Postal Services: Rural Areas

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this timely and much-needed debate. I had a 10-minute speech, but I think that has gone by the wayside with the three-minute limit.

What we have heard today is the strength of our constituency parliamentary system: Members across this House listening to their constituents—through emails, telephone calls or the occasional letter, when it arrives—and being told from the ground up about the catastrophic failure of the current Royal Mail delivery service. Why is that happening? We have heard already that Royal Mail is prioritising parcels, and I have heard that, too. Clearly that is because it makes more money from parcel deliveries. We heard from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—again, it shows the strength of Parliament, for all its flaws and faults, that we all come from different backgrounds and draw on those experiences—that, in his experience, this is the worst it has been.

In my 21 years in this House, I have never had to raise a point of order, ask an oral departmental question, attend a debate like this or meet with the Minister, as I will next week, to talk about Royal Mail and postal delivery services—never. By the way, that is high praise for Royal Mail and all the fantastic posties we know in our communities. We can all agree that this is not about posties; it is about the senior management of Royal Mail and corporate decision making at the very highest level, which I believe is perhaps a deliberate strategy to upset the Government and Ofcom so that Royal Mail can be in a position to discard the letter delivery service, because it is not profitable enough.

As we have heard from hon. Members, there are real-life consequences. I do not have time to mention all my examples, but I will mention the following, relating to health: “Your letter”—my letter—

“informing us of what steps you have taken took nine days to arrive from the date on the letterhead. We appear to only receive three or four deliveries”

a month. Another reads as follows:

“A hospital letter has not been received although being sent second week in January—from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.”

Another reads:

“I am still missing a Test Results letter from the NHS posted on 13th January. They confirmed it was posted by the department when I called after 2 weeks.”

My constituents in Muxton, Newport, Wellington, Shifnal and Albrighton are affected, and there are real-life consequences—important legal documentation, health documentation, cancer results. Time matters. That is why this is a very serious issue. It needs to be investigated, and I hope that the Minister and Ofcom will investigate it urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. Being a postie is a good job and we need to make sure that it is an attractive job. I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail on those and other matters shortly.

Others have mentioned the broader technological changes in society that have reshaped how people live and work and created challenges for Royal Mail and the Post Office. It is important to remember that these institutions create a sense of continuity in a time of change. We are committed to the universal postal service—the guarantee that letters and parcels will be delivered at a uniform price to every address, however remote.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am glad that the Government are committed to that, but I am not sure that Royal Mail is, and that is the problem. Ofcom fines are clearly not working, because Royal Mails keeps repeating the same mistakes. I hope the Minister will note this moment in time—this debate—because I am very concerned by a situation in which Royal Mail is making the same mistakes and just paying the fines, and baking that into their business plan, and the Minister is saying, as he no doubt will later on, that he has limited powers because it is now a private company. If that is the case, then it is likely that all our constituents will see a further decline in letter delivery services. Will the Minister at least commit that, in those circumstances, the Government will apply for a judicial review on the grounds of failure to disclose necessary documents at the point of sale and failure to deliver the universal service obligation—a legal obligation? If the Government do not intervene, I believe that we will see a complete collapse of the letter delivery service.

[Blair McDougall]

I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail shortly. I know that the right hon. Member and I are due to discuss this issue face to face in a few days’ time. I share the deep frustration that has been voiced today and agree that Royal Mail has not just a legal obligation, but an obligation and a responsibility in our democracy. There are special measures in place around postal votes. Royal Mail has traditionally taken on additional staff and done sweeps of post boxes during elections, and we would absolutely insist and expect that that happens in the elections that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale raised.

I met Royal Mail’s chief executive and senior management yesterday, specifically to raise concerns that Members across the House have shared with me in recent weeks. Royal Mail knows that it has not always delivered, and I was given an absolute commitment that it will work to deliver the best possible service to customers, while accepting that there have been service challenges.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all mentioned concerns about NHS appointment letters not getting through. That is a particular issue that I am pursuing in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, because there is an ability to make sure that those get through.

I know that South Shropshire suffered widespread disruption in early January after storms, and as a result there were times when the rotation of mail processes could not be followed and deliveries were affected. The hon. Member for South Shropshire engaged with Royal Mail, and it told me that it welcomes such engagement; it thinks that it is important for hon. Members to continue to engage with it. I know that hundreds of hon. Members will have visited their local sorting offices over Christmas.

I will personally ensure that every single issue that has been raised by hon. Members here today is communicated back to Royal Mail at a senior level, because customers, particularly those in rural areas, must see visible and sustained improvements in reliability, timeliness and delivery office performance. The discussions that we have had today will inform every engagement I have with Royal Mail. As I have said, yesterday I made it clear that people not getting their mail is simply not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about staff retention. Obviously, management and the workforce are working on implementing not only reforms but the pay deal. Hopefully, that will play an important role in helping to tackle what he has just spoken about.

In addition to my discussions with Royal Mail, I have had detailed discussions with Ofcom, which has an essential role in improving standards. As the hon. Member for Strangford has just pointed out, Ofcom has told Royal Mail that it must publish a credible improvement plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement, and made it clear that, without such a plan, it is likely that fines will continue to be imposed.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire mentioned the context for this debate, which is the change in consumer behaviour and communication. The average household now receives only four letters per week, down from 14, yet the number of addresses in the country has risen by 4 million. To protect the USO for the long term, Ofcom has introduced reforms that are projected to deliver up to £450 million in annual savings, helping to get Royal Mail on to a more financially sustainable basis. We now need Royal Mail to work with its workforce and unions to deliver the service that we all expect.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about now slightly notorious parcel providers other than Royal Mail. Ministers and Ofcom have made it clear that the way they are operating is not good enough and that they are on notice.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous. On the point about the golden share and Royal Mail having been put on notice, what powers of intervention or sanction does the Minister have? Can he provide to my constituents who are listening to this debate the solution they are hoping for? We have not heard it yet.

[Blair McDougall]

As I mentioned a moment ago, when Royal Mail was taken over, the deed included all sorts of assurances about making sure that the owners cannot take value out of the company until they improve service. Their financial interests are deeply tied to the service that our constituents receive.

Turning briefly to the rural post office network, we currently have a network of 11,500 post office branches around the country and most people live within 3 miles of one. However, as Members have pointed out, those averages do not paint the full picture. The Government have invested significantly in the post office network precisely because it provides essential services. Although it is publicly owned, Post Office operates as a commercial business with its own board of directors. It must have the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters that we set.

Several Members raised concerns about the Green Paper process and whether we would continue with the current level of service. Our starting assumption was that we would, but we thought it was right to have a debate given how long it has been since we had that conversation. Just finally, we absolutely recognise the importance of banking services and the Post Office, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke about. That is why I and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury held a roundtable last month to talk about continuing that relationship.