Performance of Royal Mail

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.