Performance of Royal Mail Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade
Nusrat Ghani
Main Page: Nusrat Ghani (Conservative - Sussex Weald)Department Debates - View all Nusrat Ghani's debates with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade
(3 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have a number of people wishing to contribute. To get as many people in as possible, there will be a speaking limit of four-and-a-half minutes.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Like many others, I will start by paying tribute to our fantastic posties, particularly the one who delivers my mail to Richmond House—constantly reminding me, through letters from constituents, just how dreadful the service that they are experiencing from Royal Mail has become. I will not spend too long listing the many examples of atrocious service that Royal Mail has been delivering in my constituency, but let me give one example. A letter dated 7 July arrived on 4 August, five days after the recipient was supposed to have had an operation. Just in case that was not bad enough, Royal Mail also messed up on follow-up letters from the NHS about cancer checks. We have heard that Royal Mail is planning to get this service fixed by Christmas. I should like to know which Christmas, because in August one of my constituents managed to receive a very, very late Christmas card. I am not sure that we have got last Christmas fixed, let alone Christmas this year.
No one is going to argue that this is acceptable but, like many Members, I find it particularly frustrating that every couple of months or so I go to the delivery office and we have that conversation in which the people running it tell me that, yes, they have been facing challenges, but don’t worry, they are on track now. I go back two months later and it is just like groundhog day: we have exactly the same conversation. I am told, “Yes, there were problems when we last told you that we would fix them, but don’t worry, they are being fixed now.”
We have heard all the statistics showing that Royal Mail is completely failing to meet the targets that it has set, although those targets have been lowered. We have also heard that prices have been rising at the same time. I think people appreciate the challenges that Royal Mail is facing—there has been a dramatic drop in the number of letters, from the 20 billion that we saw years ago to just 6.5 billion today—but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that every time Royal Mail fails to meet the standards required of it, our response should be to lower those standards until they become achievable.
When investors bought shares in Royal Mail, they knew that they were buying into a business with certain regulatory obligations attached. Those obligations were part of the deal. While circumstances change and regulations sometimes need to catch up with them, we cannot have a system in which shareholders get to enjoy the potential rewards of private ownership while the public are expected to accept an ever-diminishing service.
Even if this is a difficult problem to solve, solving it should start with an acknowledgment that the decision by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition to privatise Royal Mail was a mistake. The argument for privatisation is normally that the discipline of the market will drive improvements in efficiency and service. If a company does a bad job, customers can go somewhere else, and the threat of losing those customers gives the business an incentive to improve. But, as should have been obvious at the time, that mechanism does not work with Royal Mail. If my constituents do not receive their hospital appointment letters, they cannot just decide to have them delivered by somebody else. They do not get to choose which postal network the NHS uses to reach them. We have lost the accountability that comes with public ownership, without securing the competitive pressure that is supposed to make private ownership work.
There is a much bigger problem with the way in which we regulate many of these privatised monopolies. In the short time that I have left, let me build on the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) about the options for renationalisation, which is certainly something that I believe we should look into. However, this challenge goes way beyond Royal Mail. We now have a problem across our economy with unaccountable, regulated monopolies that simply do not work. If you speak to Ofcom—I may be the only person here who has some sympathy with Ofcom’s position—it will tell you that Royal Mail, like so many other regulated monopolies, such as the water companies, is in financial distress. We cannot use fines as a way to stop those companies being in financial distress, but we still need to produce an incentive for them to improve their behaviour. I urge the Government to consider more innovative ways than just using the fines and the regulatory model to incentivise better behaviour. For example, they should be looking at using—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have had a few people withdraw, so we have a few more minutes on the clock; Back-Bench MPs now have six minutes. I call Sadik Al-Hassan.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My constituency covers city and rural areas, and the villages I represent have the greatest problem with getting regular deliveries, and elderly constituents there who cannot rely on email are really struggling. Villages like Tean, Swynnerton, Oulton and Fulford must get the support they need, and it is interesting that you are experiencing the same issues in Staffordshire.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am not experiencing these issues—well, obviously my constituency is, but I am talking about this debate—so I ask Members not to say “You” or “Yours” please.
Josh Newbury
I know that the Rugeley sorting office does not cover your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, or my hon. Friend’s constituency, but the story she tells about the particular difficulties of the service experienced by her rural constituents is echoed in my constituency. On Saturday, I held a coffee morning in Prospect Village, quite an isolated rural village, and I heard exactly the same concerns, so I am completely with her on that.
A constituent of mine—I will keep them anonymous because I do not want to put them in a difficult position—has shared with me some of the things that are happening to postal workers locally. I am told that overtime is rarely permitted, meaning that when a postie cannot finish their round, some of the post inevitably has to go back to the sorting office, where it builds up. Some workers are now doing what two postal workers would previously have done, with tracked parcels and first-class post taking priority. That inevitably raises questions about what is realistically expected of staff, and what happens to the letters that have to be left behind.
I am told that new recruits are being sent out alone very quickly, moved between unfamiliar rounds and put under pressure to meet targets, sometimes facing managerial meetings when they fall short. That is a considerable ask for someone who is still learning the job. In the past, new posties would spend months learning alongside experienced colleagues before being expected to manage a round independently. Many new starters leave within a short time, and I am told that the way some staff are spoken to by managers is completely unacceptable, with conversations that should be about helping people to improve instead leaving them feeling belittled or intimidated. I have heard stories of multiple managers waiting for posties to finish their rounds, only to tell them that they are too slow, even after they have faced wind and rain, or got held up by uncontrollable things like roadworks or livestock on country lanes.
Knowing a round takes time. Knowing that community, spotting when members of the public might need help and taking pride in getting the job done are all part of what made our postal service the envy of the world, and worthy of its royal moniker. What particularly struck me was my constituent’s description of postal workers as a tight-knit group who continue to look out for one another and pull together. That sense of solidarity is clearly still there, but it is being strained to breaking point by the pressure from management that workers describe and by the uncertainty around hours and rounds. I am also told that trade union reps are struggling to keep up with the number of staff seeking their help, such are the difficulties in many sorting offices.
Fixing the issues Royal Mail faces is far from straight forward. A lot needs to change, but that change has to work for the people delivering the post and those waiting for it at home. Given what all of us in this House are hearing, it falls to us to ask whether we are even on the right track. The consensus tonight is a resounding no. Royal Mail execs should meet with us here in Parliament, explain what is going wrong and set out what they will do to put it right. Our constituents deserve more than apologies and hollow promises. They deserve a reliable service and we need to see meaningful action, right now, to make that happen.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In the summer of 1914, as Britain was on the brink of war, Mr Asquith, 62, the Prime Minister, was having an affair with Venetia Stanley, 26. They wrote several letters to each other each day, for there were multiple postal deliveries daily, at a cost of 1d each, the equivalent of 62p today, although as we all know the cost of a first-class letter is now £1.80. Asquith sensibly destroyed the letters, but his letters to Venetia Stanley—all 300,000 words—were retained. When the writer Robert Harris wrote the novel “Precipice”, he invented her letters and used Asquith’s originals. That was an amazing work of a novelist’s imagination, for as we all know letters tell magical stories.
We have heard many passionate contributions. I will call out particularly the amazing contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who is no longer in his seat. We have learned that times have certainly changed for this essential service.
From Beyton to Stanton and from Honington to Rattlesden, villages across my constituency have one thing in common: a completely unreliable service. As we have heard, constituents are missing hospital appointments, bank correspondence and other important communications. Does the Minister agree that that is simply unacceptable? I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is also no longer in his seat, that the solution to this issue is to renationalise the service.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the unenviable task of following my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley).
When I talk to my constituents, they regularly tell me that Royal Mail is failing them, and I know that the Minister, my constituency neighbour, will have heard the same complaints. The issue comes up in surgeries and when we knock on doors, and when letters eventually arrive at my constituency office, it comes up in them too. In a world where we expect things to improve, our postal service is going backwards. That creates anxiety, as people miss bills and NHS appointments, and it pushes people further apart when a postcard from a loved one is lost or a birthday message arrives late.
I know that the Minister shares the frustration and is working hard to turn things around. She understands, as I do, that places such as Calderdale often feel the consequences of those failures first. Over the last decade, people in towns and villages such as ours have seen the steady erosion of services that they once took for granted. We have seen that with our buses, banking, department stores and high streets, and people increasingly see it in Royal Mail.
Calder Valley does not have a single urban centre; it is a network of towns and villages that stretches from Todmorden and Hebden Bridge through Mytholmroyd, Elland, Ryburn and Brighouse and all the way to Rastrick. When organisations start cutting costs, communities such as ours are among the first to feel the consequences, and it is communities such as ours that often feel the most isolated. My older constituents are more likely to rely on the postal service; it is how many of them hear from their hospitals, the DWP, their bank and the local council. While the digitisation of public services has brought a huge benefit, it cannot come at the expense of those who cannot get online. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and the most likely to be affected when post does not arrive on time. A missed hospital appointment, an unpaid bill and interrupted energy supplies can have serious consequences through no fault of their own.
What happened to Royal Mail is the story of a failed ideological experiment. For years, we were told that privatisation and market discipline would drive up standards and drive down costs. Instead, my constituents have watched services deteriorate while accountability has become harder to find. There is no real market; my constituents cannot shop around for someone else to deliver their appointment letter or switch providers because their pension statement arrived two weeks late. Like the water industry, it is a service that people depend on but have no choice over. That is why it is so frustrating.
This is not just another company; Royal Mail is part of the fabric of this country. Its origins can be traced back to the 16th century. It maintains our iconic red post boxes and the local postmen, who we all value, but in recent years Royal Mail has been treated like a commercial asset, rather than a public service. The Opposition spent years picking through some of our most valued institutions in the hope of making a quick buck, with an ideological trust in the market without properly considering the long-term consequences.
My constituents are looking for evidence that things are changing. Life is stressful enough, and we should not have to worry about whether an important letter will show up on time. I welcome the determination that the Minister has shown in holding Royal Mail to account and tackling the legacy that we have inherited, but the truth is that for far too many people in Calder Valley, things are still not good enough.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Andrew Ranger to make the final Back-Bench contribution. Other Back Benchers who have contributed to the debate should make their way back to the Chamber.
Andrew Ranger
The hon. Member makes a really good point. That is definitely something we need to investigate, because it is probably a very valid point.
Postal services remain a lifeline for those who do not have digital connectivity, and any failures disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. As has been acknowledged across the House, Royal Mail is facing difficult circumstances. Letter volumes have fallen dramatically over many years and parcel volumes have grown significantly. That reflects changes across the world. Royal Mail is operating at a loss and faces significant structural challenges.
All that being said, understanding those challenges cannot mean accepting poor service. One of the most concerning issues raised with MPs by postal workers and their representatives is the widespread perception that parcels are increasingly prioritised over letters, and constituents say the same. That is despite assurances to the contrary. I have constituents who see parcels arriving promptly, on time, delivered by Royal Mail when they were supposed to be, but not letters.
Serious workforce concerns are also being reported. As we have heard, there have been retention problems due to changing terms and conditions, reports of 400 postal workers leaving the organisation each week, a culture of intense monitoring and an increasingly difficult working environment. It is clear that Royal Mail cannot provide a high-quality service without a motivated and stable workforce. At the same time, serious questions remain about the long-term sustainability of the current model, in terms of the universal service obligation, the delivery of letters, and the regulatory model.
My constituents and everyone else’s want three simple things: they want their letters delivered on time, they want transparency when things go wrong, and they want accountability from both Royal Mail and the regulator. Too often, MPs are told that performance is improving while residents continue to experience delays. Too often, complaints disappear into automated systems without satisfactory answers, and too often, local concerns are met with generic responses rather than meaningful action.
As has been said, Royal Mail occupies a unique position in our national life. It is not just another company; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic infrastructure, and it remains a public service even though it is a privately owned company. That is why this matters. I urge the Minister to continue engaging with Royal Mail, Ofcom, workforce representatives and consumer groups to develop a long-term vision for postal services. Any future reforms must protect the universal service obligation, while recognising the needs of communities, supporting a sustainable workforce, and ensuring that no part of the country is left with a substandard service. I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on some of the options that he presented about a possible future for Royal Mail.
Our constituents do not expect perfection—they understand that times change and markets evolve—but they do expect that when a letter is posted, it arrives when it should. That is not an unreasonable expectation; it is the foundation of trust in a service that has connected communities for generations.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing this very important debate.
As has been highlighted, the post is not a nostalgic luxury. For millions of people it is how the hospital tells them when their appointment is, how the banks send their statements, and how they find out about their benefits. People need to know that their post will arrive on time so that they can go about their lives. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) eloquently put it, it is also about that human connection in a world where we feel disconnected. I am sure that many Members know the impact of a handwritten note, especially to constituents who are having a difficult time or facing difficult issues. It really does make a difference.
We also know, as so many Members have highlighted, that the posties are working hard to get us our post, but Royal Mail is letting them down. I have so many incredible posties, but I would like to give a special shout out to postman Paul. Members would not be surprised to think that Postman Pat had jumped out of the TV and arrived in Tring with Jess the cat in tow, because Paul delivers not only letters and parcels but joy to residents and visitors alike—a special thank you to him.
In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I have Gordon and Evina from Jersey Farm who told me that they had gone 10 days without a single letter—so many Members have highlighted this—and then their postwoman arrived with a bundle of 12 or 13. Among them was an invite to my local surgery which—just as the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) highlighted—had already happened. They had already complained about the postal service. They raised the issue with me too and I continue to raise it, but the problem has not been fixed. It clearly goes on.
Another constituent in Jersey Farm, Irene, had no post for seven days and then 35 items in one go, including a new debit card. She also had to face severe delays in receiving a letter relating to a recent hospital appointment on how to take certain medicines. When people such as Irene and her husband rely on letters about regular medical appointments, there cannot afford to be delays. A constituent in Sandridge said that they are lucky to get one delivery a week—the House has highlighted that, unfortunately, that is quite a good delivery service—and that should not be happening in 2026.
Those are not isolated stories. They are happening up and down the country. Citizens Advice found that over Christmas 16 million people had letters delayed. I cannot remember which Member it was who asked at which Christmas this issue would get sorted out, but it is a very good question. We have 5.7 million people who have suffered serious consequences, including missed health appointments, fines and benefit decisions. A third of people who use Royal Mail recognised exactly what Gordon and Evina described: no post for several weeks and then five or more letters landing at once. The sorry saga of Royal Mail delays has been going on for far too long and people are rightly furious. Royal Mail is simply not delivering the service it is required to provide. It has missed both its first and second-class targets every year since 2021-22. Last year, just 75.7% of first-class letters arrived the next day, against a target of 93%.
The regulator has not got a grip. As the Business and Trade Committee put it:
“Ofcom is failing as the statutory regulator of the postal service”.
It could not even tell Parliament how many letters were arriving late. Instead of holding Royal Mail to account, Ofcom lowered the bar. It cut second-class deliveries to alternate weekdays and relaxed the targets. The Liberal Democrats warned at the time that this was letting Royal Mail off the hook. In the first three months, Royal Mail missed even those lower targets. It now says it will not meet them until April 2027.
Somehow, people are paying more for less. A first-class stamp now costs £1.80. In 2022, it was 95p. That is seven price rises in four years for a service that keeps getting worse. Many have highlighted that parcels are getting delivered but I would also highlight, as someone who ran an online business and whose mother had an online business, that products are also sent in letters. Something that has not been touched on much is the impact this situation is having on small businesses. I know this from first-hand experience. The cost is extortionate and with small margins it is killing a lot of businesses. The terrible service is also killing small businesses, when they have to compete with online services such as Amazon. This is a key service for people and businesses, and they do not need excuses; they need action.
Will the Minister commit herself tonight to consulting on new powers and teeth for Ofcom? Will she ask Royal Mail to publish performance levels for every delivery office, so that residents such as those in Jersey Farm and the many others mentioned by Members can judge for themselves? We must hold Royal Mail’s owners to their promises and fix the frontline. The Government say that they have secured legally binding commitments from EP Group to invest enough to deliver the universal service. When the Minister does meet Royal Mail, will she put the failing delivery officers at the top of the agenda, ensure that the agreements with postal workers are kept, and report back to the House with a timetable?
When post does not arrive, people miss appointments, pay fines that they never knew about, and lose faith that anything works. Christmas, Royal Mail’s busiest time of the year, is only weeks away, so this must be sorted out before then—but we all know that it will not be, and we will keep standing up for residents until it is.
Let me again thank all our wonderful posties who will be working so hard to deliver. We must ensure that Royal Mail does not let them or our local residents down.
Kate Dearden
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that his Committee has done on this issue for his constituents and people across the country. I am aware that his Select Committee has written to Ofcom—I thank him for raising the issue again today—to seek further information about its plans to improve services. I met Ofcom last week, and I will continue to work closely with it. I will pragmatically consider any requests for additional powers, as we heard from the Secretary of State, where those are needed to support improved outcomes for constituents and customers across the country. We will be pragmatic about any requests, and I am meeting with Ofcom again soon to hear further.
In the meantime, I expect Ofcom to use the full range of tools at its disposal to secure a more reliable service for users. My right hon. Friend knows that I will continue to hold Ofcom and other regulators to account. On that point, in my recent meeting with Ofcom, I raised colleagues’ concerns about data on Royal Mail’s performance masking serious local issues. I have also stressed that the review over the coming months must take into consideration the wider challenges and the staffing, resources and workforce changes.
I will continue to raise the concerns, including those that lots of colleagues have mentioned. I am grateful to those who took the time to meet Ofcom directly the week before last to reflect constituents’ concerns, particularly parcel prioritisation, which we have talked about. I have heard about that at length from colleagues. Ofcom has confirmed that it is considering the role of the alleged prioritisation of parcels over letters as part of its ongoing investigation into Royal Mail’s performance in 2025 and 2026. I expect Ofcom will publish its findings in the coming weeks. Ofcom will be in no doubt about Members’ concerns following the meeting it had with them directly, today’s debate, the Westminster Hall debate and the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. I thank all colleagues for continuing to engage with myself and Ofcom on what they want to see and what they expect to improve.
On improvement, while there were some encouraging signs in the first quarter of this financial year with the roll out of the delivery model, that is only the start. Reflections clearly vary across the country on the impact of the roll-out, given what colleagues have said, and Royal Mail needs to turn this into sustained improvement that our constituents can rely on. That is why it is critical that any issues with the model between the workforce and management are resolved urgently.
I welcome the positive announcement by Royal Mail and CWU earlier today, which demonstrates a shared commitment to improving service performance, supporting the workforce and ensuring that the company is well prepared to meet customer demand over the Christmas period. That includes restarting the roll-out of the new USO delivery model, albeit over a slower timescale to account for the Christmas peak period.
To ensure that our constituents get the service that they deserve, it is critical that this engagement continues. The Secretary of State and I will be meeting with both Royal Mail and CWU next week to seek updates on progress. I know that postal workers have valuable insights on operations and thoughts about how things can be improved, and I am grateful for colleagues raising the reflections of the posties they have interacted with and met. It is important that they are also on board with any changes.
Hon. Members know that improving working conditions and standards for workers across the economy is important to me and this Government. The postal sector needs to work for consumers, businesses and workers. I am aware of concerns about the treatment and status of workers across the postal sector. The current employment status framework can leave very vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights.
Last week, along with some colleagues who are in the Chamber, I attended an interesting discussion on work and employment in UK parcel delivery with Sheffield University management school. That discussion aligns with the Government’s recently published consultation on proposals for targeted reforms on employment status, which will seek to address many issues—particularly around bogus self-employment—that colleagues have raised today; we discussed those issues at the roundtable, too.
I will move on to Royal Mail’s communication with colleagues. While local operational issues are for Royal Mail’s management to explain and address, I know that many hon. Members—as has been raised in this debate and beyond—are dissatisfied with the level of engagement that they have had with the company’s leadership. It is crucial that Royal Mail meets with Members of this House, listens to their concerns and sets out clearly what it is doing to put things right. That is the least that our constituents deserve.
I know that Royal Mail’s chief executive will now be meeting a number of hon. Members in Parliament next month, and I will continue to reflect Parliament’s concerns in my engagements with him—in particular, detailed information on local data and assessments of what is happening at constituency level. In my first engagement with the chief executive, I said that I would take seriously every complaint that is raised directly to Members via their constituents. As a constituency MP, I can share in the reflections and frustrations that colleagues have raised; when we receive those complaints, it is important that we have as much information as possible available to us—and early on. I would like to see that in a more proactive form from Royal Mail.
In addition to engaging constructively with Parliament, it is important that Royal Mail also listens to the concerns and suggestions of its workforce, who work so hard to deliver post across the nation. I welcome engagement, whether through formal or informal channels that are currently in place, such as the Q&A sessions that Royal Mail has introduced, or more directly from staff to senior leadership, but I urge Royal Mail to also to continue to listen to its workforce through their recognised unions and reps. The expertise and first-hand experience of the workforce must help to shape improvements.
Some Members also raised the idea of linking any further price increases to improvements in quality of service. I understand the frustration when people see prices rise but do not see the improvement in services that they rightly expect. Every pound matters to our constituents who are still struggling, and our constituents need to see the value as well as the reliability. Considerations around pricing regulations are a regulatory matter for Ofcom, which is considering this very issue as part of its consultation on pricing and affordability, which was launched on 16 October and will close on 27 November.
Our priority for Royal Mail has been scrutiny of the takeover and securing important undertakings to support the financial sustainability of the company and the long-term provision of the universal service obligations. Colleagues have given careful consideration as to where the Government can continue to play our part—some in quite significant detail—and I am grateful for all the contributions this evening. I commit to continuing to engage with all colleagues in the Chamber on the progress of the quality of service with Royal Mail. Colleagues know that, alongside the Secretary of State, I am meeting with the leadership next week, and we will always be happy to update colleagues following those discussions.
Royal Mail’s performance has not been good enough. Our constituents know it, the Government know it, the House knows it and Royal Mail knows it, so we will continue to engage with Ofcom, and Royal Mail, its owners and its workforce. But people do not want excuses—they want their post delivered on time. Ultimately, that is the only test that matters. It is a test that Royal Mail must pass, and it is the test that this Government will continue to hold it to.
I will conclude by once again thanking our incredible posties across the country. This is not a reflection on them, their hard work, and their service to our constituents and our communities. We are committed to bringing all parties to the table to resolve the issues that we have discussed today, because Royal Mail is a national institution that we want to protect long into the future and an essential public service that our constituents rely on. I thank all colleagues for bringing their voices and those of their constituents to the Chamber today—I hope that they have been heard loud and clear. I look forward to working with all colleagues going forwards.