Royal Mail: Performance

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described.

If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline.

Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK.

For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public.

I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The timelines he is outlining have not been met, but that has coincided with a remarkable increase in the cost, particularly of first-class stamps, in the past five years. Does he agree that that is what drives the downward trend in the community’s trust in Royal Mail to deliver, and it needs to modernise and be more efficient?

I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. A recent Gallup meta-analysis of about 1.8 million employers found that a meaningful increase in employees’ wellbeing leads on average to a 10% increase in productivity. In the light of that evidence, does he agree that it would be beneficial for the chief executive of Royal Mail to meet urgently with the Communication Workers Union to ensure that existing agreements are honoured and that the wellbeing of the workforce is genuinely prioritised?

That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member.

Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way.

Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation.

I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here.

I send my commiserations to the hon. Member’s constituents for not receiving his newsletter. On a wider point, I have visited the hard-working postal workers at the Garforth and Seacroft delivery offices in in my constituency and, as he says, they work hard and take pride in their work. Does he agree that the fault does not lie with them? There is a toxic culture at the top of Royal Mail. It needs to work with the Communication Workers Union and the Government to sort things out and protect the universal service obligation.

At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We have been talking about this issue for many months, and yet there has been no improvement. There are still delays. In one office in my constituency, there is a staffing shortage of 10, so there is a fundamental problem with motivation and staff feeling valued. Does he agree that this cannot go on? People are missing hospital appointments and essential mail. The Government need to fix it sooner rather than later.

The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly.

I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly.

My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.

Order. Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so it will be difficult to get every Member in. I am going to impose a two-minute limit to start. It is not in my gift to stop this, but if Members take interventions, that may further restrict the time that people have to speak. That is in your gift.

I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the posties in my patch. The Blyth and Ashington sorting offices have been absolutely brilliant.

This issue has been raised before, and we are raising it again today. The people at the pick point—the people on the factory floor and the people in the sorting offices—have a different story to tell from the directors of Royal Mail, and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth here. We have seen horrendous issues, certainly in my constituency. If the Minister takes one thing away from this debate, I plead with him to have a look at the allegations by people in the sorting offices about management receiving bonuses to ensure that the universal service obligation is not adhered to and to prioritise parcels over letters. Please, Minister, investigate that allegation, because if it is true, it needs to be dealt with.

We have lots of issues in my constituency, including to do with the democratic process. We had an election in which 73 votes came after the close of poll. We have disabled people suffering and potentially being evicted from their properties. We have people with speeding fines who normally would get their wrist slapped facing court judgments. We have medical appointments being cancelled. We have a whole array of difficulties.

This is deliberate sabotage by Royal Mail—that is my view. The answer is to ensure that the Government renationalise Royal Mail. It is a treasured service in this country.

Order. I reiterate that there is a strict two-minute time limit on speeches.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.

The debate is particularly timely because, just yesterday, my office received three separate phone calls about three separate addresses in Fell Lane in Keighley, none of which have received their post for the last two weeks, despite those residents specifically expecting letters. I do, however, commend the work of postal workers across the country, without whom we could not function. Let me be clear that my contribution today is aimed not at them, but at the management structures that sit within Royal Mail.

I have had various correspondence and meetings with Royal Mail—one in September last year, and two following on from that—specifically raising the cases of my constituents. One pensioner, for example, waited more than two weeks for a new bank card to arrive. In that time, she could not access her pension and do the basics of her weekly food shop. Another constituent waited 10 days for a hospital letter to arrive. He is undergoing chemotherapy, so ended up missing a vital appointment. Distrust of the postal service has become so bad that one of my constituents hand-delivers documents to the court herself, unable to trust the system after receiving papers late in the post.

Royal Mail’s website still says that if someone buys a second-class stamp, they can expect that post to be delivered within two to three working days, or indeed on a Saturday, yet in my meetings with Royal Mail staff, they tell me that that is not internally the expectation of the delivery of their service. There is therefore a discontinuity between what they are telling the public and Members of Parliament and how they are operating internally. That must change, and I expect the Minister to hold Royal Mail to account on behalf of my constituents and those of all Members of Parliament here.

Unfortunately, in Oxford East, we have had a series of problems with the reliability of Royal Mail deliveries. Initially, there was an unwillingness to acknowledge those problems. I undertook one visit to a sorting office that had apparently been cleaned up in advance of my visit, with all the mail put out of the racks and into boxes. I was told about that, so I then did an unannounced visit and saw the real state of play, which was very different.

Following those unfortunate events, the management engaged more with me and local residents, and a number of changes were instituted following a public meeting. The east Oxford sorting office counter is now open for longer. There is a special system for NHS letters in Oxford, pioneered by Oxford posties, and measures have been introduced to improve retention of staff. Both my local residents and I have been advertising recruitment events for the local Royal Mail. I underline to the Minister that the one thing that worked in Oxford, even though we still have big problems, was engaging with the local posties and residents. We should listen to them, because they know how to improve the service. We really need to see that from the management of Royal Mail, as was rightly underlined by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

Secondly, we need to stop the unfair competition with delivery cowboys. We have all seen this, unfortunately, in our constituencies. I have heard some appalling tales from people who are employed under really dreadful terms and conditions. They do not even have time to go to the toilet. They cannot eat, apart from when they are driving. They are paid a pittance. They have completely impossibly expectations placed on their shoulders. Ultimately, they are undercutting the Royal Mail model. We need to deal with it. We need the Employment Rights Act 2025 enacted in full and we need more action to stop that unfair playing field.