Performance of Royal Mail

Debate between Meg Hillier and Helen Hayes

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Student Loans

Debate between Meg Hillier and Helen Hayes

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her Committee’s excellent work on the important issue of student loans and for the good communication that she maintained with my Select Committee during her inquiry. The Education Committee concluded earlier this year that there is a genuine crisis in the financial sustainability of our universities as a result of many different pressures bearing down on them. Does she agree that if the Government do not bring forward additional measures to improve the long-term affordability of student loans, as she recommends, the risk is that more and more young people will decide not to pursue a university education? That would not only mean that they miss out on the potentially transformative impacts of such an education, but serve further to undermine the financial viability of our universities.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work that she and her Committee do. We know that there is a crisis in the higher education system, but there is also a huge challenge for the graduates paying off these loans. It is a multifaceted picture, so I am pleased that the Government are looking at reviewing it, but people have just started plan 5 repayments, and a review that might see any changes is still a long way off.

We need to have the national conversation that I mentioned about a 50:50 balance. Society benefits from most graduates. They are not just taking; they are actually giving back, and it is really important that we recognise that in our national conversation. Frankly, universities are really struggling in part because of the way in which fees are structured, meaning that they are not getting enough money, but they are still very expensive for students, so nobody is winning in this situation.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Helen Hayes

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right. I mentioned the need for early access to SEND support, and I would include audiology in that category. Those services are vital, as are speech and language services, which we know are all too often not available at the earliest possible opportunity. In a moment, I will speak about the importance of that very early intervention. That network is the village, and the village should be available in every community for every family, right across the country, every single week of the year.

One of the proudest achievements of the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 was the creation of Sure Start—a children’s centre in every community, bringing together a range of universal services for pregnant women, new parents and carers, and children under a single roof in local neighbourhoods. I once again pay tribute to my predecessor, Dame Tessa Jowell, for her pioneering work to establish Sure Start right across the country. The results of Sure Start were transformative, with long-term evaluations showing that integrated early childhood interventions significantly improved long-term health, especially for disadvantaged children; reduced hospital admissions; and improved GCSE results. The analysis also showed that investment in those services represented exceptional value for money and a positive financial return, with every pound spent on Sure Start delivering more than twice as much back in societal benefits.

My own daughters were born in 2005 and 2008, and we experienced at first hand the benefits of that investment in the form of antenatal and early childhood support. It provided a gold standard in community midwifery services, excellent health visitors, good breastfeeding support, a drop-in speech and language therapy clinic when one of my daughters needed that, and a wealth of other services. All of this was delivered a very short distance from home in our local community, so we also got to meet other parents and babies at the same stage and to build relationships with them.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend and I have had similar experiences of the system. For me, one of the important things was that it did not stigmatise going to seek advice, whether it be about child psychology or speech and language. Does my hon. Friend agree that when Ministers start working on how to flesh out this Bill and put it into practice, it is really key that it must be universal?

[Helen Hayes]

Later in my speech, I will make exactly that point about the importance of these services being available on a universal basis, for the reasons my hon. Friend alludes to.

It was a tragedy that Sure Start centres were one of the earliest and most extensive casualties of the austerity of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government of 2010. The funding was not ringfenced; in many cases, the services were not statutory; and the integrated service design model was not mandated. In many ways, the strongest argument for the Bill we are debating today is the experience of just how easy it was for Sure Start to be dismantled, ultimately resulting in the closure of 1,300 centres and the loss of that precious and vital integrated network of support for babies and their families, which had been delivering so much. Those closures were compounded by the covid-19 pandemic, when access to face-to-face services in early childhood was very limited. We have seen the impact of that, particularly the increase in the number of children with speech, language and communication difficulties coming through the system in recent years.