Parliament demands ‘concrete protections’ for mail

General secretary Billy Hayes has welcomed this week’s House of Commons resolution* calling on the Government to provide “concrete protections” for rural postal services and maintain the current universal service obligation.

On the same day that the CWU announced its decision to hold a national strike ballot, MPs debated a motion proposed by North Ayrshire and Arran Member Katy Clark, which voiced widespread concerns at the twin impact of Royal Mail privatisation and end-to-end competition on the remote areas of the UK.

Backbench Conservatives and Liberal Democrats from rural areas of England joined Labour Members and those from the parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in expressing their fears over what could happen if this vital public service is left at the mercy of unregulated privateers.

“This cross-party breadth of opinion accurately reflects what our activists have been reporting from their high street campaign stalls right around the country,” Billy said, and explained: “Apprehensions about the future are felt by supporters of all the parties – and particularly in less populated parts of the nation.

“We welcome this resolution as a clear indication of the vital importance of our industry to every part of the UK.”

MP Katy Clark speaking at a parliamentary debate opposing Royal Mail privatisation in June.
Introducing the debate in the Commons, Ms Clark said: “I represent a rural constituency which contains many small town and island communities, and I know there is a great deal of concern among post offices in my area about the impact that privatisation will have on the services that they provide.

“Rural post offices and postal services are most vulnerable because they are the most costly.

“Private parcel delivery companies routinely charge a high premium for delivering to remote or rural areas or to islands-or simply refuse to deliver at all,” she continued, adding: “Even in areas of my constituency where private companies are normally willing to deliver, as soon as there is a bit of bad weather only Royal Mail continues to provide a service.”

Read Katy Clark’s speech in full.

Her fellow Scots Mike Weir (Angus) and Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) also contributed to the discussion, Mr Weir arguing that “a reliable universal mail service is essential” to small, local businesses, while Mr Reid pointed out that the “Department for Work and Pensions has an important role to play by giving business to the Post Office.”

Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) agreed that the sell-off could impact negatively on small businesses, predicting that “the whole local economy of large swathes of rural parts across these islands will be severely detrimentally affected.”

Ms Whiteford said that her constituency had no railway stations and also had problems with broadband access. She insisted that it was therefore “important”, to recognise that the Post Office and postal services are “part of the essential infrastructure” in such localities.

From across the Irish Sea, South Down’s Margaret Ritchie described the legislative provisions relating to the universal service in the 2011 Postal Services Act as “lukewarm reassurances.”

Ms Ritchie told the House that, among her constituents “it is feared that once private owners are placed under financial and competitive pressure, they will re-examine it and seek to change the terms of that important social compact, or be forced to contract their service.”

North Antrim MP Ian Paisley warned that some of his electors could be “starved of a service.

“People on the island of Rathlin, which I represent, will be forced to come to the mainland of Northern Ireland to collect their post,” he explained, and insisted: “Such a strangulation of service cannot be allowed to happen.”

Summing up the feelings of most people, the independent Member for North Down, Sylvia Hermon, said: “There will remain a nervousness and anxiety right across Northern Ireland about the Government’s future intentions in relation to both Royal Mail and postal services.”

Former Government Minister Peter Hain (Neath) highlighted the problems faced by many residents of “the remote former mining villages” in his South Wales constituency.

“There are many pensioners and others who do not have cars and are not online and for whom rural postal services are absolutely vital and the universal service provided by the Royal Mail makes a vital contribution to life,” he told the Chamber.

Like Ms Ritchie, Mr Hain was not reassured by the service protections contained within the 2011 Act – they cover “only the basic minimum” and “could be easily changed while remaining legally compliant,” he pointed out.

Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) echoed Ms Whiteford’s dire forecast about potential damage to local, rural economies, describing as “immense” the “disincentive” effect that higher postal costs will have on small businesses when the public-service ethos of Royal Mail is replaced by the profit motive.

“I urge the Government to listen to the ‘country mice’ and reconsider their flawed and unpopular plans to privatise Royal Mail,” she concluded.

English Conservatives Paul Beresford (Mole Valley), Neil Carmichael (Stroud), Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) and Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) all took the opportunity to have their say on the issue. And while they were critical of past Labour Governments, each of them also expressed areas of concern about the uncertain future.

Mr Norman reminded the House that “many of these sub-post offices are also rural sorting offices and it is equally important to preserve that aspect,” while Ms Newton was worried that “there will be cases in which remote rural communities need these services so much that, although it will not be possible for them to develop commercially, they will need continued public subsidy.”

Mr Beresford said: “The importance and vitality of a rural post office and postal service must not be underestimated” and Mr Carmichael pledged: “Those of us in rural areas will argue strongly that as we move into a new era for postal services, those services must be protected in law.”

Labour’s John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) strongly criticised the current Government for its “failure to deliver the additional work promised to the post offices,” suggesting that this was the reason why “the industry has lost confidence in the Government,” and his Labour colleague Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) told MPs that “the link between Royal Mail and individual post offices is crucial.”

For the Liberal Democrats, North Cornwall’s Dan Rogerson described his constituency as a “big rural area without a single railway station and where people rely on services that are close to them, wherever possible.

“It is a huge source of anxiety to them if they feel that a service that provides access to the wider world is going to be withdrawn,” he continued, insisting: “Postal services are vital.”

Post Office Minister Jo Swinson replied to the debate by setting out the Government’s policy and the reasons for it, making a particular mention of the 2008 Hooper Report and the recommendations that Richard Hooper made at the time.

On the issue of Royal Mail privatisation, Ms Swinson put forward the Government’s main argument that this is necessary in order for the company to “access private capital,” but she did not reply to the argument that both Katy Clark and Peter Hain had put forward that privatisation is not necessary for this, or their citing of the example of Network Rail.

Reflecting on the debate, Billy Hayes said: “It’s quite revealing to hear so many contributions from all of these different areas of the country – but the worries are all very similar.

“The Government has not made a case for privatisation at all – their main argument still seems to be this old chestnut that it’s ‘the only way to access capital’ which we’ve pointed out time and time again is not necessary.

“Network Rail is a not-for-profit company, which accesses private capital for its infrastructure investment and, crucially, it’s this very status of Network Rail that gives it stability, makes it a ‘sound investment’ and means that it can ‘access private capital’ at far, far better rates than any private company would be able to do.

“The Government’s main argument is completely contradicted by the actual reality,” Billy concluded.

* “That this House recognises the vital contribution that Royal Mail makes to rural areas; notes that the six day a week collection and delivery service to rural and remote areas is invaluable to local life; further notes that the relationship Royal Mail has with the post office network is equally important for the continued survival of post offices; recognises that the impending privatisation of Royal Mail will place a question mark over its willingness to maintain what may be loss-making services; and calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas, remote areas and islands while ensuring that the postal universal service obligation in its current form endures.”