Performance of Royal Mail

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this important debate.

Last year, Royal Mail, which is now owned by a Czech billionaire, was fined £21 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. In the same financial year, its chief executive received a £7 million bonus. That is a third of the cost of a fine paid while the service was failing the people who depend on it. The consequences are felt by my constituents. One resident in Hockley missed multiple hospital appointments because his letters were not delivered, and a resident in Shenstone village missed an insurance claim deadline because essential documents never arrived. Those are not minor inconveniences; they are barriers to healthcare, financial security and everyday life.

Rural communities are particularly badly affected, with some of my villages lucky enough to receive post twice a month, yet Royal Mail dismisses complaints, claiming that there are no problems in the relevant area. That is a stock response I receive that bears no relation to reality. Royal Mail divides areas into 118 overarching postcode areas, which mix dense urban centres with vast rural areas, meaning that the high delivery rates in town centres can hide issues and completely change the way in which we view the figures. We cannot allow Royal Mail to hide behind statistics that fail to reflect the lived experiences of residents.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about the experiences of her constituents. My constituents have faced issues in which they have had mail only once every three or four weeks; one constituent did not receive 14 items of post. Does she agree that the Royal Mail’s treatment of Ofcom fines simply as a baked-in operational risk is one reason, among others, why we need a far more muscular regulatory regime?

[Sarah Edwards]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can infer that there is definitely a baked-in position here, and that is a big problem, as we will hear from many Members. I hope that the importance of Ofcom being able to regulate better will be a crucial part of what we hear from the Minister.

As a member of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, I took part in our inquiry into Royal Mail’s performance. We exposed a frustrating cycle of pass the parcel: the Government say that they will strengthen Ofcom’s powers if asked, and Ofcom says that changes are for the Government to make. Meanwhile, Ofcom has admitted that fines against a loss-making company are entirely ineffective in improving services, yet its proposed response to continued failures is more fines. Those statements seem rather at odds with each other. Our Committee has recommended that if Royal Mail fails to improve within six months, the Secretary of State should consult on changing Ofcom’s powers and duties. Five months on, meaningful improvement is yet to materialise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Royal Mail was once widely respected and trusted, but it is now too often a cause of frustration and anger for our constituents. Year after year, Royal Mail is falling short of the targets it must meet by law, and the public’s patience is wearing thin. The danger is that at some point the business can no longer survive. While I have no desire to see that happen, we cannot keep making excuses or dismissing what my constituents are going through. They are missing appointments, receiving important news late, and being let down by a system that cannot be relied on to get the basics right.

Just over a year ago, the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, held a session with Royal Mail, Ofcom and consumer groups. We were told then that work was under way to improve the service, but it is hard to see any sign of that on the ground. This year again, in most of Royal Mail’s Scottish postcode areas, it has missed its targets, and constituents continue to write to me about the problems they face. A late birthday card can be forgiven, but too often delivery delays affect more important mail. Royal Mail assured our Committee that a new NHS barcode would allow NHS letters to be picked out and given priority, yet NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has told me that it cannot use the barcode because it does not work with the Royal Mail system that is used for most of its letters.

Royal Mail presented the barcode system as an answer, but it is not working in practice. That has real consequences for my constituents. A disabled constituent recently told me that they no longer have the strength to complain. They have already been on to the sorting office and have seen no improvement. Right now, they are waiting on a letter about a home flu jab. Their post is so unreliable that they believe the letter will arrive late. Another constituent told me how they only realised that they had missed an NHS appointment when they spoke with the hospital directly. When they visited the sorting office, their letters were waiting there, still to be delivered, including one telling them about that appointment.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate contribution about the experience of her constituents and the real-life impact of Royal Mail’s failures. Does she agree that this is yet another prime example of why it is important to properly regulate a public service? Contrary to what some Members of this House may think, it is not bureaucracy or red tape; it is about securing the proper functioning of a public service.

[Maureen Burke]

I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his contribution.

Those are just two dreadful examples that show the heart of the problem. People are losing faith in the Royal Mail because it is letting them down when they need the service most. I know the postal world has changed. We keep in touch differently now, sending fewer letters and more emails around the world. Postal services are changing, but I do not believe that we want to end up in a situation like Denmark, where PostNord has stopped delivering letters altogether. I believe that the public want Royal Mail to have a future, but for that to be possible, management must take responsibility rather than just blame changes in how people use the service, or put the blame on posties.

People are being priced out, and Royal Mail is adding to their anger by putting up stamp prices. How can we expect people to use a service when research from Citizens Advice suggests that one in three adults would struggle to afford a book of first-class stamps? Equally, it will not be possible for the Royal Mail to meet standards with fewer staff, who feel undervalued, as the Communication Workers Union has said. When the previous board brought in lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions for new staff, it made Royal Mail a less attractive place to work, with up to half of new staff leaving within the first year. Its owners must show that they understand what went wrong, or risk bringing the service closer to collapse.

I would like to sum up by saying this. I wish Royal Mail well and I pay tribute to Britain’s hard-working posties. Royal Mail is an institution and for many of my constituents it is a lifeline. That is why I hope that the promise from management to meet targets by early next year is signed for and delivered on time.