REISSUED: LTB 158/26 – BUSINESS & TRADE SELECT COMMITTEE – RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENT REGARDING OFCOM

[POSTMAN]

https://www.cwu.org/ltb/reissued-ltb-15 ... ing-ofcom/

REISSUED: LTB 158/26 – BUSINESS & TRADE SELECT COMMITTEE – RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENT REGARDING OFCOM
No. 158/26

22nd May 2026

Dear Colleagues,

BUSINESS & TRADE SELECT COMMITTEE – RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENT REGARDING OFCOM

As you will be aware, the CWU recently gave evidence to the Business and Trade Select Committee regarding the service quality crisis at Royal Mail and Ofcom’s failure to properly regulate the wider sector.

The CWU particularly emphasised the lack of regulation for parcel courier companies like Amazon and Evri, who use bogus self-employment models to undercut Royal Mail and hive off profits from our network, inhibiting the growth of the company.

The Committee was not satisfied by either Royal Mail or Ofcom’s responses to their investigation into service quality issues and had committed to ongoing scrutiny.

We are therefore pleased to receive the Committee’s recommendations on the regulation of postal services as a result of their investigation. Please see the attached document.

The report starkly acknowledges Ofcom’s failure to regulate the sector, stating “we conclude Ofcom is failing as the statutory regulator of the postal service to deliver on the task it has been set by Parliament”.

The Committee has therefore recommended a reset and an improvement plan for Ofcom to ensure they have a regulatory regime fit for the 21st century postal service. This involves Ofcom setting out a concrete plan for how they will improve their regulatory regime in a timely manner.

The Committee have also stated that if the improvement plan fails to deliver meaningful change from Ofcom within six months, they recommend that the Secretary of State takes steps towards changes on Ofcom’s duties and powers. They have also specifically recommended that the government take measures to ensure that “competitors are not able to free-ride on Royal Mail’s infrastructure, nor undercut employment conditions through gig economy models.”

In addition, the Committee has recommended that the government also consider a network levy on competitors – this is a key demand from the CWU that we have pushed for several years.

The Committee has also stated that they “have not heard persuasive evidence to refute the previous Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s finding that Royal Mail has deprioritised delivery of letters” and have recommended that Ofcom undertake an enhanced investigation to identify and root out this practice.

This is a significant step in the right direction towards levelling the playing field for Royal Mail, among a market full of gig-economy competitors with poor pay and conditions. Our members’ evidence has helped secure this set of far-reaching recommendations and forces Ofcom to properly regulate the sector. Royal Mail must now also ensure that they resolve the chaos in workplaces and stamp out the practice of prioritising parcels over letters, lest they face harsher sanctions.

We will now continue campaigning for the government to accept these recommendations and go further to secure the future of our postal service. Our postal service and our members’ jobs will not survive unless the sector is properly regulated and parcel giants like Amazon are made to pay their fair share.

Please ensure branches and members have access to this report. We will keep you updated as to any further developments.

Any enquiries relating to the content of this LTB should be referred to the General Secretary’s department dlynch@cwu.org.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Ward

General Secretary

Martin Walsh

Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

[world class male]

i see master walsh is still yet to learn the meaning of the word "bogus"

[Mr Rush]

i see master walsh is still yet to learn the meaning of the word "bogus"

The generally accepted defition is 'not genuine', as in they aren't really self-employed. Upon looking it up; are you referring to the other, less common, semantic widening 'useless'? Whatever the meaning, I think we can all agree that there should be a reduction in bogosity.