Performance of Royal Mail

Chris Kane Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.