| |
Mandelson’s Royal Mail concession claim charade
• LORD Mandelson’s claim that he has made a concession in his latest proposals for Royal Mail is a charade.
We had already been assured we would retain a universal postal service.
Having worked in postal services since 1946, I will resist until the last moment the idea of bringing in private money to run the Post Office, because it represents the thin end of the wedge of eroding a public service. Look what happened with BT. There are aspects of the government’s case I don’t dispute. I have been calling for reform of the current regulatory system for years, because of Postcomm’s bias towards Royal Mail’s competitors.
TNT and other private postal operators are generously subsidised by Royal Mail’s “final mile” delivery obligation under current pricing tariffs.
I recognise the need for change on the operational side. But Royal Mail will not discuss with the unions what “modernisation” means.
We already have automation in sorting centres. The Hooper report and Mandelson’s interpretation of it confuse efficiency with profitability, because Royal Mail cannot charge as much for stamps as other national EU postal services.
TNT in Holland charges three times as much on 100g letters and, unlike Royal Mail, still enjoys a government-backed monopoly on delivering letters of 50g or less.
Royal Mail has for the past financial year been running at a profit. It seems immoral to use the pension deficit as an argument for privatisation when, given a proper tariff structure, Royal Mail could clear the deficit – not overnight but still more quickly than the time the bailed-out banks will take to balance their books.
LORD CLARKE OF HAMPSTEAD
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
