10 February 2009 by John Cawse - © Hellmail.co.uk

Today, I received a letter from the BERR MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT.

They thank me for my letter to Lord Mandelson of 22 December 2008 about [the] Royal Mail, and proceed to use four pages of A4 to tell me about the Post Office. This does nothing to convince me that government knows its armpit from its elbow, let alone Royal Mail from Post Office Limited.

Perhaps we should start again.

I will now quote the body of text I sent to Lord M. via the website WriteToThem , http://www.writetothem.com/.

I had introduced it by saying I thought Lord M. a disgrace for his actions regarding the Hooper Report and its recommendations. Here is the text:

"Well - I've seen nothing in the Hooper report to convince me that Royal Mail shouldn't have remained a state monopoly.

"The report's recommendation to find a minority private stakeholder looks to me like lip-service has been paid to any notion of independence, and is carrying out the politicos' wishes to get mail privatised come what may. There's no vision. There's no clarity of thought. There's no imagination.

"In the report, Hooper acknowledges the present state of affairs is a disaster. I believe that had the state monopoly not been threatened with the advent of competition, we would be fairly contented when turning our minds to matters postal- the public, and we, used to be justifiably proud of our Post Office- it was an excellent and fair service, the envy of the world: only since competition was introduced has the service been run down, and the poorer.

"I concede that there could have been moves to make it more efficient, and thus cheaper/ and/or/ more profitable; I don't think, though, that competition is the way to do it, and preserve the USO.

"Reading the Questions about overall objectives (which is why we're all here, after all...), I am at a loss to understand why competition and privateering is felt to be desirable, except obvious self-interest).

"Responses to those questions tell a story. Everyone is happy with RM as an entity, with it's position in the market, and it's having sole obligation to the USO.

"The main concerns about RM seem to be price, q of s, reliability, and choice of products.

"I don't have a problem with people setting up businesses to handle mail/bulk postings/letter-stuffing/etc. They can source/collect and sort and bring it all to the delivery offices if they wish, just as now.

"Everyone, almost, appears to want to see transparency of costs within RM: if RM remains a state owned company, fair enough.

"So; price, q of s, reliability, and choice of products.

"Is it really necessary to hive off part, a half, virtually, of RM- and to foreign investors- to achieve desirable results there?

"Commercial interests were recognised to have made criticisms without any evidence to back them up during the investigations made prior to the report. (hmmm...sounds familiar)

"It is acknowledged that DA is priced too low (which I have been saying for a long time), and that it should cover costs and provide a reasonable profit.

"It also understands that commercial operators were likely to cherry-pick, thus undermining the USO unless some remedy to this be found. Perhaps if DA was set at realistic levels, and RM was at least guaranteed price stability in real terms and was free to introduce new products and services, the costs of the USO could be covered.

"RM would have to stay within acceptable price limits. Even I understand that putting prices up willy-nilly is only likely to lose business.

"Customers want a frequent, reliable, dependable and high-quality service. Since the introduction of competition, we have seen a shift in quality and quantity of service from RM that many see as a depreciation in service levels- no more second delivery, only one daily collection, later, less predictable deliveries, PO closures, etc.

"RM has subsequently also lost a share of the bulk market (up to 40%) which has had "a negative impact on the company's financial health".

"It is "generally accepted" that only the large business users of RM have benefitted although it appears at least one person is complaining that we are not doing enough of his/her work for the money he/she is getting because of our presentation requirements.

"SMEs and domestic consumers have been adversely affected except on deadline-delivery performance, which has been successfully improved.

"Much is made of the decline in mail volumes, yet revenues are up since e-fulfillment yields more than has been lost to e-substitution. It is perverse of RM's Board to claim that the company did not expect to recover those revenues. GET OUT THERE AND FIGHT FOR THE BUSINESS!!!

If you ask certain people, and I have, about the volume of traffic going out on delivery this year compared to last, you'll be told, as I was, that there is about 3% less this year (there is a margin of error here since methods of assessing volumes have changed).

"It's significant, granted, but it generally doesn't mean I deliver to less houses. And where a few years ago I may have had a few more letters, I now carry much more weight. This makes the job harder for me, and slows me down; but, weight=revenue, and size=revenue. Check out the size and weight of The National Trust mail, or She magazine, or Sky magazine. It is reasonable to assert that the value of my bags is now greater compared to the past, at least the recent past.

"As for my having to deliver yet more mail in less time at a speed comparable with the Light Infantry; this time I shall say no more except I have a picture in my mind's eye of Mr. Crozier walking briskly about the Boardroom table, down the corridor to his brisk (but warm, like Ms Moneypenny) PA's office, dictating in double-quick time, before briskly going to the loo and briskly back to his office for a brisk cup of coffee whilst he briskly catches up on his notes before briskly compiling more notes and briskly presenting his latest ideas to a pricked-eared, state-of-alert Allen Leighton for his brisk attention and brisk response before they briskly call for a brisk rickshaw to briskly ferry them to who knows where for a brisk who knows what with a brisk who knows whom in a brisk attempt at cost-cutting."

Perhaps Lord Mandelson would address the issues I raise in this letter, rather than give me a detailed response to something I didn't write to him about, and perhaps if he paid more attention generally, he might be in a better position to do his job and represent us rather than impose his own agenda on an unwilling public. He is after all, a public SERVANT .

I would also add the following, a report from http://www.hellmail.co.uk/ for his consideration: "Royal Mail Privatisation Opposition Intensifies"

http://www.hellmail.co.uk/postalnews/templates/postal_industry_news.asp?articleid=1272&zoneid=3

There is massive resentment among almost everyone I meet regarding plans to privatise, partially or otherwise, Royal Mail, and not much pleasure at the way things have changed since the advent of "competition" in the UK postal sector.

Royal Mail MUST remain a WHOLLY PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY and any competition must be fair, and be seen to be fair- not just good for the competitor, but for Royal Mail too.

For 374 years this fabulous institution has served the nation admirably. Please keep it this way. It is truly a thing of beauty to be treasured and nurtured, not sold off for a quick buck.

Properly managed, it provides a healthy return whilst giving workers good terms and conditions, and excellent quality of service at real value for money.

© Hellmail.co.uk (10 February 2009)

This article can now be Stumbled, E-mailed to a friend or displayed in an easy-print format.

See Also >>

Hellmail content is covered by copyright and may not be reproduced without a return link to the article.