The postal services bill is bad for postal services and bad

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The postal services bill is bad for postal services and bad for us

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... r-consumer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The bill is looking more and more like a done deal, but much of what it puts forward should concern consumers

Lindsay Mackie
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 December 2010 17.00 GMT


Standardised pricing for mail delivery across the UK may disappear if the postal services bill is passed. Photograph: Chris Ratcliffe / Rex Features
Today we've come that little bit closer to another giant asset sale of the country's slowly built up public realm. In other words, it's the formal end of the committee stage of the second reading of the postal services bill.

This is the bill designed to sell off the 400-year-old Royal Mail (started under Charles I, though there is an argument that Henry VIII first saw the potential), separate the Post Office and Royal Mail as entities, and possibly open the way for any number of ways to lose the universal service obligation (USO) – that is, uniform mail delivery at the same price wherever you live in the UK – through introducing the concept of financial stability, by which the effect of providing USO on profit and loss will be measured, and possibly found wanting..

There is a huge amount of anxiety about the safety of the USO – the epitome of a public service – and the excellent Consumer Focus (being axed by the government next year) gave evidence on this to the postal services bill committee. It was concerned that Ofcom was not obliged to impose essential conditions for mail integrity on postal service operators. In other words, some spiv gets hold of a bit of Royal Mail, decides there's no money in daily delivery to Muckle Flugga and persuades Ofcom to agree. Goodbye USO.

The really bad thing about the bill, as far as our post office network is concerned, is that so much is being left to government regulation that it cannot be properly scrutinised. The committee stage has heard some very unsatisfactory stuff from Ed Davey, the responsible minister, and the big worries that vexed the committee, and should vex us, are these.

The Post Office and Royal Mail are two companies, but are still symbiotically and sensibly intertwined. They form our communications network, and in a sensible country we would not be having any of this legislation at all. This bill does not in any way guarantee the present inter-business agreement between the two, which is serious for the Post Office, as around 36% of its revenue comes from Royal Mail business. In addition there is back-office work worth around £150m a year which the Royal Mail doesn't charge for but which assists the Post Office.

The government has said there will be no further post office closure programmes. But what this bill in no way does is safeguard the Post Office against the shrinkage that is already going on. Some 900 post offices are up for sale; between March 2010 and now 160 post offices have shut, and have mainly been replaced by Outreach services – which are basic, and very part-time.

There is no obligation expressed either by the minister or in this bill to make the Post Office the "front office for government" (in the government's own phrase). The amount of government business put through the Post Office continues to decrease.

The bill will have its third reading in the New Year and then go to the House of Lords, but it's looking like a done deal. Mutualisation of the Post Office has been much vaunted by the government – but mutualisation of what? If the government is determined to separate Royal Mail from the Post Office – madly destructive as that seems to me – and if we are also to have a vibrant, locally based post office network, it has a lot of work to do on how to achieve that beyond this bad bill.

[zootmartian]

I'm looking forward to privatisation, cannot come soon enough!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I'm looking forward to privatisation, cannot come soon enough!

..........and..........

[dvbuk55]

I'm looking forward to privatisation, cannot come soon enough!

..........and..........

Well you may be a little premature there zoot.............as I am sure has been mentioned many times before.

[Wessex]

lol

[DGP1]

I'm looking forward to privatisation, cannot come soon enough!

..........and..........

Well you may be a little premature there zoot.............as I am sure has been mentioned many times before.

Yeah I noticed

[andy2007]

I'm looking forward to privatisation, cannot come soon enough!

Come on then, enlighten us: Why are you looking forward to Privatisation?
Is it because you feel they'd do a better job of running RM?
Perhaps you expect to gain financially?
Or maybe some other reason. You must have a reason for looking forward to it. And I for one, am interested in knowing what it is.

Personally, I'm very much against privatising RM. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I couldn't be wrong. Let's hear your argument(s) for Privatisation.

[steven100]

If RM gets privatised anyone who believes its going to be better are deluded. Less pay, worse conditons and longer walks. Wake up deluded people.
Oh and i forgot a worse service for the public.