(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Chris Bloore, who may speak for up to 15 minutes.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the performance of Royal Mail; and urges the Government to work with Royal Mail to improve its performance levels.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting the debate and the more than 100 hon. Members from across the House who put their names to the application. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who applied for the debate alongside me. May I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the executive of the trade union group of Labour MPs?
Today’s debate is not an attack on our posties, the men and women trying to deliver a quality service with their hands tied behind their backs; it is about holding Royal Mail and Ofcom to account until the service that my constituents receive is the one they pay for. I called for the debate because in Redditch and the villages, the post—or the lack of it—is now one of the most common reasons that people write to me as their Member of Parliament. My constituency is a mix of urban, suburban and rural, from Batchley and Church Hill in the town itself to Inkberrow, Feckenham and Wychbold in the villages. The difference between postcodes can be stark.
Let me begin with the ordinary complaints from my casework, with the Radio Times arriving a week late, first-class birthday cards taking five days to cross Redditch, and Christmas cards arriving on 23 January. One Feckenham family always receives birthday cards due on 12 January five days late; it would be funny if it was not so sad. Some receive no post for days and then one bundle tied with the obligatory rubber band. One received nothing between 3 and 20 January. Another in Wychbold gets deliveries once every 12 days.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member. Just last week we had a debate in Westminster Hall, and today hon. Members have a chance to ask the very same questions. What is happening to independent traders in my constituency, in Newtownards, Comber and the Ards peninsula? Delays are choking cash flow, ruining customer relationships and threatening their very survival. Royal Mail has got to grasp the nettle and get it right—now, not later.
Chris Bloore
I completely agree with the hon. Member. I will get to the impact on businesses later in my speech.
A letter from my own office sent on 11 June arrived on 25 August. Bills arrive overdue while people struggle to reach complaint lines or their local sorting office. The consequences can be far more serious: one constituent received a hospital letter on 6 October about an appointment on 17 September.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being generous. This is such an important debate. I have a constituent who had exactly that problem—they received delayed post for scans and cancer treatment plans. That is unacceptable and distressing. Does he agree that this is the worst type of post to be delayed?
Chris Bloore
I completely agree. Another resident of mine, whose husband has cancer, has had to wait anxiously for medical correspondence about a diagnosis.
Chris Bloore
Could I make a little progress? I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, but I need to get through some of my speech.
A council letter about a husband in a nursing home took from 14 November until 3 March to arrive. His family had six months to appeal and almost four months had already passed. A Department for Work and Pensions letter dated 5 January required a response by the 14th, but it arrived on the 20th. My constituent’s benefits were withheld. She had done nothing wrong; her letter was late. Benefits withheld, appointments missed and appeal deadlines lost—all because the post failed. If my office cannot trust Royal Mail to deliver a letter, how can I assure constituents that their hospital correspondence will arrive in time?
One more thing struck me with this casework. Almost every constituent says that their parcels arrive on time; it is the letters that do not. Is that a coincidence, or is that what happens when a company chases the parcels market and treats letters as an afterthought while holding a monopoly on them?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Chris Bloore
I will give way to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) as she asked first.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the hon. Member; he is making a powerful speech to which we can all relate. On hospital appointments, there was discussion that Royal Mail would engage with each of the different hospital trusts. Does he agree that that needs to progress and that there needs to be some screening process to ensure that hospital appointment letters are delivered on time?
Chris Bloore
The hon. Lady is completely correct, and I will touch on that issue.
Tom Gordon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being very generous with his time. Earlier today, I opened the new Friends of Harrogate Hospital garden at the hospital. I spoke with the chief executive, who made the point that Royal Mail has told them that NHS appointments are meant to be prioritised, but the reality that we are all experiencing clearly shows that that is not the case. Does he agree that Royal Mail needs to pull its finger out, so that lives are not lost as a result of its negligence?
Chris Bloore
I agree.
The Government’s response to the Business and Trade Committee makes the point well: a lack of capacity that forces a company to prioritise some items over others is no justification for failing to deliver the expected service. Royal Mail must deliver 90% of its first-class letters the next working day. It is managing 85%. Against the target of completing 99.9% of delivery routes each day, it is completing just 70%. Those targets have been missed for five years running, while the price of a first-class stamp has risen by 137% to £1.80 and the price of a first-class medium parcel, where Royal Mail competes, has fallen by half. Where there is competition, prices fall; where there is monopoly, prices rise and services continue to fall.
What has the regulator done, really? Since 2015, Ofcom has investigated Royal Mail seven times and fined it four times. Last year, Ofcom lowered the very targets Royal Mail was missing and cut second-class delivery days, saving the company up to £425 million—“rewarding failure”, as Citizens Advice put it. More fines will not fix this, yet Ofcom has never come to this House seeking the powers it needs to hold Royal Mail to account. A regulator that can punish failure but cannot compel improvement must answer a fundamental question: what is it for? If Ofcom cannot do its job, a new regulator, with real teeth, must be considered.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being so generous with his time. I echo what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who has led this campaign so strongly in Parliament. In Stroud, our Cotswold Vale Talking Newspaper puts news and music on USB sticks and sends them out to blind and print-disabled listeners in Dursley; the chairman says that those now take six weeks to arrive and that many subscriptions are being cancelled. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take Royal Mail back into public ownership?
Chris Bloore
That is a cheeky question, and I might get back to it.
In May, the Business and Trade Committee called the service unacceptable and called Ofcom’s regulation into question. It demanded a road map to improvement. We are still waiting. Meanwhile, last Christmas, 16 million people experienced delayed letters, 5.7 million missed a vital letter and 19 million received bundled deliveries. Behind every statistic is someone let down by a service they have paid for and have every right to expect.
Royal Mail points to £500 million of investment and a promise to meet targets by April 2027. I welcome the investment, but a voluntary plan and relaxed targets are no substitute for accountability. No future promise can undo a missed hospital appointment or restore the time lost fighting for a loved one. That is why I joined my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) in writing to Royal Mail’s chief executive, Alistair Cochrane, asking him to meet affected MPs in Parliament. Our constituents deserve more than a briefing from a distance.
However, we must also confront uncomfortable questions. When Royal Mail was privatised, we were promised flexibility, investment and competition. Instead, the taxpayer lost hundreds of millions of pounds through an undervalued sale, and performance levels fell. If privatisation was supposed to secure Royal Mail’s future, why are we now facing these challenges, and what needs to change to put the service back on a sustainable footing?
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the passionate speech he is making. I have heard similar issues from my constituents about delays from Royal Mail. One elderly lady, who is 96 years old, has been waiting for three weeks to get a replacement PIN from her bank. These are stories of real people across the country who are being let down by Royal Mail. Does he agree that its representatives need to come to Parliament and answer questions from MPs?
Chris Bloore
Yes. We are not going there; they should be coming here.
I understand that the world has changed. Letter volumes have fallen from around 20 billion at their peak to 5.6 billion, while Royal Mail must serve 4 million more addresses. The economics of the universal service do not shrink with the volumes. A postie still walks the same streets for 10 letters as they do for one. Around 1,000 delivery offices are changing how they operate in a compressed period. The answer cannot be another round of job cuts, which put more pressure on the very service we want improved. Other European countries subsidise their postal services. We must be prepared to have an open debate about whether further Government support is needed to protect the universal service and whether a new operational model is required
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is being kind in giving way. Does he recognise that the point about subsidies is really important in constituencies like Frome and East Somerset? We have fantastic, hard-working and very overstretched posties who are each trying to cover a large area. We also have people who may not have access to broadband, and who rely even more on the post that they are not getting.
Chris Bloore
I agree. That is incredibly frustrating and impacts so many different areas.
I am going to make some progress and finish. Recognising the need for change does not mean accepting the unacceptable. Before I turn to what must change, let me deal with the tired old narrative that we must pick a side between consumers and workers—the customer who wants their post and the postie who wants decent pay. That is a false choice, and the evidence contradicts it. Citizens Advice, the statutory champion of postal consumers, and the Communication Workers Union, the voice of postal workers, have reached almost the same conclusions from opposite ends. Both want a regulator that protects the universal service, the same rules for competitors and an end to bogus self-employment. A fairly paid, properly employed postie is how a customer gets their letter.
Chris Bloore
I am sorry; I have to make some progress.
When workers are squeezed, consumers pay the price—and squeezed they are. I do not blame the posties. I have spoken to a postal worker with 36 years of service, who told me that morale is at an all-time low. Staff are told to complete half a delivery one day and scramble to catch up the next. Overtime is restricted, yet posties work extra hours unpaid just to keep the show on the road. Royal Mail runs a two-tier workforce: new starters on £13.68 an hour against £15.50 for long-standing colleagues. Is it any wonder that the company cannot recruit or retain? All the while, parcel competitors undercut Royal Mail with bogus self-employment—paying nothing in employer national insurance, while Royal Mail pays £650 million a year—and cherry-pick the profitable addresses while passing difficult ones back to the national network to which they never contribute. That matters for Redditch’s small businesses, too. They rely on the post for invoices, cheques and supplies. For them, a late letter is not an inconvenience; it is a cash flow problem.
I have four clear asks of the Minister. First, I ask her to strengthen regulation: to ask Ofcom what powers it needs to hold Royal Mail to account, to tie above-inflation stamp prices to meeting service targets and to require transparent reporting of efficiencies to Parliament. If Ofcom cannot regulate effectively, we must question whether it remains fit for purpose. Secondly, I ask her to level the playing field: to tackle bogus self-employment through the employment status reforms, to extend minimum service and consumer protection standards to competitors, and to examine the case for a levy on operators that profit from the universal postal network. Thirdly, I ask the Minister to protect the workforce: to address pay inequalities, to work constructively with the CWU on the new delivery model and to build workloads a human being can actually complete. Finally, I ask her to convene an emergency national summit, bringing together the Government, Ofcom, Royal Mail and the unions to agree a sustainable future for this vital service.
We must acknowledge that the postal market has changed, and have an honest conversation about service standards and funding, but change cannot be an excuse for declining standards or intolerable pressures on our workforce. This House has not always got it right when making historic decisions about Royal Mail’s ownership, but we must learn from those mistakes. What matters now is that we act decisively to secure Royal Mail’s future, protect its workforce and safeguard the communities that depend on this vital national service.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was not expecting to be called quite so early in the debate. I congratulate my Worcestershire colleague, the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), on so ably setting out many of the problems that we also have in West Worcestershire.
Having been a Member of Parliament there for many years, I have to highlight the fact that it has been only in the last year and a half that this has become a big issue in my postbag, if I can call it that—probably, by and large, in my email inbox. It has become the biggest issue that I hear about from my constituents, whether in Tenbury, Malvern, Pershore, Upton upon Severn or any of the villages in between. It is causing huge frustration to my constituents; the hon. Member has set out the issue, and many wish to speak in the debate, but I wanted to get that on the record. Whenever I write to Royal Mail about the issue, I never get a very convincing response. It often has to do with sickness in the sorting office or something along those lines, and that does not seem like a compelling reason for things going so badly wrong in the last 18 months or so.
I welcome this opportunity that the Backbench Business Committee has given us to get these concerns on the record. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how she will deal both with Ofcom, the regulator, and with the company itself. Clearly, we must all aim to get a better service for our constituents. It is a service that has been running in this country for hundreds of years, and it has gone wrong only in the last year and a half.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Before I start, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the Communication Workers Union.
It is over a decade since the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats oversaw the privatisation of Royal Mail, and it is clear to residents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages and—if this busy Chamber is anything to go by—to people across the country that the transition was grossly mishandled. Those parties failed to plan for Royal Mail’s long-term future in a market that was already showing signs of dramatic change. Now we see the results: late delivery after late delivery, leading to countless missed hospital appointments, GP appointments, court hearings, credit card bills—the list is almost endless.
The post remains an essential public service, and we need to secure its future. I am proud that Labour MPs up and down the country are leading on this, and I could thank countless Members for their hard work, I am especially grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), with whom I have been working closely to co-ordinate a campaign in Parliament.
I am sure that I speak for all Labour Members when I say that we understand the serious and complex challenges facing Royal Mail, but too often the response we get from the company when we raise concerns, and by extension its response to our constituents, is nothing short of dismissive. When we tell Royal Mail that yet another resident has missed cancer treatment or received a threatening message from a debt collector for an undelivered bill, we are too often told that there simply is no problem. Just today, I have had an email from Royal Mail assuring me that everything will be fine in time for Christmas, despite the fact that it has not met its delivery obligations at the Lichfield office at any point in the last five months. It beggars belief.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to this important debate. Does he agree that this seems to be a deep cultural issue within Royal Mail? Not only is it in denial, as far as I can tell, that there is a problem with the service, but when Members of Parliament visit their local delivery offices, it cleans house from top to bottom to present as if there is no problem, only for us to then subsequently discover that there continue to be serious issues with the service to our constituents.
Dave Robertson
I have experienced that at first hand as well. I went to one of the arranged visits to my local distribution office, with various people from the Royal Mail comms department there. By the time I got back to my office, I had had three emails from posties at that delivery office saying that every single postal worker went out that day with two routes on their back, just to ensure that the mail was out of the way and I did not see it. It is a real problem that Royal Mail does not want to grasp this.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s leadership on this issue has been magnificent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for calling this debate, which I am grateful to contribute to, albeit briefly. To hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talk about, “It’ll be okay for Christmas,” and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch talk about the low morale of workers within Royal Mail, does he agree that part of this debate this evening—we started on a good footing with my hon. Friend—is giving thanks to posties for their incredible hard work? That is not only because they work under incredibly hard circumstances, but because they are the heart of our communities, often noticing any differences. When they see a person who normally gets letters not answering the door, they often are the ones who raise the alarm in the local community.
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the value that posties have in our communities not just in delivering post, but more widely. We saw it over covid where the only person a lot of vulnerable residents would see in a week would be their postie. She makes an important point about their importance to our communities.
Returning to Royal Mail’s inability to grasp the nettle and to the fact that it sends us emails saying, “Everything’s fine,” “Don’t worry,” and “Nothing to see here,” that is tantamount to telling every single MP it has sent that communication to that our constituents are lying. Royal Mail needs to change its approach radically and rapidly.
Dave Robertson
I will make some progress.
Royal Mail needs to own the true scale of the problem and the genuinely felt anger—that is essential. I look forward to discussing this with the Royal Mail CEO when he meets Labour MPs in Parliament next month. Labour Members do not want to stand up in this Chamber and attack Royal Mail, and we are certainly not attacking postal workers.
We recognise the scale of the challenge facing the industry. The number of letters sent in the UK has halved since the company was privatised, while the number of parcels has risen dramatically, fuelled in many cases by the growth in online shopping. Virtually all the parcel companies competing with Royal Mail, and oftentimes using its network, use a bogus self-employment model for their workers. That means Royal Mail is competing in a market where it has a fundamental disadvantage, and we should not want to encourage the model that these parcel companies are using—it is bad for workers, consumers and the taxpayer. Too many parcel companies pay a pittance for an unmanageable workload, exhausting drivers who cannot provide a quality service to customers as they race to complete rounds that are frankly impossible, and the public purse is ripped off in the process. While Royal Mail pays £650 million a year in national insurance contributions, many of these companies do not pay a penny.
The Government are now consulting on upgrading the rights of these parcel delivery drivers, and it is a start, but we need to go further. We need true parity between Royal Mail and its competitors, a level playing field where every company pays a fair price if it chooses to use the Royal Mail network. We need Royal Mail to take a long-term view of its workforce. New entrants get far worse terms, and that is fuelling a retention crisis with a staggering 400 posties leaving the company every week. It may help pinch a few pennies now, but if Royal Mail cannot keep its hard-working staff, the business is destined to fail.
I am sorry to say that we need to look again at the delivery model. Royal Mail is currently rolling out DM26, as it calls it, but our posties tell us the process is already chaotic, the workload is unmanageable and it is not a long-term solution. We need to heed the recommendation of the Business and Trade Committee to look at giving Ofcom stronger powers to regulate Royal Mail. It concerns me that the regulator has no solution beyond more fines for Royal Mail, which are clearly not working. We need to build on the Government’s “golden share” in Royal Mail and think about an ownership model for the future, with the voices of customers and workers right at its heart.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Last Friday, I spent the morning with the brilliant, dedicated postal workers at my local delivery office in Denton. Yet people across the constituency regularly tell me they are not receiving post, despite the staff clearly doing everything they can to keep the service going under immense pressure. Does the hon. Member agree that the privatisation of Royal Mail has clearly failed and that the Government must take urgent action to restore a reliable postal service that also treats workers fairly?
Dave Robertson
The hon. Member makes an important point. As we have heard from many Members today, it is not the posties; it is the system that they are being asked to work in. We need to do a number of things; there is no single answer that will solve this. We need a suite of different responses that lead to a proper outcome.
We need to think about bringing Royal Mail and the Post Office back together and look creatively at opportunities for profit, such as Post Office banking hubs. We need to look at the pay and bonuses of Royal Mail’s senior leadership. We are already doing that with the water companies; I do not see why it would be inappropriate in this case. When a private company delivers a public service, it must be held to the highest standards. Just like with those water companies, we cannot see bosses’ pay balloon while workers struggle and customers are let down.
I am not arrogant enough to stand here and say that I have all the answers. These ideas are all born out of consultation with organisations across the sector, and that is why it is so important that we get all the parties around the table to share those ideas so we can turn them into action. Two weeks ago, the Communication Workers Union wrote to the Secretary of State calling on him to hold an emergency summit to discuss Royal Mail’s future. I am glad to hear that the meeting will go ahead, and I ask the Minister that my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Corby and East Northamptonshire and I are included in those discussions. Back-Bench MPs and our constituents must have a voice in them.
Royal Mail was founded over 500 years ago. It is a great British icon and an essential public service. We cannot and must not be the generation of politicians who allow it to fail.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Back in March, following a growing number of complaints from people across my constituency, I led a Westminster Hall debate on Royal Mail’s performance. It was well attended, like this evening’s debate, and it focused on the fact that while prices have continued to rise, the standard of service has declined, undermining public trust in Royal Mail, an institution that has been around for 500 years. I know this is a theme that will come up repeatedly this evening.
Unfortunately, seven months later, I am still hearing the same complaints and constituents are still experiencing completely unacceptable delays. It is time for this House to act and for us to turn these debates into real action. It has been reported to me that people in Pinhoe in my constituency are receiving letters only once every two to three weeks, and I have heard similar accounts of households elsewhere in my constituency—Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Woodbury and Lympstone—going weeks without a delivery before receiving large bundles of post all at once. I know that many Members will have households in their constituencies who have had the same experiences.
Chris Kane
Last week I asked my constituents to tell me about their experiences of Royal Mail, and I was struck by how often people praised their own postie while expressing real frustration with the service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Royal Mail’s leadership must take responsibility for giving postal workers the support they need and customers a service they can rely on?
David Reed
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and—to raise a point made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who introduced the debate—this is not on the posties at all; the posties do a fantastic job. From the numbers for Royal Mail, it looks like asset stripping is going on, so we can understand why those posties are having a difficult time.
There may be a perception that letters are no longer particularly important, but that is far from the case, especially in areas with elderly populations such as my constituency.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Jane Austen’s Mr Knightley said:
“Letters are no matter of indifference; they are generally a very positive curse”.
But it seems to me that Royal Mail very much treats letters as a matter of indifference, and that is causing a huge problems for my constituents, such as those who have missed NHS letters, as has been discussed, and the farmers who are not receiving animal tags in time to get their livestock to market. It is a really serious issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Royal Mail needs to get its act together and treat the letter service as seriously as it treats the parcel service?
David Reed
I completely agree, and I think we will have a lot of consensus in the debate this evening, as we did in my debate in March.
Royal Mail clearly says that it is now a parcel company that still delivers letters, and that is an issue that affects countries very close to us. Denmark has PostNord, which has operated for about 400 years, and they are going through the exact same problems as us.
We have the universal service obligation, and we really need to work on that to make sure it is fit for purpose and there are repercussions for not fulfilling those roles.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
On the universal service point, there are huge disparities across the country. A Consumer Scotland report recently laid bare the deep divisions, with quality of service in HS postcodes—Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Hebrides—standing at 59% whereas across the UK it is 76%, and of course the Royal Mail target is 90%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of fragmenting the service, and that commercial priorities take over and rural communities are left behind? If there is to be a service, it has to be a universal service, not a postcode lottery across the UK.
David Reed
Again, we will find consensus here. I have a very mixed constituency with some really urban areas and some very rural areas, and there is a significant disparity in service delivery. When we think about the reasons why, we realise that it takes more time for posties to go out and deliver in some areas, which costs more money, and for a company that is stripping back quite significantly, we can understand why those problems arise.
Going back to the point about those who have been waiting for NHS correspondence, financial documents and other time-sensitive information that they rely on, a constituent has told me that letters relating to their cancer treatment have been arriving late. For patients already facing the anxiety and uncertainty of cancer treatment, the added worry of not receiving important medical correspondence is completely unacceptable. For those people, many of whom do not use email or online services, these delays can have particularly serious consequences.
I would like the Minister to address, if possible, a Royal Mail product called economy access mail. It is a non-time sensitive product, and organisations like the NHS and local councils will use it because it is the cheapest option, but they are not informing their customers that they are using it and that that is why correspondence arrives late more often than not.
Particularly frustrating is the repeated cycle my office faces whenever we raise these concerns with Royal Mail, and we have heard very similar experiences tonight about poor communication. My constituents should not have to be reaching out to their MP just to receive their post, nor can we keep having the same debates in this House without seeing any meaningful improvement.
We have discussed some of the numbers, but according to Royal Mail’s latest quarterly performance figures, just 81.8% of first-class letters in the EX postcode of my constituency were delivered within the next working day, against a local target of 87%. Again, I could go into all the numbers, but I am sure that many other Members will be raising them. All this should be considered in the context of a first-class stamp now costing £1.80. My constituents are paying for a first-class service but too often receiving something considerably worse.
I recognise that Royal Mail faces significant challenges. We are going through technological change on a level we have not seen over the last 500 years, and there are financial implications for businesses trying to operate in that environment. Letter volumes have fallen, operating costs have increased and the business model needs to be modernised. Royal Mail recently informed me that it has begun implementing a new delivery model at Exeter, which it says is going to improve output and save costs, but they are just commitments at the moment and after years of missed targets the public can be forgiven for wanting to see results rather than another improvement plan.
It is important to look at the numbers to understand what is really happening. Royal Mail made a loss of £400 million three years ago and £200 million a year after and a £14 million profit last year. We have been seeing lots of fat being cut out of the business, from normal business operations that can cut away that fat, but we have cut into the muscle now, and it is starting to look a lot like asset-stripping.
As I made clear in my previous debate, none of this criticism should be laid at the feet of the postmen or postwomen.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I want to put my thanks on record to postal workers across Clwyd North, and in particular in Colwyn bay where there have been recent problems, and to say sorry that they have been left to deal with the consequences of failure that are not of their making. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that frontline postal workers should not be expected to shoulder responsibility for problems stemming from the organisation, and that it is Royal Mail’s responsibility to ensure that resources are in the right place to provide a good service?
David Reed
We have yet more consensus. This is where we have to really dig into the universal service obligation and make sure that there are significant penalties if Royal Mail does not do what it has signed up to do and what we have asked it to do as a company.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to significant penalties. Ofcom has levied fines over the past few years, but that is clearly not leading to improvements in the service. Does my hon. Friend agree that it feels as though Royal Mail is treating these fines as part of the cost of doing business, and seeing it as cheaper to pay the fine than to address the problem?
David Reed
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If we look at those numbers again—losses of £400 million three years ago and then £200 million, followed by a £14 million profit—they show that Royal Mail is baking the fines into its operating model and cutting away more and more muscle. We have to make sure that there is a cost that is unacceptable to Royal Mail and its shareholders so that we do not see these problems again.
I am conscious that many Members want to speak in the debate so I will come straight to my questions for the Minister. Please will the Minister look at what the Government can do to address Royal Mail’s new delivery model? Secondly, on the imposition of significant fines, does the Minister believe that Ofcom’s current regulatory approach is effective, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak in it, but I am disappointed we are having to discuss this topic yet again, because we have been here before: the owners of Royal Mail prioritising profits over the public service requirements of the business they bought; the regulator seemingly unable to do anything at all about it; and postal workers once again being treated so badly when they are the ones who go out on the frontline day in, day out. The question we therefore need to answer is: why?
During my time as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee in the previous Parliament, I spent days and days of parliamentary time cross-examining Royal Mail bosses, the then Government and the regulator. I sought to give a voice to postal workers who, more often than not, felt voiceless in the workplace, and I was proud to support the efforts of the Communication Workers Union to give its members more strength in the power games that were being played between management and the workforce, but quite frankly, what good did that do? The then chief executive was asked to move on, albeit with a handsome exit payment, a new owner has taken over the business, and the regulator conducted its reviews, issued its fines and changed the universal service obligation, yet we find ourselves here in Parliament discussing the issue once again. The only conclusion I can draw is that the business model is not fit for purpose. We should not be shy in coming forward to say that the privatisation of the Royal Mail and its separation from the Post Office was a mistake. The coalition Government got that wrong, and I hope that this Labour Government will put that right.
As far as I can see, there are only two real options. The first is to facilitate the end of the public service provided by the Royal Mail, and to let the current owners turn it into a truly profitable business. We should not be surprised that the new owners of Royal Mail want to make the business profitable, and to focus on its profit-making services—that is the business they are in. However, the problem with privatisation of a public service is that profit making comes first. So it falls to us, as the guardians of public services in this country, to decide whether we will protect the public service functions of the Royal Mail or not.
Some might say the issue is not that binary. No doubt regulation of the parcels market to ensure fairer competition would go a long way to help, and the Government should ask the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a market investigation into parcel deliveries irrespective of what happens next to the Royal Mail. However, the House should be clear-eyed about what it will mean if we continue with the privatised model. It will, in the end, be the end of the universal service obligation as we know it. That is important because, as we have already heard, the universal service obligation is not just about delivering letters: it is about having a human connection with the people of this country, at every doorstep of every house, in every community, across the width and breadth of the nation. The covid pandemic showed why the network of postal workers matters so much, and I believe that will become more, not less, important in the future. To those making an economic case about the drop in letter deliveries being the end of the universal service obligation, let me say this: think carefully about the end of this public service, because once it is gone, it will not come back.
That takes me to the second option. If Ministers agree with me that privatisation of the Royal Mail was a failure, the only other real option is to renationalise it. The House may be surprised to hear me, of all people, say that—I am not a natural fan of the Government borrowing yet more money to nationalise businesses that can be effectively run by the private sector. However, it has been proven that the Royal Mail is an example of a business that cannot be run effectively by the private sector, and an example of a business that I believe the Government can renationalise fairly easily within its fiscal rules.
When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), updated the fiscal rules in 2024, the debt definition became public sector net financial liabilities, or “persnuffle” among friends. That allowed the Government to borrow money to invest in assets while maintaining the debt rule target that Government debt should fall in the long term as a share of GDP. In practice, that allows the Government to use so-called financial transactions to pay for equity or debt financing of publicly owned assets. That could be done with the Royal Mail, and it would fall outside the fiscal rules.
That merely leaves the question of how to raise the money to do so. I am very conscious that our national debt has risen to above £3 trillion, and that the cost of that debt is expensive to the taxpayer, costing over £100 billion a year in interest payments alone, but I think there is a way through that Ministers should consider. When the current owners of Royal Mail, International Distribution Services, bought the Royal Mail in 2025, the deal was valued at £3.6 billion. We should therefore use that number for the purposes of today’s debate.
In the spending review that I conducted in 2025, we allocated £23.8 billion for financial transactions alone between 2025-26 and 2029-30, and we are told to expect the Chancellor to increase that budget further this week. However, financial transactions can only be used by Departments to finance deals where there is a suitable public financial institution—or “puFins”—and where the Office for National Statistics agrees that it is a genuine financial transaction, not an attempt to redesign normal Government spending so that it falls outside the fiscal rules. We have several well-established puFins, from the National Wealth Fund to the British Business Bank, which I am sure will spend their budgets well. The Government have also committed to establishing several new ones, some of which have yet to be fully established. In short, it is quite hard to spend the financial transactions capital budget and I therefore assume, with some confidence, that there will be underspends that could be reprioritised.
Finally, if that is not convincing enough, I am certain that there will be public interest in a more mutual form of ownership of the Royal Mail and, I would hope, its reintegration with the Post Office. A public share offering and a special scheme for Royal Mail employees could be a nice way to do that, with the Government merely underwriting the risk, while funds are raised by the public in the years it would take to undertake the action. Having looked at this issue for so many years, I believe that this is the only solution to protecting the Royal Mail and its future.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Even if my right hon. Friend’s suggestion were to come to fruition, there would still be ongoing running costs. We know there is huge competition in this sector, so how would he propose to deal with that? Is he proposing an ongoing subsidy?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous comments about how the market needs to be better regulated, whether we own the Royal Mail or someone else does. That is why that work should be undertaken while a debate on ownership may continue with Government.
I believe that the end goal that we all want to see, that our constituents want to see and that the Government have the capacity and the ability to enable is a Royal Mail that is back in public hands, reintegrated with the Post Office network. That would be a tangible example of change in every postcode. I put that option on the table today for the Government to consider. I hope that Ministers will come to the same conclusion that I have and get on with doing the right thing.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing this important debate.
Six months ago, in a Westminster Hall debate, I talked about how bad the Royal Mail service in my constituency had become. I talked about how residents had missed medical appointments, bills and other important documents because of the service’s inability to get its primary job done. I also mentioned how contacting Royal Mail with these issues rarely led to a satisfactory response, or even a response at all. Members from across the House will be less than surprised to learn that following that debate, I immediately had an email from Royal Mail saying its representatives wanted to meet and were only too keen to engage with the issues that my constituents were facing. I met them and they told me all about Royal Mail’s plans to get the situation fixed, but six months on, clearly none of that has turned out to be true.
Since then, over 300 constituents have contacted me to tell me in detail how the problem has affected them personally. Wayne wrote to me about the struggles he has had managing his mother’s probate. He is still missing several documents and is worried about completing before the legal deadline. Susan’s husband has functional neurological disorder and has missed multiple medical appointments because of Royal Mail’s inability to deliver letters on time. Martin tried to remortgage his house, but the documents never arrived from his solicitor. Paul’s son missed a Department for Work and Pensions appointment because the confirmation letter never arrived. He was then sanctioned and will have no income for the month. These are real lives—these people are facing serious situations, all made worse because Royal Mail cannot do the job it is paid to do. How can we resolve this?
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks eloquently about the effect of the poor service on our working and personal lives, but there is also an effect on our democracy. As next May’s local elections draw closer, voters will be watching their letterboxes for the arrival of their postal votes. In May 2025, some 2.4 million people—nearly one in five voters—registered for a postal vote, so I am seriously concerned about the impact of the service on the delivery of our democracy.
Mr Morrison
The hon. Member makes a really important point. We have seen through door knocking in my constituency that people are now less willing to take a postal vote, which could have real implications for our democratic process going forward.
How does this situation get resolved? I want to make it clear that this issue does not land at the feet of our postal workers.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding the CWU. On that precise point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this really is not the fault of our dedicated postal workers? In fact, it is a real loss across the country, and certainly in my constituency, to see many dedicated and long-serving postal workers stepping away from roles that they have held for decades because of the uncertainty and the workload that they face.
Mr Morrison
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. Royal Mail used to be characterised by a really low turnover of staff, but that is changing rapidly, and the culture of the workplace is changing with it.
Following on from that point, I visited sorting offices in my constituency last year and talked through the issues that the postal workers faced. They work in incredibly hard conditions, but that is being made even worse, because senior management cannot get a grip. It is the so-called leaders at the top who are failing and leaving staff lower down to get the blame and angst from angry customers.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I have also made visits to local sorting offices, and the super-frustrating thing to hear about the real issues we are having with services is that they were all foreseen. Colleagues in post offices across the country would have identified that they were going to be a problem. This issue was foreseen by the posties, so why did the management not listen? Does the hon. Member agree?
Mr Morrison
I completely agree. If we listened to the staff on the ground, a lot of these problems could have been foreseen.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I spoke the other day to a postie who covers a large delivery round in Glastonbury and Somerton. He told me that the posties’ handheld device monitors their every move, alerting managers if they are stuck in traffic, if they are waiting for an elderly resident to come to the door, if they are too slow and even if they are using the toilet. Royal Mail has admitted to using the tracking data in conduct cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that posties should be trusted, not monitored by machines, and that we should recognise them as key workers?
Mr Morrison
I have nothing to add to that. My hon. Friend has made a fantastic point, and I completely agree.
Ofcom also needs to take responsibility. Years of fines and damning verdicts have done nothing to resolve poor levels of service. Royal Mail has been given a free pass. Ofcom has allowed the company to relax its targets, yet it still missed both reduced targets in the first quarter of 2026-27. In any other line of work, that would not be acceptable, so why are the Government not acting? I implore the Minister: let us just get this done. The Government have to step in and take meaningful action either through giving Ofcom stronger powers that actually bite or through other means. Royal Mail is an iconic service known across the world, but its legacy is being completely trashed by the management at the top.
Let me end with two examples of how Royal Mail’s failures have impacted on lives in my constituency. Kate, who lives in Cheadle village, wrote to me:
“I missed an important medical appointment in mid-March as the letter never arrived. I had to rearrange the appointment, creating a delay of over a month to commence my treatment, this also complicated my travel plans and insurance. My GP surgery had to waste time chasing this up and then the GP had to re-refer me…the expensive scanner plus clinical and admin staff are not being used efficiently. This costs us all.”
Laura wrote to me and said that she had been diagnosed with cancer for a second time. She received an important hospital appointment letter the day after the appointment. Letters from her oncologist for treatment frequently arrive late, which adds to her stress during an unbelievably difficult time for her and her family. It is clear in Laura’s case just how crucial the universal postal service is to people’s lives; it is absolutely fundamental.
I hope that Royal Mail management is listening to this debate and begins to appreciate just how important it is that they get this job done properly. Just in case, I will be personally delivering the complaints that I have received from my constituents directly to Royal Mail headquarters—after all, with a postal service this bad, I might as well deliver them myself.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have a number of people wishing to contribute. To get as many people in as possible, there will be a speaking limit of four-and-a-half minutes.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this important debate.
Last year, Royal Mail, which is now owned by a Czech billionaire, was fined £21 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. In the same financial year, its chief executive received a £7 million bonus. That is a third of the cost of a fine paid while the service was failing the people who depend on it. The consequences are felt by my constituents. One resident in Hockley missed multiple hospital appointments because his letters were not delivered, and a resident in Shenstone village missed an insurance claim deadline because essential documents never arrived. Those are not minor inconveniences; they are barriers to healthcare, financial security and everyday life.
Rural communities are particularly badly affected, with some of my villages lucky enough to receive post twice a month, yet Royal Mail dismisses complaints, claiming that there are no problems in the relevant area. That is a stock response I receive that bears no relation to reality. Royal Mail divides areas into 118 overarching postcode areas, which mix dense urban centres with vast rural areas, meaning that the high delivery rates in town centres can hide issues and completely change the way in which we view the figures. We cannot allow Royal Mail to hide behind statistics that fail to reflect the lived experiences of residents.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about the experiences of her constituents. My constituents have faced issues in which they have had mail only once every three or four weeks; one constituent did not receive 14 items of post. Does she agree that the Royal Mail’s treatment of Ofcom fines simply as a baked-in operational risk is one reason, among others, why we need a far more muscular regulatory regime?
Sarah Edwards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can infer that there is definitely a baked-in position here, and that is a big problem, as we will hear from many Members. I hope that the importance of Ofcom being able to regulate better will be a crucial part of what we hear from the Minister.
As a member of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, I took part in our inquiry into Royal Mail’s performance. We exposed a frustrating cycle of pass the parcel: the Government say that they will strengthen Ofcom’s powers if asked, and Ofcom says that changes are for the Government to make. Meanwhile, Ofcom has admitted that fines against a loss-making company are entirely ineffective in improving services, yet its proposed response to continued failures is more fines. Those statements seem rather at odds with each other. Our Committee has recommended that if Royal Mail fails to improve within six months, the Secretary of State should consult on changing Ofcom’s powers and duties. Five months on, meaningful improvement is yet to materialise.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
We have heard repeatedly that Royal Mail has failed for a number of years and that Ofcom has repeatedly fined Royal Mail to no effect. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look not at how Royal Mail might go out of business, but perhaps at a new business model for Royal Mail to take over? That might just be the renationalisation of Royal Mail.
Sarah Edwards
It is absolutely crucial that we explore all the potential solutions. Members have floated a number of potential solutions, and we need to know that whatever solution is found will deliver the best service for constituents.
We have, for the first time in decades, a Government who have shown willing to stand up to the irresponsible chief executives who put individual profit over the people they serve—one example is taking action on water companies. Will the Minister commit to consulting on the regulatory changes needed to strengthen accountability at Royal Mail without waiting for Ofcom to request them? Will she ensure that Royal Mail meets directly with MPs to answer for its failures?
My constituents cannot afford another year, month or week of missed appointments, lost opportunities and letters from loved ones that never arrive. Our postal workers work incredibly hard, but they cannot be left to feel that no help is coming. I look forward to the Minister setting out a plan to deliver genuine change and restore this vital service for the communities who depend on it.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Like other Members, I want to recognise the hard work of postal workers in my constituency. They are not to blame for management’s continued ineptitude and poor delivery of changes. Many are quitting, as fed up with the Royal Mail as we are.
Hundreds of my constituents in Thornbury and Yate have written to me about Royal Mail’s failures. One posted something to Australia and it ended up arriving at a neighbour’s house. Bundles of letters appear at their doors at once—weeks’ worth of magazines, NHS letters and post from friends and family. Mail is an essential service for some, particularly the digitally excluded, who rely on it for important correspondence like letters about their NHS appointments. One Thornbury constituent told me only this weekend that he got a hospital appointment letter the day after the appointment. The Government themselves depend on Royal Mail for sending out passports, driving licences and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs correspondence. Our own offices use Royal Mail.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The point my hon. Friend makes about passports and other valuable documents is a good one. I attended a meeting in the Polden Hills, where the posties are brilliant but the post is absolutely rubbish, arriving every three weeks or longer. The thing that really shocked me was that Royal Mail is advertising for more posties but applicants do not even need to provide a CV. These people would be expected to deliver documents of prime importance—very often personal things like bank cards. It seems pretty shocking that Royal Mail has decided it does not need to have somebody’s CV before employing them. Does she agree that is really poor practice?
Claire Young
I absolutely agree that is poor practice. I think it is a sign of the desperation Royal Mail finds itself in, with so many people quitting its employment.
Royal Mail’s response has not been good enough. It has moved the goalposts, decreased delivery times, and fiddled around with its staff numbers, but none of that has helped. Reports suggest that it is axing its head office numbers, and posties are quitting in droves. Clearly, that is not sustainable. When I raised my constituents’ concerns with Royal Mail directly, the right people did not even attend the first meeting, and subsequent ones have been little more productive. I am told that the Royal Mail complaints forms have been removed from the building it shares with Yate post office. That is not the behaviour of a business that cares about its customers.
That brings me to the regulator. I want to use this debate to call again for Ofcom to properly regulate the Royal Mail or be replaced. In correspondence, Ministers have confirmed to me that currently Ofcom cannot investigate local failures. As a result, when Royal Mail does not deliver and its complaints team cannot provide an adequate resolution, my constituents have no one else to turn to but me. In essence, the public look to Members of this House to be the regulators, but we do not have the powers of a regulator. Too often, our complaints are met with dismissive template letters asserting that the service is improving when it blatantly is not. Where is Ofcom? What does a fine here and there really do to a failing business?
I wrote to the previous Minister a few months ago, after I raised these issues in the Chamber. I asked what he had done to review Ofcom’s powers and why Ofcom cannot properly regulate at a local level. Disappointingly, he answered that Royal Mail is a private business and Ofcom is an independent regulator, so there is nothing really that the Government can do. I am not sure that is quite how regulation works.
This is simply not good enough. In answer to my written questions, the Government stated that they have not assessed moving responsibility for postal regulation away from Ofcom to a new regulator. Why? Surely even Ministers agree that Royal Mail has been failing to deliver for years now and Ofcom has not changed that. Either Ofcom needs more powers to investigate locally and tackle the issue, or we should remove its power altogether and give the responsibility of postal regulator to a whole new independent body that will focus on the issues properly. Why is Ofcom not performing its duties with vigour?
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Member has laid out a couple of options on the table. What does she make of the assessment that no regulator will solve the problem and the service has to be brought back into public control? Is that something she would consider?
Claire Young
I do not think we can say that regulation has failed at this point, when effectively what we have been doing is using the same battering ram again and again. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and wondering why it leads to the same result. I think there are other things that we can explore first.
Last week during PMQs, the Prime Minister stated that if Royal Mail does not improve, further measures will be taken. Can the Minister now reveal what those measures are and assure the House that this company will face serious consequences for failing all our constituents?
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Royal Mail was once widely respected and trusted, but it is now too often a cause of frustration and anger for our constituents. Year after year, Royal Mail is falling short of the targets it must meet by law, and the public’s patience is wearing thin. The danger is that at some point the business can no longer survive. While I have no desire to see that happen, we cannot keep making excuses or dismissing what my constituents are going through. They are missing appointments, receiving important news late, and being let down by a system that cannot be relied on to get the basics right.
Just over a year ago, the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, held a session with Royal Mail, Ofcom and consumer groups. We were told then that work was under way to improve the service, but it is hard to see any sign of that on the ground. This year again, in most of Royal Mail’s Scottish postcode areas, it has missed its targets, and constituents continue to write to me about the problems they face. A late birthday card can be forgiven, but too often delivery delays affect more important mail. Royal Mail assured our Committee that a new NHS barcode would allow NHS letters to be picked out and given priority, yet NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has told me that it cannot use the barcode because it does not work with the Royal Mail system that is used for most of its letters.
Royal Mail presented the barcode system as an answer, but it is not working in practice. That has real consequences for my constituents. A disabled constituent recently told me that they no longer have the strength to complain. They have already been on to the sorting office and have seen no improvement. Right now, they are waiting on a letter about a home flu jab. Their post is so unreliable that they believe the letter will arrive late. Another constituent told me how they only realised that they had missed an NHS appointment when they spoke with the hospital directly. When they visited the sorting office, their letters were waiting there, still to be delivered, including one telling them about that appointment.
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend is making a passionate contribution about the experience of her constituents and the real-life impact of Royal Mail’s failures. Does she agree that this is yet another prime example of why it is important to properly regulate a public service? Contrary to what some Members of this House may think, it is not bureaucracy or red tape; it is about securing the proper functioning of a public service.
Maureen Burke
I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his contribution.
Those are just two dreadful examples that show the heart of the problem. People are losing faith in the Royal Mail because it is letting them down when they need the service most. I know the postal world has changed. We keep in touch differently now, sending fewer letters and more emails around the world. Postal services are changing, but I do not believe that we want to end up in a situation like Denmark, where PostNord has stopped delivering letters altogether. I believe that the public want Royal Mail to have a future, but for that to be possible, management must take responsibility rather than just blame changes in how people use the service, or put the blame on posties.
People are being priced out, and Royal Mail is adding to their anger by putting up stamp prices. How can we expect people to use a service when research from Citizens Advice suggests that one in three adults would struggle to afford a book of first-class stamps? Equally, it will not be possible for the Royal Mail to meet standards with fewer staff, who feel undervalued, as the Communication Workers Union has said. When the previous board brought in lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions for new staff, it made Royal Mail a less attractive place to work, with up to half of new staff leaving within the first year. Its owners must show that they understand what went wrong, or risk bringing the service closer to collapse.
I would like to sum up by saying this. I wish Royal Mail well and I pay tribute to Britain’s hard-working posties. Royal Mail is an institution and for many of my constituents it is a lifeline. That is why I hope that the promise from management to meet targets by early next year is signed for and delivered on time.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
A reliable post service is not a luxury; it is an essential public service. For our communities across Rutland, Stamford and the South Kesteven and Harborough villages, the consequences of poor service can be significant, and also unfair on the posties who face the brunt of those frustrations.
In Carlby, some residents were left without post for 20 days in January, with many only receiving their post because they took the initiative to complain. One resident wrote her complaint on 26 January. The next day, a mammoth bundle of mail coincidentally arrived at her house, with some letters dating from 2 January—24 days late. In Ryhall, the village regularly goes without post for weeks at a time. It is not just an inconvenience; it is the norm. In Stamford, first-class post takes a minimum of four days to arrive, despite Royal Mail aiming to deliver the next working day. South Luffenham is no different. The Royal Mail comes once a week, or twice if locals are lucky. Indeed, I wrote to the residents of Cottesmore on 12 October and many received their letters only yesterday. One village resident has missed numerous medical appointments because letters arrive too late from the hospital—or she travels the 40 minutes to our local hospital to find out that the appointment has been cancelled. This is unacceptable.
We are not asking for special treatment. In the last 18 months since the 2025 sale, something has happened that has broken Royal Mail. Residents have consistently been told they can only complain after seven days—a whole week of non-delivery. Again, the significant delays residents face every week are perfectly demonstrated by the fact that when I posted correspondence first class from my constituency office in Oakham, it took two weeks for the letters to arrive. To arrive where? In Oakham—some just one street away. I want to be clear that, as all Members in the Chamber have said, this is not an attack on our postal workers. Many work incredibly hard under considerable pressure in all weathers. We recognise the contribution they make, and we are grateful to them.
I would like to turn briefly to a company called Enough, which uses the Royal Mail service to deliver its self-swab rape kits, despite having been publicly outed by me in this Chamber for sending SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to sexual assault survivors, rape charities and anyone who dares to speak out to question its motives or the claims on its kits. I have raised Enough’s use of Royal Mail services with Royal Mail, because I believe its use of Royal Mail is not compliant with Royal Mail’s own guidance on the transportation of human specimens. First, a kit has to be sent by a qualified medical practitioner or requested by them. This is not the case. Secondly, the labelling on the packaging required is not currently in place. Thirdly, the packaging requirements are also not being met. Royal Mail is not taking the concerns I have raised with it seriously. The Minister knows very well the issues relating to Enough and has promised to look at how we regulate to deal with the fact that this company should not be in operation. It is important that Royal Mail comes back to me and that the Minister also raises this issue with Royal Mail.
Rural communities cannot become an afterthought in the provision of essential services. Yes, distance and rural geography represent operational challenges, but they are not a permanent excuse for poor service. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have had the same issues in your very rural constituency. I urge the Government to take these concerns seriously and press Royal Mail for a clear and measurable improvement plan and improved powers for regulators. That plan must include: transparent local performance information that even I cannot get my hands on; an assessment of staffing and delivery arrangements; better communication with affected residents; and a straightforward process for reporting and resolving complaints.
We are all very grateful to posties for what they do, but accountability means more than just acknowledging a problem. It means taking action and demonstrating results. The universal post service is an essential part of our national infrastructure. Its value is measured not by the number of letters delivered nationally, but by whether our communities can depend on it when they need it—and for too many, they cannot.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the Communication Workers Union.
The anger about Royal Mail’s failure to deliver a reliable service for our constituents is palpable across this House and across our communities. My constituents in Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages are not just inconvenienced by these failures. Some are suffering genuine harm by not getting vital information when needed.
From the outset—this has been mentioned by many colleagues across the House—I want to be very clear that my concerns are not with postal workers and those keeping our postal depots going. Posties are facing incredibly demanding working conditions, as well as hostility directed at them by some members of the public. The abuse and targeting of our posties is utterly unacceptable and must stop. My local posties tell me that physical and verbal abuse continues to increase. No wonder so many of them are leaving the job. As the CWU identified earlier this month, 400 posties are leaving every week. Our posties and Royal Mail workers deserve proper support, staffing levels and working conditions to deliver the service people expect. Royal Mail is far more than a parcel delivery service, and it must not be stripped any further of its community value and its unique place in our national story.
Physical post is still a lifeline to many thousands in my constituency who do not or cannot manage essential services online. Many invitations to my own surgeries are being delivered to residents so late that the events have passed, even though we have posted them at least a month in advance such is the reputation of Royal Mail. Much of the casework I receive relates to older and disabled people being left at an intolerable disadvantage by a service they should be able to trust. We must answer the question: why are we allowing a service so fundamental to our communities and our public life to deteriorate while customers are left paying the price? I cannot help feeling that Royal Mail’s owners know the cost of everything, but ignore the value of what they put at such risk.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Earlier today, a constituent of mine contacted my office to say that they had received 22 items in a single delivery, only one of which was first class. Does my hon. Friend know that most items, including public guardian letters and NHS letters, come via Whistl and UK Mail, which means that they do not actually get included in the universal service data that we often hear about. Does he agree that we need to look at updating the way we measure the collection of post, because Royal Mail is failing more than a lot of people realise?
Dan Aldridge
Absolutely, I agree. The splintering of public services in this way is something we really need to take account of in this House. It is a sad statement that can be applied to the state of too much of our public common wealth that has been carved up and sold off to private interests.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) mentioned earlier, I want to remind the House and the Government of the recommendations made by our Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, specifically that the Government and Ofcom must act decisively if Royal Mail fails to make meaningful improvements within the six-month deadline we set. The current evidence gives serious cause for concern. I worry that carefully crafted and presented statistics, as well as polished corporate jargon, make it easy to present a story to decision makers that bears little relation to the lived experience of workers and customers. I am frustrated that our regulatory system has not evolved to deal with the level of corporate gaslighting that seems to run roughshod over worker and customer interests.
This is about what we value as a society, what we trust and the basic functioning of the state. With Christmas just around the corner, families and businesses need reassurance that their post will arrive when it matters. Longer term, Royal Mail must stop making excuses, do right by their workers, and deliver the service that our constituents—its customers—deserve.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Ilfracombe, Lee and Combe Martin on the North Devon coast continue to stand out as areas where residents are suffering repeated problems with postal deliveries. I want to highlight the reality on the ground.
A constituent wrote to me on 17 September to say that, after weeks without a Royal Mail delivery, she had driven several miles to the sorting office to collect her own post herself. She collected no fewer than 16 undelivered letters, including—as we have heard from many Members —notification of an NHS appointment. That letter was already a full week behind not just the date on the letter, but the actual appointment. The oldest letter in the bundle was from 14 August—nearly a full month out of date! I have visited that sorting office myself. The staff I met there were hard-working and dedicated, and I really struggle to believe that repeated Royal Mail service issues like this are their fault when similar issues are being reported right across the country, as many Members have stipulated tonight.
Local residents in Ilfracombe found it especially frustrating that mail posted to engage people in the town’s successful nomination for the title of UK Town of Culture 2028 did not reach residents in time. There is a pattern of post going undelivered owing to short staffing, parcels being given priority, and bundles of overdue letters turning up at a later date. Missing post can have terrible knock-on effects if people miss GP appointments, or cannot act on important legal or financial letters. A reliable service is important for farms and remote rural communities, which often suffer poor internet access and where people cannot easily visit their local high street. Along the north Devon coast, the postal network is heavily dependent on vehicles, and relies on retaining posties with strong local knowledge.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
From coastal Devon to rural Warwickshire, we have the same issues. My constituents are not receiving letters on time. They are missing NHS appointments—really important appointments—documents are getting lost, and letters informing people of fines to be paid are arriving too late. We know that our postal workers are doing their best, and are working very hard in very difficult conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that both Ofcom and Royal Mail need a radical overhaul?
Ian Roome
I thank the hon. Lady for describing so eloquently what is happening in her constituency. I think that Ofcom needs a few more teeth to enable it to engage with Royal Mail and hold it strongly to account.
I have met representatives of Royal Mail who insist that these problems are being ironed out, but it is clear that the postal service is falling well short of its obligation to deliver post on time in areas such as mine. I hope the Minister can answer the following questions. Do the Government believe that Ofcom has the enforcement powers that it needs to push Royal Mail on its quality of service? Does the Minister have a picture of whether certain areas or postcodes are particularly badly affected? What assurances can she give us that Royal Mail is being held to account over staffing levels? I am being told by posties that staffing is a big issue. What remedy do service users have when Royal Mail persistently fails to deliver the service that customers have paid for and residents deserve?
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Like many others, I will start by paying tribute to our fantastic posties, particularly the one who delivers my mail to Richmond House—constantly reminding me, through letters from constituents, just how dreadful the service that they are experiencing from Royal Mail has become. I will not spend too long listing the many examples of atrocious service that Royal Mail has been delivering in my constituency, but let me give one example. A letter dated 7 July arrived on 4 August, five days after the recipient was supposed to have had an operation. Just in case that was not bad enough, Royal Mail also messed up on follow-up letters from the NHS about cancer checks. We have heard that Royal Mail is planning to get this service fixed by Christmas. I should like to know which Christmas, because in August one of my constituents managed to receive a very, very late Christmas card. I am not sure that we have got last Christmas fixed, let alone Christmas this year.
No one is going to argue that this is acceptable but, like many Members, I find it particularly frustrating that every couple of months or so I go to the delivery office and we have that conversation in which the people running it tell me that, yes, they have been facing challenges, but don’t worry, they are on track now. I go back two months later and it is just like groundhog day: we have exactly the same conversation. I am told, “Yes, there were problems when we last told you that we would fix them, but don’t worry, they are being fixed now.”
We have heard all the statistics showing that Royal Mail is completely failing to meet the targets that it has set, although those targets have been lowered. We have also heard that prices have been rising at the same time. I think people appreciate the challenges that Royal Mail is facing—there has been a dramatic drop in the number of letters, from the 20 billion that we saw years ago to just 6.5 billion today—but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that every time Royal Mail fails to meet the standards required of it, our response should be to lower those standards until they become achievable.
When investors bought shares in Royal Mail, they knew that they were buying into a business with certain regulatory obligations attached. Those obligations were part of the deal. While circumstances change and regulations sometimes need to catch up with them, we cannot have a system in which shareholders get to enjoy the potential rewards of private ownership while the public are expected to accept an ever-diminishing service.
Even if this is a difficult problem to solve, solving it should start with an acknowledgment that the decision by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition to privatise Royal Mail was a mistake. The argument for privatisation is normally that the discipline of the market will drive improvements in efficiency and service. If a company does a bad job, customers can go somewhere else, and the threat of losing those customers gives the business an incentive to improve. But, as should have been obvious at the time, that mechanism does not work with Royal Mail. If my constituents do not receive their hospital appointment letters, they cannot just decide to have them delivered by somebody else. They do not get to choose which postal network the NHS uses to reach them. We have lost the accountability that comes with public ownership, without securing the competitive pressure that is supposed to make private ownership work.
There is a much bigger problem with the way in which we regulate many of these privatised monopolies. In the short time that I have left, let me build on the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) about the options for renationalisation, which is certainly something that I believe we should look into. However, this challenge goes way beyond Royal Mail. We now have a problem across our economy with unaccountable, regulated monopolies that simply do not work. If you speak to Ofcom—I may be the only person here who has some sympathy with Ofcom’s position—it will tell you that Royal Mail, like so many other regulated monopolies, such as the water companies, is in financial distress. We cannot use fines as a way to stop those companies being in financial distress, but we still need to produce an incentive for them to improve their behaviour. I urge the Government to consider more innovative ways than just using the fines and the regulatory model to incentivise better behaviour. For example, they should be looking at using—
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for initiating the debate, and, in particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for his incredibly thoughtful speech. I am not going to get political about this, but our position for ages has been that we should renationalise Royal Mail.
When I read that Royal Mail would be delivering second-class mail only every second weekday, I misread it as, “Royal Mail will be delivering second-class mail every second weekend.” I thought, “Oh, thank goodness! My constituents in Bridge of Don will be getting a better service than the one that they currently receive,” because every second weekend would be significantly better than what they are getting now.
I have visited the delivery offices in my constituency. There is Bridge of Don, there is Mastrick and there is Kittybrewster. I think there is a benefit in living in Scotland in this regard, because the central comms people do not come to these meetings, so I get honesty from the posties. I am wondering what happens when I send a letter, or rather an email, to Royal Mail—there is no point in sending a letter—saying, “Mrs Goggins is having an issue with her mail delivery. She lives in Bridge of Don. Here is her address.” Does Royal Mail Central actually contact the delivery office and say, “Mrs Goggins is having a problem. Please reply and let us know what is happening”? Or does Royal Mail just send me an email back saying, “Everything is fine, it is all great, don't worry,” without actually speaking to the delivery office?
The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about not having all the answers. Well, I will tell the House who has most of the answers: the posties. The posties know what changes need to be made. I went to one of my local delivery offices, and the staff were talking about the design of the cages and the design of the routes. They had asked Royal Mail whether they could change some of the routes and cages. Royal Mail took months to get back to them, but it turned out that they were not allowed to change the design of the cages—they were dangerous, with things falling off them—without the say-so of Royal Mail. It is an incredibly top-down organisation. The posties know how to fix this. The posties know how to improve their routes. They are making these cases to Royal Mail Central, who come back to them with, “I know that that street is off this street, but we are going to keep it on the other route, just because we are in charge and it may look quite good on Google Maps.” I do not understand why Royal Mail is not listening to the posties, who know exactly what they are doing and who know how to improve the routes.
As hon. Members have said, the issue is that Royal Mail’s leadership are trying to asset strip the organisation. It feels like they are not trying to improve the service. They do not care about improving the service; they just care about improving profits. We have been fighting on behalf of our constituents, but we have also been fighting on behalf of the posties, who are not being listened to and who feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall.
It is not just about NHS letters, although one constituent got in touch to say that they had not received any mail between 23 September and 14 October. They got nine letters, seven of which were NHS letters, and they have been put at the bottom of a waiting list because they missed their appointment. I can tell which letters are NHS letters when they come through my door or when I see them at the sorting office. I know which ones they are, as do the posties, but they are not allowed to take them out and ensure that they are being put at the top of the priority list.
Dame Meg Hillier
NHS letters have come up a lot, and we are letting Royal Mail off the hook if we say that it is okay to prioritise them. That is a workaround for a failed service, and many other letters are important but, for various reasons, will not be branded. Benefits letters, for example, are often anonymous, and sometimes even health letters can be private. Does the hon. Lady have anything to say about that?
Kirsty Blackman
The workaround on barcodes, for example, works only in some areas, and some of the health boards cannot use that workaround. It is absolutely a workaround; it does not ensure that we have a universal service obligation or that the postal service, which people rely on, is actually working.
I do not know about the offices of other MPs, but my office often needs to get people’s wet signatures. Organisations such as UK Visas and Immigration or local councils will require us to get someone to sign a form, and many times we have posted that form to people but they have not got it. What are we supposed to do if people do not have a printer at home? A lot of people do not, understandably. If somebody, particularly in the Bridge of Don, does not have a printer at home and we post them a form, they will not get the letter. How can they get a democratic service, or get us to raise a complaint with the city council on their behalf, if they are not getting the letter?
We have had too many by-elections this year, and a number of people in Aberdeen told us that they did not get their postal votes—they did not arrive. In a council by-election, it is hard enough to get people to vote, but when someone does not get their postal vote, they just say, “I won’t bother.” People are missing out on the democratic process because of the failure of Royal Mail, which cannot even prioritise those letters. I do not understand how Royal Mail can repeatedly say to each one of us, “Everything is fine,” or “We’re working on improvements,” when this is an absolute disaster.
The post is a lifeline. It is a really important public service, and we need Royal Mail and Ofcom to step up, but we need the Government to put on as much pressure as possible to ensure they do.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I could list all the issues that my constituents have raised about this issue, but we would be here all night. I concur with a lot of other Members, and I will give some examples.
We have a shortage of posties, so I am doing what I can to encourage young people to join the postal service, but clearly I am not going to solve that problem on my own. When I met Royal Mail’s leadership, they said to me, “Don’t worry—in one week, you’ll get a Monday, Wednesday and Friday delivery, and the next week it’s a Tuesday and Thursday delivery,” as though that is somehow okay. That is how the system operates in theory, but a constituent applied for a 60+ oyster card that took so long to arrive that they had to buy a monthly pass, costing over £200, while they were waiting. One constituent received divorce papers weeks late, and five constituents reported not receiving their postal vote for a recent by-election. Exactly as colleagues have said, people are just not bothering to vote because the postal vote is so inefficient.
As a canvasser, I panic when I ask someone whether they have voted and they have not posted it yet. If there is only a week to go, I get worried about them putting it in the post. I will start explaining how to go to the polling station to deliver it, and I will see immediately that they lose interest, even if they were going to be around on election day. One constituent nearly lost her home because of delays with their pension administrator sending information backwards and forwards. Letters were not received, and she experienced many delays in getting her pension in place.
I will give a couple of local examples. In Hackney Wick, post was delivered on 23 June, 27 June, 1 July and 9 July, and then nothing until mid-August. In Dalston in my constituency, one resident did not receive any post for three months, and another road had no post for eight days. I could go on with such examples.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
As a London MP, my hon. Friend is describing the experience of my constituents as well. When I go to Royal Mail to try to interrogate its poor performance, it is required only to give performance data on the basis of the first part of the postcode, so poor performance in SE24 is disguised by average figures for the SE postcode area. Does she agree that it would be a step forward in Royal Mail’s accountability if it had to report performance on the delivery office area, rather than the whole district postcode area?
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend saves me from having to repeat exactly the same point. We can all name roads in our constituencies that are not getting post, yet apparently it is being delivered in the wider area. There is one way we can all get our post. Guess what? If someone has a parcel delivered, their post will be delivered the same day, so it is more cost effective for some of us to get small, cheap things delivered and then suddenly receive our mail.
There is a bigger issue: the competitiveness of Royal Mail. Since the new owners took over, they have clearly been chasing the competitive parcel delivery market. We understand that how that would interact with Royal Mail was always going to be a challenge, but they seem to have completely junked the letter service. Other providers, some of which have been named, will send parcels. We can even email them our content, and they can mail merge it and put it in an envelope. Of course, in the end the Royal Mail delivers the last part, but we can do that at a discounted postal rate. The leadership at Royal Mail, which has a universal service obligation and the responsibility for delivering letters during the last stage of the journey, are not thinking ahead of the curve about how they could compete with the companies that are undercutting them. That seems utterly ridiculous.
I turn to the postal staff, because I have a number of constituents who are reluctant to raise their concerns. They want to raise them with me, but they say that they do not want to make a complaint because they like their postie. Who does not trust their postal worker? It is one of the most trusted professions. David Beckham, members of the royal family—although perhaps they do not get their mail delivered directly to their door—and top celebrities all trust our postal workers to deliver our post, and I have no doubt in my mind about their trustworthiness. This is a group of people who take huge pride in their jobs, and as we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), very often postal workers can tell us what the solutions are. Over the years I have interacted with Royal Mail, mostly in London for the past 25 years or so. Often the solution is described locally but not delivered by the central office. The new ownership are degrading our letter service, and if we are not careful, we will go down the path of the Danish service. We cannot lose this service.
There is a big challenge for the Minister. It is easy to talk about nationalisation, but that costs money. It could be that the leadership want to run themselves down so much that the Government step in, but we should not let Royal Mail off the hook. We need solutions, and we need them now.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Royal Mail is a British heritage icon. Bright red post boxes crop up in millions of photographs taken by tourists every year, but what residents describe to me is far short of a postcard picture. This debate is starting to feel like a mass therapy session in which we all share our stories. I thought it was just me, but no, it is absolutely everyone.
Like others, I respect the incredible hard work of the posties and Royal Mail workers in my patch. I have visited the delivery centre in Horsham, and I have seen them at work. It is a hive of activity, and no one is standing still. Despite their energy, like many hon. Members, I have received messages from Royal Mail workers themselves who are distraught that the service they offer is being undermined by factors beyond their control.
Royal Mail wrote to me this month confirming that deliveries in Horsham had been affected by sickness absence and resourcing, that some letter deliveries had been rotated and that it is recruiting for nine vacant posts. It also told me that mail is being taken out six days a week, regular as clockwork. Unfortunately, that simply does not fit the lived experience of residents. They describe post arriving late, all at once or not at all. Yet as recently as August, I understood that the office’s own statistics showed deliveries running satisfactorily and that staffing was adequate. My constituents are living somewhere in the space between these two very contradictory pictures.
One constituent has written to me about going without post, sometimes for more than a month. Her son is medically vulnerable, and she has missed appointments, as have so many others we have heard about tonight. She asks a fair question: why can parcels be prioritised almost instantly, yet not letters? Meanwhile, Roundabout Talking News posts out to its users every Friday morning in bags marked “For The Blind”, but a volunteer told me that she has to visit the sorting office roughly once a month simply to sort out the problems with delivery. Royal Mail tells me it has introduced an NHS-specific barcode at no extra charge to protect NHS letters in times of disruption, but it cannot tell me how many NHS bodies in Horsham use it, because each buys its postal services separately. A safeguard that nobody can measure is not a solution, and it simply wastes valuable clinician time. We have a service designed for a pre-internet, pre-email world, and it must adapt, but it must have support in doing so.
Royal Mail’s own unions point out that, unlike other European countries, the UK does not subsidise the universal service. The regulator Ofcom now proposes to hold the second-class mail price cap for a further year. So I ask the Minister an honest question: does she think it is possible to run a universal service without any kind of Government support?
In my previous career I worked in advertising in Ireland, and the Irish Post Office, An Post, was one of my big clients. It was plain then, 20 years ago, where we were headed, and it is where we have arrived today. There is a fundamental challenge to the business model, and we have not yet solved it. I thought the words of the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) were very interesting on the various options that have been considered. That is the conversation we need to have, because the way we are going is not working. It feels as though we are seeing managed decline, and not very well managed at that. This is serving no one—not the residents, not the posties. Either we say we care enough to help this service, or we finally admit that we do not.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate. I will refer to a few things related to work done on the Scottish Affairs Committee, as well as briefly talk about the situation in my own constituency.
In June last year, our Committee looked at the work of Royal Mail, particularly the importance of the universal postal service to remote rural and island communities. We heard from Consumer Scotland, the Federation of Small Businesses, Ofcom and Royal Mail itself. The Committee heard how delays in the postal service can have particularly serious knock-on consequences for people in those communities. An appointment letter arriving late can leave someone without enough time to arrange transport to hospital, and that is often inter-island travel to hospital, and that can cause them to miss their appointment altogether. In an age when public services are increasingly accessed online, the postal service none the less remains essential for many Scots, because often our broadband connectivity and sometimes our digital skills can be limited.
We also heard how much people value their local postie, particularly where older residents in remote places have little other daily contact.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The hon. Member has just described a village in my constituency called Kentisbeare. Royal Mail threatened to sack or rather move the postie to a different walk, and the village petitioned to maintain the postie on the same walk. Does she recognise that these postal workers do fantastic work and are crucial in communities for maintaining people’s wellbeing?
Patricia Ferguson
The hon. Member is absolutely right about that. As we have heard, if we are to make improvements, we really need to listen to the people who are doing the job on the frontline.
For Scotland’s rural and less well connected communities, the universal service promise of one price to every address is especially important, as many other couriers impose varying levels of delivery surcharge, which are often extremely high in these communities.
The latest published UK figures for the first quarter of this financial year show that 85% of first-class mail arrived the next working day against a target of 90%, and 91% of second-class mail arrived within three working days against a target of 95%. However, the figures for Scotland show why these UK-wide averages cannot be the only measure. In the same quarter just 54% of stamped and metered first-class mail reached the Outer Hebrides the next working day and the figure for Lerwick in Shetland was only 25%, so we cannot rely on these averages as a measure.
There are real challenges in reaching the islands, including weather and transport connections, but the postcode areas covering these islands also remain exempt from the additional local first-class performance targets applied elsewhere. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government’s work with Royal Mail will include regular reporting on whether Scotland’s rural and remote areas are benefiting. That should cover second-class deliveries as well as first-class post.
I would also welcome an update on a practical issue. As we have heard, Royal Mail told the Committee about its NHS barcode, which is intended to help prioritise health letters. Royal Mail subsequently confirmed to us that uptake depended on individual NHS boards. It expects NHS boards to obtain new envelopes with those barcodes on. How widely are those barcodes being used across Scotland? Are they helping patients to receive their letters in time? My experience and that of my colleagues suggests not.
Our Committee’s inquiry was based on rural and remote communities, but the issues are remarkably similar in my own very urban constituency. We have heard about those problems today, such as people not receiving birthday cards or important appointment letters from the NHS. I frequently hear from constituents about long periods—10 days, 14 days, sometimes a month—where they receive no mail and perhaps only know about a hospital appointment because the hospital called to confirm it or because they subsequently found out that they had missed an appointment.
Having visited a nearby sorting office over the summer, I was struck by the physical restrictions of many sorting offices. These offices were often built for a letter service, but they are now struggling to deal with the physical size of parcels. One postie told me that he had been expected to deliver car tyres that had been ordered online. That suggests to me that there are serious questions about the health and safety of our posties in these sorting offices, and the conditions in which they are being expected to work. Royal Mail must consider the situation of its staff and its customers.
I support the motion’s call for the Government to work with Royal Mail to improve performance and to ensure a reliable service for all of Scotland’s communities. I hope that the Government will be creative when considering the way forward and will not rule out looking at issues such as those raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), because they are at least worth examining.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of support from the trade unions. We have come to something with Royal Mail when the surest way of getting a letter delivered on time is by putting it inside a parcel, but that is the sorry situation we face. What a place to be in with this fantastic national British institution.
For years now, residents across my constituency have been contacting me about issues, and we have discussed things with the staff at the sorting offices, working closely with the CWU and the workforce. The situation we are seeing at the Royal Mail is undoubtedly a deliberate ploy to end the universal service obligation. If things are not halted and the private company is not reined in, we will probably see the end of the Royal Mail.
Like most other speakers, I pay tribute to the staff and the posties who have done a fantastic job. Did the posties not carry on through covid? These are fantastic public sector workers who at one time were so proud of being posties. That is not there any more. It has been bashed out of them.
I recognise that there are time constraints in this debate, but I will mention some of the issues facing my constituents. It is horrendous—it is chaos. We have hospital appointments being missed. We have medical correspondence being missed and delayed. We have financial hardship being caused by late bills and official documents not being received. We have postal votes for democratic elections not being received, and vulnerable residents left anxious and frustrated as they wait for important communications. We have an elderly man who received a fine of £600 because of a traffic incident; he was accused of not returning the letter, despite the fact that he had.
It is not just about receiving correspondence; it is about sending it. I am going to say something pretty coarse, but I make no apologies, because it is important. I had an individual who was taking his well man test; he sent a poo sample to the hospital, as you do. Weeks later, he got a letter from the doctor saying, “Sorry, can you do it again? Your sample lay in the sorting office for far too long.” For heaven’s sake, that is coarse, but it is the sort of thing that we are facing. I can see the grimace on Madam Deputy Speaker’s face, and she is right! It is horrendous to think that this is the case. We have got to look at it.
What about the people who are waiting anxiously by the letterbox for results of tests for cancer or other medical problems? What about the people waiting for their passports to go on holiday? It cannot continue. It is important to recognise that the speeches in this debate have been broadly in line with each other, apart from those Lib Dems who say that Ofcom should have more powers and will not accept that—perhaps, perhaps—the renationalisation of Royal Mail is the answer.
The postal service is not a luxury; it is an essential, critical public service. It should exist to serve the public interest, not simply the interests of the market. If private ownership cannot deliver the reliable universal service that people have every right to expect, then the Government must be prepared to act. I want the second option proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones): renationalise the Royal Mail and see how it develops. The message today is simple: the excuses and broken promises must stop; the services must be fixed; and if Royal Mail cannot fix them, we should give the public the opportunity to run it properly once again.
I am sure that I am not the only Member who received an email this morning from, I think, the director of communications at Royal Mail, telling me how things are going to be better tomorrow. I have met with directors of communications—regionally, nationally, next door—who promised the world and, as is typical for Royal Mail, did not deliver. When I have met them, they have all been genuinely decent people, but they have not had any grip on or understanding of exactly what is happening in Royal Mail itself.
I believe the hard-working posties; I believe the people who have been committed to that employment for a lifetime. Royal Mail was established over 400 years ago, and we need to ensure that it continues for another 400 years—perhaps with nationalisation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have had a few people withdraw, so we have a few more minutes on the clock; Back-Bench MPs now have six minutes. I call Sadik Al-Hassan.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
The performance of Royal Mail is a matter of serious concern across North Somerset, where delivery failures are having real consequences for residents and businesses alike.
The problem is long standing in my constituency. In February, following a steady flow of correspondence, I launched a survey asking constituents about their experiences. I have worked constructively with local CWU representatives ever since to understand the pressures that Royal Mail faces and find practical solutions, and I am grateful for their engagement. Earlier this year, I also hosted a town hall, which made the issue painfully clear when many of my constituents received their invitations by post only after the event had taken place—three weeks after I had sent them out.
That is part of a wider pattern of delays eroding confidence in postal services across North Somerset, with Portishead and Nailsea particularly affected. The results of my survey are stark. Some 87% of respondents reported experiencing delays, with nearly half having waited between one and two weeks beyond the expected delivery date to receive a letter.
In September, I visited the Portishead delivery office and heard the voices of our amazing posties and CWU representatives. It is clear that Royal Mail is going through significant change as parcel volumes grow and the nature of the service evolves, and our posties are being asked to bridge structural problems that are not of their making. Locally, the service is also struggling with high vacancy levels. Across Bristol and North Somerset, staff shortages are preventing Royal Mail from delivering a business-as-usual service.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will appreciate that my constituency is some way from North Somerset. He will also appreciate that as a new town, Harlow has an intricate system of numbering houses on our estates, which means that having a regular postie who covers an estate on a regular basis is really important. Does he agree that when we lose posties in the way he describes, we also lose their experience of getting around an estate effectively, which adds to the increased challenges facing the postal service?
Sadik Al-Hassan
I have to agree with my hon. Friend, who is, as I hear often in the Chamber, a fantastic advocate for Harlow.
Royal Mail’s staff shortages expose the shortcomings of its new delivery model and the two-tier pay systems that are affecting retention, and help to explain—but not excuse—the delays that my residents are experiencing. We need a system that gives staff the time, resources and support to deliver reliably. That means enough workers, proper support for new starters, enough vans and hours, and delivery models that actually work in practice.
Although I would like to see tougher penalties when Royal Mail fails to meet its delivery targets, the fines issued by Ofcom have clearly not prompted change. This is not about faulting postal workers, who work amazingly hard; it is about holding the company accountable for a service that the public still rely on so heavily.
We cannot accept the current standard of service. Some 53% of respondents in my survey said that delayed deliveries had caused them to miss appointments or deadlines. As a pharmacist, I am particularly concerned about health consequences, as late letters increase the risk of missed appointments and put added strain on our NHS. For some people, a late letter is not simply an inconvenience—it is a health risk. Some steps that would make a real difference without placing undue burden on postal workers include notifying businesses when deliveries will not be made and providing for collection in exceptional circumstances.
Our posties are pillars of our community, working tirelessly in all weathers to deliver a vital service. I want to be clear that my concern is with the systemic problems in the postal system and not the amazing, dedicated individuals who deliver it.
I will continue working with local CWU representatives. Royal Mail must communicate better when deliveries cannot be made, consider local collection options and keep addressing the operational pressures behind these delays.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for the work they have done on this issue over many months.
On 11 September this year, my constituents Helen and Joe lost their bank cards in Coatbridge town centre. They promptly cancelled their credit and debit cards, requested new ones and were told that they would receive them within three to five days. More than three weeks later, they had not received anything. They went down to their local sorting office to find not only their four bank cards undelivered but no less than 22 other pieces of mail. They collected them and returned a week later to see if there was anything else. There were 11 pieces of mail undelivered.
When they asked the sorting office for an explanation, they were told that parcels get priority. It seems that first-class letters, which should be delivered the next day, are not arriving for up to five days, and some second-class letters are not being delivered at all. Along with Helen and Joe, dozens of constituents have been in touch with me to say that they have missed interviews and failed to receive bank and other financial letters as well as legal documents due to the systemic issues.
Critical hospital appointments have also been missed, as has been a theme of the debate. Some of my constituents have waited months or years for critical treatment only for the appointment letter to fail to arrive in time. In Scotland, 30,000 people have been waiting over a year for critical NHS treatment. Imagine the stress they would feel to discover that they have missed a letter telling them that they have an appointment on a specific day. This is really consequential for people in my constituency. I have heard from local businesses who have missed payments or had payments delayed because they have not received documents in the post on time.
It is clear that we cannot go on like this. My constituents deserve better, and so do our postal workers. Over the last year, I visited Royal Mail delivery offices in Coatbridge and Bellshill and witnessed the excellent efforts of the dedicated staff there. Our posties are pounding the streets day in, day out in all conditions. The very least that they deserve is for those at the top of Royal Mail to get their bit right.
Earlier this year I met with the CWU to hear of the issues that their members are facing. They spoke of the two-tier employment of Royal Mail workers. While Royal Mail has committed to equalising terms and conditions for employees hired post 2022, full equalisation has been left to the ongoing review due to Royal Mail’s claims that it cannot afford it—that is in the context of the company making operating profits of £294 million in the last two years.
We know that there is a high staff turnover in the business. Indeed, since 2022 across the country half of new Royal Mail workers left the organisation within a year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) has said. Such turmoil in workplace terms and conditions has serious consequences for staff morale.
I met with the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), to raise these issues, and I want to place on record my thanks to him for all his work in his area. I also thank the Minister for her attention to these matters.
I know that, like me, colleagues have taken their concerns directly to the chief executive of Ofcom, Dame Melanie Dawes. When she wrote back to me in March, she told me of Ofcom’s work calling on Royal Mail to publish a credible plan to improve quality and restore consumer confidence. That plan was published in April, with Royal Mail promising that it will meet Ofcom’s delivery targets by next April. That is far too slow. More so-called plans mean nothing to constituents like Helen and Joe, or the many others who have contacted me in recent months about missed mail, if they do not produce better outcomes.
It is critical that Royal Mail gives evidence to MPs and engages fully in the upcoming summit. It is also important that Ofcom and the Government use all the powers that they have to make this service better for our constituents. The service is simply not good enough, and urgent action is required.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), and many other hon. Members across the House, for their work on this matter. My constituents in Southend West and Leigh, like those of so many other hon. Members, have been rightfully disappointed in the service provided by Royal Mail. I concur with much of what I have heard.
Southend was the original pilot area for the optimised delivery model, so we have been experiencing these issues locally for well over a year. It was deeply concerning that the clear indications that the ODM was not working in Southend did not prevent it from being rolled out nationwide. It is increasingly frustrating for my constituents, who feel that they are not getting the service they are paying for. For many people, the poor service has been not just inconvenient but disastrous, and we have heard many stories tonight about how it has been replicated across the country.
NHS letters are not the only urgent post not being delivered. One constituent lost a job opportunity when a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate failed to arrive in time and another man, who was terminally ill, experienced unacceptable delays in receiving the paperwork he had requested to arrange his own funeral. I heard many such stories at a public meeting I held back in April, which gave residents the chance to put their concerns directly to Royal Mail’s regional management. Improvement was promised at the meeting, but guess what? It never came.
In July, I held a consultation, which received 122 responses in just a couple of days. I am sorry to say that the feedback was overwhelmingly negative. Of those 122, 102 said that they were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the postal service. Only one person considered the current standard of service acceptable.
Throughout this time, I have regularly met the CWU—the union that represents postal workers—and heard from it that postal workers in my constituency have been overworked, under immense pressure and unhappy with the standard of service they have been able to provide. They are equally unhappy at the massive variations between the old and new contracts, but I do not have time to talk about that.
I was heartened to hear—a bit of positivity—that after a visit in August, having requested my fourth visit to the depot, Southend sorting office, in partnership with CWU reps, was ready to trial a new system that would rebalance the round loads and help reinforce the local link between the postie and their area in an amendment to DM26 that is about to be rolled out. Posties are much more efficient when they know the layout of their rounds, so it is clearly not rocket science to have them on a dedicated round.
The trial took place in Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency. A month later, I was glad to visit the sorting office again and see the racks empty—but this time the CWU assured me that things had worked well and that, in that particular round, they were back in control. As of 19 October, the new system has been rolled out across our whole sorting office area. I will be keeping a watching brief, but it is showing real positive signs. I hope that those at Royal Mail will look at the success of the local pilot and roll it out across the rest of the country. If it is working, why would they not?
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Member share my concern that Royal Mail bosses do not seem to want to improve the service? So many of my constituents are no longer posting anything because they do not believe that it is ever going to get there—the lack of service means that lots of people are turning away from the postal service completely. Does he feel that if Royal Mail continues down the route of putting DM26 in place without the amendments, people will give up on Royal Mail entirely and we will risk losing it totally?
David Burton-Sampson
I share those concerns. We have heard from Members across the House tonight that many people feel that Royal Mail is putting the service into a managed decline. We have to fight against that. The service is vital across the country, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that we do not lose it. Royal Mail has let people down for far too long, and it needs to work at speed to get things back on track.
It was great to see the Government’s announcement in September about cracking down on bogus self-employment. That is rightly a priority for the CWU. Delivery companies undercutting Royal Mail’s prices by mislabelling staff as self-employed to avoid statutory obligations—shifting costs on to workers so that nothing is covered—is unacceptable. Those companies do not cover sick pay, employer national insurance contributions, holidays or even the petrol used for deliveries. We do not want to see Royal Mail dragged down to that level. Our Government want everyone to enjoy security in their employment.
Chris Vince
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) also mentioned the inconsistency when it comes to Royal Mail staff contracts, and Royal Mail staff in my Harlow constituency are very concerned. Will my hon. Friend touch on what needs to change?
David Burton-Sampson
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. The CWU, too, is deeply concerned about the differences in contracts, and it is working with Royal Mail towards contract harmonisation. Royal Mail has shown some desire to move towards that, but, like many others, I am concerned about the speed with which that will happen—and whether it will happen at all.
Royal Mail faces challenges on several levels. Through better employment practices, a more efficient delivery model and, most importantly, listening to their posties, the unions and residents, I am hopeful that for the first time in a while, there is a possible route to improvement in Southend. I thank Ministers, past and present, for working with me and other Members across the House on the issue and for the continued focus on holding Royal Mail to account. I will continue to work on this issue as hard as I can to ensure that my residents are getting the service that they are paying for and, to speak frankly, the service that is absolutely essential to so many.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
On behalf of my residents across Wolverhampton North East, I put on record our sheer frustration and disappointment about the delayed post. One constituent, Terry, told me that he received letters six weeks late and that 48-hour mail was delivered over a month late. Residents are frustrated that a service they have relied on for decades is no longer delivering the reliability that they expect. Vital correspondence, such as NHS appointment letters, is arriving too late, and delays to letters relied on for finances, such as bank cards, are causing anxiety. Residents deserve a postal service they can rely on.
This situation is the fault not of posties and frontline workers, who are bearing the brunt, but of the decisions made by the bosses, who need to be held accountable. Recently, I visited Royal Mail’s Sun Street delivery office alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss). We saw some incredibly hard-working staff, but we also heard about the growing use of the five-day economy service by large organisations, including the NHS, banks and utility companies. That means that letters are being held and delivered together through residents’ letterboxes in large batches. That does not explain every delay, and it must not become an excuse for failing to deliver the service that people deserve. Residents need honest answers about what is going wrong and what is being done to put it right. Our posties, sorting staff and frontline workers must not be made the scapegoat. They work hard, often under immense pressure, to serve our communities.
The CWU has raised concerns about bogus self-employment in the wider parcel delivery sector, where some companies can cut costs while workers lose out on employment protections. We need a level playing field where companies compete on service and reliability, not by driving down workers’ rights. I welcome the Government’s consultation on employment status reform, but we need robust rules and effective enforcement to ensure that these protections mean something in practice. Royal Mail management must also take responsibility, and I will continue to work closely with local CWU reps and staff across the delivery and sorting offices to monitor performance, support our workforce and challenge management to deliver improvements.
Our postal service matters to every community, and I have heard that from across the House tonight. I ask the Minister a simple question: when residents are let down and frontline workers are under pressure, is this not yet another example of the failures of privatisation, and what will the Government do to ensure that the public interest comes first?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing the debate and on their valiant campaigning in this area. Since my election, constituents across Basingstoke and the villages I represent have contacted me with stories similar to those we have heard from many hon. Members—stories in which residents, businesses and public services have been affected.
One constituent reported no letter deliveries to their road for over two weeks and items not delivered, including, as many others have said, a hospital appointment letter and a credit card. Another constituent reported that some Basingstoke postcodes were experiencing gaps of between 11 days and some weeks between deliveries. Another constituent informed us that they had only received two deliveries in a month, with first-class items taking up to two weeks to arrive. They also raised concerns about Royal Mail’s complaints handling, which we have now raised with Ofcom’s as the regulatory oversight body, alongside those concerns about local delivery delays.
As many other Members have said, this is not a trivial issue. Earlier today, I received an email from a constituent in Oakley, a village that I represent. In his words,
“Residents in the village are not receiving their post in a timely manner—not receiving doctor’s appointments, HMRC tax details, documents from the DVLA about road tax, bank and credit card statements. This is a total disgrace.”
I know that Members across the House agree. Indeed, he highlighted the fact that he recently purchased a new car but had to wait over 10 days because the document he needed was sat in the sorting office.
As many other Members have said, this situation is not the fault of our posties locally or across the country, who work exceptionally hard to get mail out to residents. They see themselves, rightly, as an important public service, and they—more than anyone—want Royal Mail to succeed. It is clear that what constituents in Basingstoke are experiencing is not a mere local blip, but part of a consistent national pattern that includes missed targets on first-class and second-class deliveries, and an estimated 220 million letters delivered late every year, according to Ofcom, which has fined Royal Mail £5.6 million for its performance in 2022-23, £10.5 million for 2023-24 and £21 million for 2024-25—successive years of failure. In June, Ofcom opened a fourth consecutive investigation, this time into performance during 2025-26.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for talking about the statistics—it is really important to do that. I am concerned, though, that the statistics, particularly those provided by Royal Mail, are deeply inaccurate. My constituents say they are not getting mail for three weeks at a time very regularly, but Royal Mail has come back to me and said, “Everything’s pretty fine—don’t worry about it.” Is he concerned that Ofcom might not even know the full breadth of the issue, particularly as we have heard Members from Aberdeen, from the Western Isles and from Devon all raising the same issue? It is clearly happening everywhere.
Luke Murphy
Indeed, I was going to say that I would like to see the Government press Ofcom and Royal Mail to deliver much more granular data on delivery targets. That is really important, because the national performance —woeful as it is—does not represent the even worse performance that we are seeing locally. Indeed, Royal Mail has been set lower targets nationally, but it is not even meeting them. And behind these figures and statistics are the streets and lanes, like those in my constituency, where the post simply does not come. Members across this House recognise this; it is a cross-party concern about a service that the whole country depends on. The Communication Workers Union has highlighted this over and again: persistent delivery failures; a growing recruitment and retention crisis; and an unevenly regulated postal market which threatens the future of the universal service that we have heard so many Members speak about so passionately tonight.
Royal Mail has told all of us, I think, that it recognises the problem and is committed and is making promises for change but, frankly, all of us in this House and my constituents have heard these promises before. The test of any plan will not be what it says on paper; it will be whether hospital letters start to arrive before appointments.
I welcome the Government’s clear stance in response. Ministers have told Royal Mail’s leadership that its service has been unacceptable for too long and the pace of improvement must increase. The public deserve a reliable postal service and are right to expect better, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to keep holding Royal Mail to account. I hope the Minister will continue applying that pressure. In particular, I hope she will consider whether Ofcom is currently really up to the job of regulating Royal Mail and look closely at how Royal Mail handles complaints. As many Members have said this evening, our constituents find the way in which it deals with those complaints totally inadequate. The Government must also press for greater transparency on local performance, as we have just discussed, and look seriously at the recommendations of the Business and Trade Committee’s May 2026 report on the regulation of postal services and the proposals, as other Members have mentioned, from the CWU, including on a level playing field for the sector, a new regulatory framework and building on the Government’s golden share.
Royal Mail remains a vital national institution providing an essential universal service. We all have a stake in ensuring it succeeds, not least my constituents in Basingstoke, who have every right to expect better.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for their steadfast work on this issue.
Ahead of today’s debate, my team and I spoke to Zoe from Hednesford—not by letter, of course, because it would probably still be on its way. Zoe told me that her parents rely on post for important correspondence such as, as we have heard from many hon. Members, hospital appointments, particularly for their daughter Emily, yet they often go weeks on end with nothing at all. Emily was diagnosed with a very long list of long-term health conditions. Because of the lack of post, Emily missed extremely important medical appointments on many occasions. As we know, missed appointments are a big drain on NHS resources, from GPs right through to hospitals.
There has also been a direct financial consequence for Zoe’s parents, who received a parking fine that would have been £60 if paid within 14 days. However, because the correspondence was not received, they were unaware of the deadline so ended up having to pay the full £100.
Zoe’s sister Emily has, very sadly, passed away since her family first got in touch with me, and I want to place on record my condolences to Zoe and her whole family. Sadly, stories like theirs are not unusual in Cannock Chase. I have heard from constituents who have missed court information and jury duty and have had Christmas cards arriving in January. My constituent, Julian, told me that he had to collect his post from the sorting office in Rugeley after receiving nothing whatever in July, and found 16 letters waiting for him.
I hear time and again from my constituents, particularly in Rugeley and Brereton—WS15 in Royal Mail-speak—that they are getting a month’s-worth of letters shoved through their door in one go. So to get emails from Royal Mail’s public affairs team like the one we had this morning that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred to, telling us that things are going swimmingly in most of the country is, frankly, galling. I invite them to come to Cannock Chase and speak to the people I represent if they want to really find out how the service is doing.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My constituency covers city and rural areas, and the villages I represent have the greatest problem with getting regular deliveries, and elderly constituents there who cannot rely on email are really struggling. Villages like Tean, Swynnerton, Oulton and Fulford must get the support they need, and it is interesting that you are experiencing the same issues in Staffordshire.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am not experiencing these issues—well, obviously my constituency is, but I am talking about this debate—so I ask Members not to say “You” or “Yours” please.
Josh Newbury
I know that the Rugeley sorting office does not cover your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, or my hon. Friend’s constituency, but the story she tells about the particular difficulties of the service experienced by her rural constituents is echoed in my constituency. On Saturday, I held a coffee morning in Prospect Village, quite an isolated rural village, and I heard exactly the same concerns, so I am completely with her on that.
A constituent of mine—I will keep them anonymous because I do not want to put them in a difficult position—has shared with me some of the things that are happening to postal workers locally. I am told that overtime is rarely permitted, meaning that when a postie cannot finish their round, some of the post inevitably has to go back to the sorting office, where it builds up. Some workers are now doing what two postal workers would previously have done, with tracked parcels and first-class post taking priority. That inevitably raises questions about what is realistically expected of staff, and what happens to the letters that have to be left behind.
I am told that new recruits are being sent out alone very quickly, moved between unfamiliar rounds and put under pressure to meet targets, sometimes facing managerial meetings when they fall short. That is a considerable ask for someone who is still learning the job. In the past, new posties would spend months learning alongside experienced colleagues before being expected to manage a round independently. Many new starters leave within a short time, and I am told that the way some staff are spoken to by managers is completely unacceptable, with conversations that should be about helping people to improve instead leaving them feeling belittled or intimidated. I have heard stories of multiple managers waiting for posties to finish their rounds, only to tell them that they are too slow, even after they have faced wind and rain, or got held up by uncontrollable things like roadworks or livestock on country lanes.
Knowing a round takes time. Knowing that community, spotting when members of the public might need help and taking pride in getting the job done are all part of what made our postal service the envy of the world, and worthy of its royal moniker. What particularly struck me was my constituent’s description of postal workers as a tight-knit group who continue to look out for one another and pull together. That sense of solidarity is clearly still there, but it is being strained to breaking point by the pressure from management that workers describe and by the uncertainty around hours and rounds. I am also told that trade union reps are struggling to keep up with the number of staff seeking their help, such are the difficulties in many sorting offices.
Fixing the issues Royal Mail faces is far from straight forward. A lot needs to change, but that change has to work for the people delivering the post and those waiting for it at home. Given what all of us in this House are hearing, it falls to us to ask whether we are even on the right track. The consensus tonight is a resounding no. Royal Mail execs should meet with us here in Parliament, explain what is going wrong and set out what they will do to put it right. Our constituents deserve more than apologies and hollow promises. They deserve a reliable service and we need to see meaningful action, right now, to make that happen.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In the summer of 1914, as Britain was on the brink of war, Mr Asquith, 62, the Prime Minister, was having an affair with Venetia Stanley, 26. They wrote several letters to each other each day, for there were multiple postal deliveries daily, at a cost of 1d each, the equivalent of 62p today, although as we all know the cost of a first-class letter is now £1.80. Asquith sensibly destroyed the letters, but his letters to Venetia Stanley—all 300,000 words—were retained. When the writer Robert Harris wrote the novel “Precipice”, he invented her letters and used Asquith’s originals. That was an amazing work of a novelist’s imagination, for as we all know letters tell magical stories.
We have heard many passionate contributions. I will call out particularly the amazing contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who is no longer in his seat. We have learned that times have certainly changed for this essential service.
From Beyton to Stanton and from Honington to Rattlesden, villages across my constituency have one thing in common: a completely unreliable service. As we have heard, constituents are missing hospital appointments, bank correspondence and other important communications. Does the Minister agree that that is simply unacceptable? I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is also no longer in his seat, that the solution to this issue is to renationalise the service.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the unenviable task of following my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley).
When I talk to my constituents, they regularly tell me that Royal Mail is failing them, and I know that the Minister, my constituency neighbour, will have heard the same complaints. The issue comes up in surgeries and when we knock on doors, and when letters eventually arrive at my constituency office, it comes up in them too. In a world where we expect things to improve, our postal service is going backwards. That creates anxiety, as people miss bills and NHS appointments, and it pushes people further apart when a postcard from a loved one is lost or a birthday message arrives late.
I know that the Minister shares the frustration and is working hard to turn things around. She understands, as I do, that places such as Calderdale often feel the consequences of those failures first. Over the last decade, people in towns and villages such as ours have seen the steady erosion of services that they once took for granted. We have seen that with our buses, banking, department stores and high streets, and people increasingly see it in Royal Mail.
Calder Valley does not have a single urban centre; it is a network of towns and villages that stretches from Todmorden and Hebden Bridge through Mytholmroyd, Elland, Ryburn and Brighouse and all the way to Rastrick. When organisations start cutting costs, communities such as ours are among the first to feel the consequences, and it is communities such as ours that often feel the most isolated. My older constituents are more likely to rely on the postal service; it is how many of them hear from their hospitals, the DWP, their bank and the local council. While the digitisation of public services has brought a huge benefit, it cannot come at the expense of those who cannot get online. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and the most likely to be affected when post does not arrive on time. A missed hospital appointment, an unpaid bill and interrupted energy supplies can have serious consequences through no fault of their own.
What happened to Royal Mail is the story of a failed ideological experiment. For years, we were told that privatisation and market discipline would drive up standards and drive down costs. Instead, my constituents have watched services deteriorate while accountability has become harder to find. There is no real market; my constituents cannot shop around for someone else to deliver their appointment letter or switch providers because their pension statement arrived two weeks late. Like the water industry, it is a service that people depend on but have no choice over. That is why it is so frustrating.
This is not just another company; Royal Mail is part of the fabric of this country. Its origins can be traced back to the 16th century. It maintains our iconic red post boxes and the local postmen, who we all value, but in recent years Royal Mail has been treated like a commercial asset, rather than a public service. The Opposition spent years picking through some of our most valued institutions in the hope of making a quick buck, with an ideological trust in the market without properly considering the long-term consequences.
My constituents are looking for evidence that things are changing. Life is stressful enough, and we should not have to worry about whether an important letter will show up on time. I welcome the determination that the Minister has shown in holding Royal Mail to account and tackling the legacy that we have inherited, but the truth is that for far too many people in Calder Valley, things are still not good enough.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Andrew Ranger to make the final Back-Bench contribution. Other Back Benchers who have contributed to the debate should make their way back to the Chamber.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Like colleagues from across the House, my constituents have been telling me for months and months now—in casework emails, in surgeries, on street stalls and everywhere else you can think of—that the service they rely on is no longer the one they used to have. As has been mentioned many times, residents report important letters arriving weeks late, hospital appointments being missed, financial documents turning up long after they were needed, and businesses struggling with uncertainty over deliveries.
For communities such as Wrexham, this is not simply an inconvenience; it is a matter of fairness, connectivity and trust in a public service. While many people have embraced digital communication, not everyone can. Elderly residents, vulnerable individuals, rural households and those without reliable digital access continue to depend on the arrival of letters through the door.
Kirsty Blackman
On missed deliveries, and I suppose their emotional cost, the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), asked the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) about the resource cost for Royal Mail. Does the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) agree that the potential cost to the economy of Royal Mail not delivering these letters—the cost to public services, with NHS appointments being missed—could be rediverted in order to fund some of Royal Mail, were it to be renationalised?
Andrew Ranger
The hon. Member makes a really good point. That is definitely something we need to investigate, because it is probably a very valid point.
Postal services remain a lifeline for those who do not have digital connectivity, and any failures disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. As has been acknowledged across the House, Royal Mail is facing difficult circumstances. Letter volumes have fallen dramatically over many years and parcel volumes have grown significantly. That reflects changes across the world. Royal Mail is operating at a loss and faces significant structural challenges.
All that being said, understanding those challenges cannot mean accepting poor service. One of the most concerning issues raised with MPs by postal workers and their representatives is the widespread perception that parcels are increasingly prioritised over letters, and constituents say the same. That is despite assurances to the contrary. I have constituents who see parcels arriving promptly, on time, delivered by Royal Mail when they were supposed to be, but not letters.
Serious workforce concerns are also being reported. As we have heard, there have been retention problems due to changing terms and conditions, reports of 400 postal workers leaving the organisation each week, a culture of intense monitoring and an increasingly difficult working environment. It is clear that Royal Mail cannot provide a high-quality service without a motivated and stable workforce. At the same time, serious questions remain about the long-term sustainability of the current model, in terms of the universal service obligation, the delivery of letters, and the regulatory model.
My constituents and everyone else’s want three simple things: they want their letters delivered on time, they want transparency when things go wrong, and they want accountability from both Royal Mail and the regulator. Too often, MPs are told that performance is improving while residents continue to experience delays. Too often, complaints disappear into automated systems without satisfactory answers, and too often, local concerns are met with generic responses rather than meaningful action.
As has been said, Royal Mail occupies a unique position in our national life. It is not just another company; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic infrastructure, and it remains a public service even though it is a privately owned company. That is why this matters. I urge the Minister to continue engaging with Royal Mail, Ofcom, workforce representatives and consumer groups to develop a long-term vision for postal services. Any future reforms must protect the universal service obligation, while recognising the needs of communities, supporting a sustainable workforce, and ensuring that no part of the country is left with a substandard service. I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on some of the options that he presented about a possible future for Royal Mail.
Our constituents do not expect perfection—they understand that times change and markets evolve—but they do expect that when a letter is posted, it arrives when it should. That is not an unreasonable expectation; it is the foundation of trust in a service that has connected communities for generations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing this very important debate.
As has been highlighted, the post is not a nostalgic luxury. For millions of people it is how the hospital tells them when their appointment is, how the banks send their statements, and how they find out about their benefits. People need to know that their post will arrive on time so that they can go about their lives. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) eloquently put it, it is also about that human connection in a world where we feel disconnected. I am sure that many Members know the impact of a handwritten note, especially to constituents who are having a difficult time or facing difficult issues. It really does make a difference.
We also know, as so many Members have highlighted, that the posties are working hard to get us our post, but Royal Mail is letting them down. I have so many incredible posties, but I would like to give a special shout out to postman Paul. Members would not be surprised to think that Postman Pat had jumped out of the TV and arrived in Tring with Jess the cat in tow, because Paul delivers not only letters and parcels but joy to residents and visitors alike—a special thank you to him.
In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I have Gordon and Evina from Jersey Farm who told me that they had gone 10 days without a single letter—so many Members have highlighted this—and then their postwoman arrived with a bundle of 12 or 13. Among them was an invite to my local surgery which—just as the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) highlighted—had already happened. They had already complained about the postal service. They raised the issue with me too and I continue to raise it, but the problem has not been fixed. It clearly goes on.
Another constituent in Jersey Farm, Irene, had no post for seven days and then 35 items in one go, including a new debit card. She also had to face severe delays in receiving a letter relating to a recent hospital appointment on how to take certain medicines. When people such as Irene and her husband rely on letters about regular medical appointments, there cannot afford to be delays. A constituent in Sandridge said that they are lucky to get one delivery a week—the House has highlighted that, unfortunately, that is quite a good delivery service—and that should not be happening in 2026.
Those are not isolated stories. They are happening up and down the country. Citizens Advice found that over Christmas 16 million people had letters delayed. I cannot remember which Member it was who asked at which Christmas this issue would get sorted out, but it is a very good question. We have 5.7 million people who have suffered serious consequences, including missed health appointments, fines and benefit decisions. A third of people who use Royal Mail recognised exactly what Gordon and Evina described: no post for several weeks and then five or more letters landing at once. The sorry saga of Royal Mail delays has been going on for far too long and people are rightly furious. Royal Mail is simply not delivering the service it is required to provide. It has missed both its first and second-class targets every year since 2021-22. Last year, just 75.7% of first-class letters arrived the next day, against a target of 93%.
The regulator has not got a grip. As the Business and Trade Committee put it:
“Ofcom is failing as the statutory regulator of the postal service”.
It could not even tell Parliament how many letters were arriving late. Instead of holding Royal Mail to account, Ofcom lowered the bar. It cut second-class deliveries to alternate weekdays and relaxed the targets. The Liberal Democrats warned at the time that this was letting Royal Mail off the hook. In the first three months, Royal Mail missed even those lower targets. It now says it will not meet them until April 2027.
Somehow, people are paying more for less. A first-class stamp now costs £1.80. In 2022, it was 95p. That is seven price rises in four years for a service that keeps getting worse. Many have highlighted that parcels are getting delivered but I would also highlight, as someone who ran an online business and whose mother had an online business, that products are also sent in letters. Something that has not been touched on much is the impact this situation is having on small businesses. I know this from first-hand experience. The cost is extortionate and with small margins it is killing a lot of businesses. The terrible service is also killing small businesses, when they have to compete with online services such as Amazon. This is a key service for people and businesses, and they do not need excuses; they need action.
Will the Minister commit herself tonight to consulting on new powers and teeth for Ofcom? Will she ask Royal Mail to publish performance levels for every delivery office, so that residents such as those in Jersey Farm and the many others mentioned by Members can judge for themselves? We must hold Royal Mail’s owners to their promises and fix the frontline. The Government say that they have secured legally binding commitments from EP Group to invest enough to deliver the universal service. When the Minister does meet Royal Mail, will she put the failing delivery officers at the top of the agenda, ensure that the agreements with postal workers are kept, and report back to the House with a timetable?
When post does not arrive, people miss appointments, pay fines that they never knew about, and lose faith that anything works. Christmas, Royal Mail’s busiest time of the year, is only weeks away, so this must be sorted out before then—but we all know that it will not be, and we will keep standing up for residents until it is.
Let me again thank all our wonderful posties who will be working so hard to deliver. We must ensure that Royal Mail does not let them or our local residents down.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), my constituency neighbour, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I know feels strongly and passionately about this issue. Indeed, we have spoken many times outside the Chamber about our mutual woes over the lack of performance on the part of Royal Mail.
We are all aware of the importance of a reliable postal service. It keeps isolated and digitally excluded people connected, sustains relationships between loved ones during special times, and serves as the foundational communication network for vital public services such as the NHS. Hearing Members on both sides of the House speak about Royal Mail with such great concern, I was struck by the fact that it has become a topic that unites the House.
Last week in Westminster Hall, Members heard about the array of problems that constituencies across the country are experiencing with Royal Mail. In my own constituency, residents of Bromsgrove and the villages are experiencing critical disruptions to their mail deliveries, the most prevalent being weeks of no post, only for them then to receive a bundle of outdated and expired letters. The problems range from missed NHS appointments and bank cards being reported lost to elusive household bills and overdue birthday cards. I think we also heard about a missed job opportunity as a result of postal delays. This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it is a matter of profound disruption that could and should have been avoided.
Shockingly, in a survey that I conducted in my constituency, 87% of respondents believed that the service they were receiving was not reliable, and 96% believed that Royal Mail's postal delivery service needed improvement.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I wonder whether that 96% of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would agree with me that perhaps his party’s privatisation of Royal Mail was a mistake in the first place. Perhaps he would like to apologise for that.
Bradley Thomas
We have heard a great deal about nationalisation this evening, but I am pretty sure that my constituents believe the state should not be the actor that, in the first instance, provides the vast majority of services. The state does not have the best track record of providing everything. In this instance, it is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to ensure that Ofcom and Royal Mail are held to account, and that we see a tangible improvement programme.
I know, as well as Members on both sides of the House, that people in north Worcestershire are experiencing comparable problems. Having made that further reference to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Redditch, I will cut across north Worcestershire to the other neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). People there are experiencing those problems as well—I know that, because I spoke to my hon. Friend today—resulting in financial losses for some of his constituents, and missed appointments as well.
I understand that Royal Mail, along with many other businesses, will be facing pressing issues, including surging bill costs and increased bureaucratic red tape. May I ask the Minister whether the Government have discussed with Royal Mail specifically the impact of soaring bills and employment costs on the company’s ability to deliver services, and, in particular, challenges relating to recruitment? It is clear, however, that, especially in recent years, the business has lost its way, and in the last 18 months that has become particularly acute.
Royal Mail has a rich history. It is a 500-year-old institution, but it has failed to demonstrate an ability to adapt in recent years to society’s changing needs. Royal Mail will undoubtedly press that demand has changed. This evening we have heard many instances of parcels being prioritised over letters, which should not be the case. Over the last decade, we have seen technological advances that have undoubtedly had a significant impact on the way that people and businesses communicate, but the stats for Royal Mail are not in its favour. In 2024-25, first-class post hit a 77% service level against a 93% target, and second-class hit a 92.5% service level against a 98.5% target. That was enough for Ofcom to deem that Royal Mail was in breach of its obligations. In 2025-26, we saw 75.7% of first-class items delivered the next day—short of the 93% target—and 90.2% of second-class items delivered within three days, against a target of 98.5%.
Luke Murphy
The shadow Minister points to the figures since 2024-25 and refers specifically to the last 18 months, but Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million in 2023 and nearly double that amount in 2024. Does he not recognise that the Conservative Government failed to grip this issue?
Bradley Thomas
What I recognise is that the problem is getting worse. As I have mentioned, it is incumbent on the Government to get a grip of the situation. I hope that the Government have heard loud and clear the concerns from Members across the House, regardless of political party, about what their constituents are facing, and that the Minister will address those concerns shortly.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the hon. Gentleman join calls for more granular data, so that we can ensure that every constituency is represented in the data? Some Members have talked specifically about towns and villages, where I appreciate that there is an issue, but there is also an issue in cities. A number of us who represent cities have said that we have problems.
Bradley Thomas
That is a point I will touch on with regard to transparency levels.
There have been seven stamp price rises in four years, with the price of a first-class stamp having doubled since 2022. It is clear that residents in my constituency, and those represented by Members from across the House, are paying a first-class price for a second-class service. If consumers are expected to pay higher prices for a service, they rightly expect such a service to deliver on its promises, yet residents face a much different reality from what Royal Mail claims. Its local performance target of 87% of first-class post being delivered the next working day was achieved in only 42 of the 118 postcode areas—a statistic that resonates with my constituents and those of many Members here today. Every industry has a level of standard that it is expected to meet, and Royal Mail should not be any different, but it is failing. It is time for accountability and material action in order to deliver tangible results.
Alongside the stark statistics that have been quoted, the House will have heard me and other Members express strong discontent in Westminster Hall last week about the report earlier this year that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late. With NHS waiting lists already too long, we cannot afford for more appointments to be missed due to late letter delivery. With the cost of living already debilitating families across the country, they cannot afford missed payment charges due to delayed bill arrival.
To be clear, and in common with Members from across the House, I do not believe that the fault lies with the hard-working posties who serve our communities. We are grateful for all that they do to keep us connected, but action must be taken by the highest levels of management to quickly address the real-life experiences that are depleting customer confidence. Management are failing and, speaking from my own personal experience, I am sick and tired of the platitudes that come from Royal Mail. I echo and share the concerns of Members from across the House.
In Westminster Hall last week, the Minister shared that she has been frank in her meetings with the chief executive of Royal Mail and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. However, with Christmas, the busiest time of year for postal services, only 60 days away, it is time for immediate action, not more meetings and passing the blame back and forth. Something that needs to be focused on is transparency around local delivery data, as has been suggested in the Chamber this evening. Can the Minister outline the material steps the Government are taking, alongside Ofcom, to ensure an improved service is delivered as quickly as possible? Do they have confidence that Royal Mail’s improvement plan will deliver the needed changes promptly? At what point is the service so bad that the Government decide that further action is necessary?
Expecting what you paid for is a basic standard, not an unreasonable demand. The public are tired of a failing service that continues to worsen, disrupting daily routines and tarnishing its former reputation for reliability. This is a matter of national importance about a national institution, and I believe all our constituents would like to know specifically how the Government are working with Royal Mail and Ofcom to take concrete steps to correct these issues to restore public confidence.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing and leading this important debate and for their tireless campaigning on this issue on behalf of their constituents. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Even if, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) suggested, it may at times have been a therapy session, Members have raised extremely important concerns on behalf of their constituents about the quality of service. We discussed this issue at length last week, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), referenced it as an issue that has united the House, and I think we have heard such reflections from all Members across the Chamber.
Royal Mail is one of our great national institutions. For generations, it has connected people and communities across our country. It is a lifeline for some of our more vulnerable members of society, our elderly included. For many people, their postie is a regular and friendly face. The public’s affection for Royal Mail is enduring, but patience with its poor service is not. We should not assume that the post matters only to the older generations, because it does not. Citizens Advice research published last week shows that younger adults are using postal services more frequently than older people—to apply for jobs, manage their finances, send letters to healthcare providers for appointments and access Government services. Post is not just part of our history, even though we have heard some very interesting reflections and historical stories. It is still part of people’s everyday lives, which is why it is so important to ensure that we secure a reliable service for the future.
Behind that service are our posties, and I too want to put on record my thanks to postal workers up and down the country for everything they do. My grandad proudly served his community as a postie, and I know that many other Members have a personal connection to their postie or a postie. As I did last week, I would like to thank and pay tribute to all the postal workers who work so hard to deliver for their communities, and go above and beyond. I know that, for many of my constituents, they may be the only person they speak to and interact with that day, and the incredible work posties do should not be underestimated. We are all clear that the service failures Members have described are not the result of their postie or of postal workers across the country.
Our affection for this national institution, however, must not mean accepting poor performance. I absolutely share the strong concerns expressed today and last week by Members across the House. I will be very clear again: Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for far too long, and it needs urgently to restore service standards to levels that we all expect in our villages, towns and cities. The Prime Minister was similarly clear at this Dispatch Box last week, as was the Secretary of State at the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee last Tuesday. I hope Royal Mail will be listening to this debate, and will hear the clear message that Parliament is sending.
We have heard about the serious consequences associated with late deliveries. Late letters—whether they contain a greeting card for a loved one, important medical correspondence, including hospital appointments, or financial information—are deeply frustrating, but they can also lead to serious consequences. I thank Members for sharing the terrible stories of the real-life impact that they can have, as well the impact on colleagues in this House when carrying out their responsibilities and duties as constituency MPs, for example, sending letters about coffee mornings and surgeries.
Hon. Members have raised the vital impact of high-quality and timely postal services on our democracy. We have made clear to Royal Mail the importance of the successful and timely delivery of election-related mail for returning officers and election readiness and performance, and I reassure Members that we will continue to do so.
David Reed
Will the Minister touch on the points that I raised about deferred mail? There should be more transparency over the economy service that Royal Mail offers. Constituents are receiving letters from the NHS or local councils, and do not realise that those buying these products have chosen a cheaper option.
Kate Dearden
I will be raising this issue with Royal Mail, and I will touch on my interactions with the chief executive later in my speech.
Kirsty Blackman
We know that postal vote letters not being delivered is an issue, and a number of us have seen that in our constituencies. I appreciate that the Minister is being clear with Royal Mail that it is an important issue, but is she aware of or has she asked Royal Mail how many of those letters were not delivered on time? How many complaints have been made? We know that a significant number of people are not even making complaints, because they do not think there is any point.
Kate Dearden
Colleagues have raised numerous concerns about missed mail in the Chamber and outside, and I will always raise that issue with Royal Mail. Where I need to push for transparency, I will do so. I will come shortly to what I have pushed the chief executive on.
With Christmas approaching, improvements clearly cannot wait. This is Royal Mail’s busiest period. Families and businesses that we have heard about are relying on timely deliveries. I welcome the commitment from Royal Mail to recruit 22,000 staff to help deliver this Christmas, and I will be seeking reassurances that it is doing everything it can to meet the demand.
As colleagues know, the Government do not run the delivery operations of independent businesses such as Royal Mail, but that does not mean that we are a passive observer. I have challenged Royal Mail’s leadership on performance, and I have been frank with them, as has the Prime Minister, that the pace of improvement needs to urgently increase.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
What has gone remarkably unremarked on in this debate is the role of Ofcom, to which we give £222 million a year. It is systematically failing to put in place a plan to improve the service at Royal Mail. The Select Committee has given Ofcom six months, expiring in a month’s time, to show that it is improving performance at Royal Mail. We insisted that at that point Ofcom tells us what new powers it needs to get Royal Mail to deliver, because fining Royal Mail into improvement has failed, and is likely to fail again. Can the Minister tell us what conversations she has had with Ofcom? What powers will she seek to give it if the situation persists?
Kate Dearden
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that his Committee has done on this issue for his constituents and people across the country. I am aware that his Select Committee has written to Ofcom—I thank him for raising the issue again today—to seek further information about its plans to improve services. I met Ofcom last week, and I will continue to work closely with it. I will pragmatically consider any requests for additional powers, as we heard from the Secretary of State, where those are needed to support improved outcomes for constituents and customers across the country. We will be pragmatic about any requests, and I am meeting with Ofcom again soon to hear further.
In the meantime, I expect Ofcom to use the full range of tools at its disposal to secure a more reliable service for users. My right hon. Friend knows that I will continue to hold Ofcom and other regulators to account. On that point, in my recent meeting with Ofcom, I raised colleagues’ concerns about data on Royal Mail’s performance masking serious local issues. I have also stressed that the review over the coming months must take into consideration the wider challenges and the staffing, resources and workforce changes.
I will continue to raise the concerns, including those that lots of colleagues have mentioned. I am grateful to those who took the time to meet Ofcom directly the week before last to reflect constituents’ concerns, particularly parcel prioritisation, which we have talked about. I have heard about that at length from colleagues. Ofcom has confirmed that it is considering the role of the alleged prioritisation of parcels over letters as part of its ongoing investigation into Royal Mail’s performance in 2025 and 2026. I expect Ofcom will publish its findings in the coming weeks. Ofcom will be in no doubt about Members’ concerns following the meeting it had with them directly, today’s debate, the Westminster Hall debate and the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. I thank all colleagues for continuing to engage with myself and Ofcom on what they want to see and what they expect to improve.
On improvement, while there were some encouraging signs in the first quarter of this financial year with the roll out of the delivery model, that is only the start. Reflections clearly vary across the country on the impact of the roll-out, given what colleagues have said, and Royal Mail needs to turn this into sustained improvement that our constituents can rely on. That is why it is critical that any issues with the model between the workforce and management are resolved urgently.
I welcome the positive announcement by Royal Mail and CWU earlier today, which demonstrates a shared commitment to improving service performance, supporting the workforce and ensuring that the company is well prepared to meet customer demand over the Christmas period. That includes restarting the roll-out of the new USO delivery model, albeit over a slower timescale to account for the Christmas peak period.
To ensure that our constituents get the service that they deserve, it is critical that this engagement continues. The Secretary of State and I will be meeting with both Royal Mail and CWU next week to seek updates on progress. I know that postal workers have valuable insights on operations and thoughts about how things can be improved, and I am grateful for colleagues raising the reflections of the posties they have interacted with and met. It is important that they are also on board with any changes.
Hon. Members know that improving working conditions and standards for workers across the economy is important to me and this Government. The postal sector needs to work for consumers, businesses and workers. I am aware of concerns about the treatment and status of workers across the postal sector. The current employment status framework can leave very vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights.
Last week, along with some colleagues who are in the Chamber, I attended an interesting discussion on work and employment in UK parcel delivery with Sheffield University management school. That discussion aligns with the Government’s recently published consultation on proposals for targeted reforms on employment status, which will seek to address many issues—particularly around bogus self-employment—that colleagues have raised today; we discussed those issues at the roundtable, too.
I will move on to Royal Mail’s communication with colleagues. While local operational issues are for Royal Mail’s management to explain and address, I know that many hon. Members—as has been raised in this debate and beyond—are dissatisfied with the level of engagement that they have had with the company’s leadership. It is crucial that Royal Mail meets with Members of this House, listens to their concerns and sets out clearly what it is doing to put things right. That is the least that our constituents deserve.
I know that Royal Mail’s chief executive will now be meeting a number of hon. Members in Parliament next month, and I will continue to reflect Parliament’s concerns in my engagements with him—in particular, detailed information on local data and assessments of what is happening at constituency level. In my first engagement with the chief executive, I said that I would take seriously every complaint that is raised directly to Members via their constituents. As a constituency MP, I can share in the reflections and frustrations that colleagues have raised; when we receive those complaints, it is important that we have as much information as possible available to us—and early on. I would like to see that in a more proactive form from Royal Mail.
In addition to engaging constructively with Parliament, it is important that Royal Mail also listens to the concerns and suggestions of its workforce, who work so hard to deliver post across the nation. I welcome engagement, whether through formal or informal channels that are currently in place, such as the Q&A sessions that Royal Mail has introduced, or more directly from staff to senior leadership, but I urge Royal Mail to also to continue to listen to its workforce through their recognised unions and reps. The expertise and first-hand experience of the workforce must help to shape improvements.
Some Members also raised the idea of linking any further price increases to improvements in quality of service. I understand the frustration when people see prices rise but do not see the improvement in services that they rightly expect. Every pound matters to our constituents who are still struggling, and our constituents need to see the value as well as the reliability. Considerations around pricing regulations are a regulatory matter for Ofcom, which is considering this very issue as part of its consultation on pricing and affordability, which was launched on 16 October and will close on 27 November.
Our priority for Royal Mail has been scrutiny of the takeover and securing important undertakings to support the financial sustainability of the company and the long-term provision of the universal service obligations. Colleagues have given careful consideration as to where the Government can continue to play our part—some in quite significant detail—and I am grateful for all the contributions this evening. I commit to continuing to engage with all colleagues in the Chamber on the progress of the quality of service with Royal Mail. Colleagues know that, alongside the Secretary of State, I am meeting with the leadership next week, and we will always be happy to update colleagues following those discussions.
Royal Mail’s performance has not been good enough. Our constituents know it, the Government know it, the House knows it and Royal Mail knows it, so we will continue to engage with Ofcom, and Royal Mail, its owners and its workforce. But people do not want excuses—they want their post delivered on time. Ultimately, that is the only test that matters. It is a test that Royal Mail must pass, and it is the test that this Government will continue to hold it to.
I will conclude by once again thanking our incredible posties across the country. This is not a reflection on them, their hard work, and their service to our constituents and our communities. We are committed to bringing all parties to the table to resolve the issues that we have discussed today, because Royal Mail is a national institution that we want to protect long into the future and an essential public service that our constituents rely on. I thank all colleagues for bringing their voices and those of their constituents to the Chamber today—I hope that they have been heard loud and clear. I look forward to working with all colleagues going forwards.
Chris Bloore
I have already had the best part of 20 minutes, so I probably will not be long.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I also thank the many right hon. and hon. Members from all parties for taking part in today’s Backbench Business debate. I have learned things about the service that I did not think I would ever learn, whether that is the infidelity of a former Prime Minister—I do not know if I am letting the cat out of the bag here—or the Jane Austen quotes that we have heard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) talked about the direction of travel and what is likely to happen if we do not take action. Despite the light-hearted and more serious stories that we have shared today, we are in a position where we could lose universal services if we in this House do not take action. While I may not have set out the same plan as my right hon. Friend in his speech, I really do think we have to understand that we are at a point of no return if we do not take strong and positive action. Our constituents will not forgive us if that universal service disappears, and it will cost us a lot more to try to rebuild it in the future.
Once again, I thank everyone for taking part today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is concerned about the performance of Royal Mail; and urges the Government to work with Royal Mail to improve its performance levels.