Performance of Royal Mail

Ian Roome Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 The oldest letter in the bundle was from 14 August—nearly a full month out of date!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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Roome Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is correct to highlight that the service quality issues are linked directly to workers’ terms and conditions. It is precisely because we take that connection so seriously that the Secretary of State convened the meeting between the unions and the owners of Royal Mail. Ofcom made it clear in our meeting yesterday that it expects the plan for improvements in quality of service to be in place within days of an agreement being reached with the unions, and we will certainly hold Royal Mail to that.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that by being asked to focus on parcels over letters, and having overtime hours for deliveries restricted, many hard-working postal workers will feel that public trust in Royal Mail is being undermined?

[Blair McDougall]

I discussed the prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom yesterday. It had previously investigated the matter, and it is fair to say that it has heard the widespread concern around the House. If Ofcom continues to be concerned, it will not hesitate to investigate again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Co-operatives create a really important sense of connection at a time when people feel disconnected, but co-ops and mutuals are also more resilient and more productive. That is why we have made the commitment she references. Our call for evidence has closed, and we are working on the proposals that will flow out of that. I really welcome the news this morning that the John Lewis bonus is returning and congratulate it on its results.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

T5. Many small businesses in my constituency are gearing up for the busy tourist season that is just around the corner. What steps are the Government taking to support small businesses in the south-west, to help them make the most of their biggest window of opportunity over the summer?

[Blair McDougall]

Our small business strategy sets out the range of measures we are taking to support small businesses. That includes an increase of £4 billion in the finance available to businesses, so that they can invest to take advantage of those opportunities. We will also bring forward the strongest proposals on late payments, to improve cash flow to small businesses, as well as cutting red tape, so that they can take advantage of the opportunities the hon. Member describes.

Employment Rights Bill

Ian Roome Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I know that 48 hours seems a long time to some Ministers, but does he agree that having a shift cancelled at short notice would be bad news for many workers across the country? This Bill should be amended to specify an acceptable notice period.

[Peter Kyle]

I think the Bill gets the balance right. For most people in most workplaces, 48 hours is a long time, although I have witnessed some speeches in this place that have been a lot shorter than that, but seemed a lot longer—perhaps the one currently unfolding is an example.

The consultation will determine a fair short notice period that works for businesses and workers. Putting the implementation detail in regulations will retain the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The Government have already stated in the Bill that “short notice” will not be more than seven days, and we are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions and considering carefully the right approach to this matter. That is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

As someone with a long history of having to arrange childcare at short notice, I am well aware of the limitations that needing to arrange childcare presents, particularly for working women, both those who are single parents and those in a relationship. Forty-eight hours is not ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and it is absolutely vital that employers have clarity about what “reasonable notice” looks like in this circumstance.

I wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 48. Businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, that rely on seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to changes in labour regulations and the knock-on impacts on the cost and availability of labour. The sustainability of farming businesses, for example, depends on being able to get the right people to the right place at the right time, and obstacles to that can have a big impact on ability to generate produce for sale, and therefore on the sustainability of the business. If we allow a different set of regulations to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of “seasonal work” must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. While we do not believe that this legislation should create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that businesses should be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support the amendment.

Lords amendment 46, tabled by my good friend and Richmond Park predecessor Baroness Kramer, would introduce protections for whistleblowers. It follows her long-standing campaign for support for whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to her commitment to the cause.

[Ian Roome]

There is no standard requirement for most companies to have a whistleblowing policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be a good opportunity to put in place real protections for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger and malpractice in the workplace?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current framework for whistleblowing applies only if somebody has lost their job. It does not address the duty on businesses to follow up whistleblowers’ serious concerns about crimes. That urgently needs to be addressed.

Too many whistleblowers who raised serious concerns about matters ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers, or are reticent to speak out because of fears of unfair repercussions. The new clause in Lords amendment 46 has received the support of numerous international civil society organisations, including Protect and Spotlight on Corruption. It would be a long-overdue update to our once world-leading whistleblowing legislation, and I urge colleagues from across the House to support the change.

I support Lords amendment 47, which would expand the right to be accompanied to employment hearings to include certified professional companions. Currently, employees may be accompanied only by certified trade union representatives, leaving many workers to navigate proceedings alone. Although trade unions provide valuable support to their members, only 22% of workers are in a trade union, including only 12% of private sector workers, with recent figures at a record low. The current provisions made sense at a time when trade union membership was higher nationally, but those provisions have become largely outdated as trade union membership has fallen and the labour market has modernised. Without the amendment, we consign many employees facing unfair dismissal to navigating the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own, without any kind of professional or educated support.