royal Mail on that issue. There have been meetings with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission to discuss plans for the upcoming elections, and a similar meeting is taking place in Scotland with Ministers there. My hon. Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy is having a further meeting with Royal Mail to discuss postal votes, and we are leaving Royal Mail in no doubt about our expectations in that space.
Luke Taylor
It is encouraging to hear that the Government have sought reassurances, but nothing short of a fundamental revolution in my local delivery office will see postal votes delivered even within the weekend on which they are expected to arrive. Can the Minister detail what those reassurances involve? Do they require additional resource to be provided to the delivery offices so that they can pay for the inevitable overtime or additional staff on those dates? Similarly, when the postal votes need to get back to our town halls, what will be done to make sure that that end of the process also happens over a period of three or four weeks?
Blair McDougall
Obviously, part of ensuring that the obligations around postal votes are maintained is making sure that the resource is there on the ground to do that. Another part of it is also the prioritisation of postal votes within the service. There are existing structures for that, such as doing sweeps of boxes. I reiterate that the Government will continue to hold Royal Mail to account, will support strong and independent regulation by Ofcom and will press urgently for the improvements that customers rightly expect to see.
Andy McDonald
Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work. As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?
Blair McDougall
Our focus at the moment is on getting the business on to a sustainable footing. That is about the negotiations on the very terms and conditions that my hon. Friend raises. As I mentioned, Ofcom has put on notice those other parcel providers. That is primarily about the poor quality of service that we see from many of them, but when we talk to Royal Mail and the union—as I am sure my hon. Friend has done—they will point out that sense of better employers being undermined by those working practices. He has been a constant campaigner in that respect.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I reassure them that the specific localised issues that they have raised will be covered in ongoing engagement with Royal Mail and Ofcom, along with the bigger structural conversation with the union and owners. I close by again paying tribute to the posties who do an extraordinary job across the country, and stress again that none of the criticisms today are laid at their door.
David Reed
I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this important and timely debate. Most importantly, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for turning up this morning and making their constituent’s voices heard.
A number of wide-ranging issues have been brought forward. It has been a productive debate, and it is clear that we all want to retain a letter postal delivery service in the UK. However, as many Members have said, there are structural issues across the service, and we are going through a period of unprecedented technological change. Those changes are affecting people up and down the country. People are not receiving post such as NHS letters or important legal documents. These issues are affecting posties’ morale, they are affecting recruitment and retention, and they are affecting our democracy and the use of public money.
I thank the Minister for his speech and the points that he raised. I know that he and his team are working very hard with the Secretary of State to make Royal Mail accountable for a lot of those issues. I hope that the Business and Trade Committee can bring forward an inquiry to look into this issue in a granular way and report those findings back to the House. Looking across Westminster Hall today, it is clear that there is cross-party support to improve the situation, and this has been a productive conversation.
I say to Royal Mail, “We are getting on the job; we are going to improve this service, and we will enforce the USO and make sure that it is fit for purpose, because we all deserve this service that we are paying for.” I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.