CWU explains reason behind demonstration

TODAY'S march and rally are being held because the Communication Workers Union believes that the British postal service has never been under such a threat.

At issue is:

The future of the country's postal services;

The privatisation of our industry;

The destruction of thousands of publicservice jobs.

We want to draw attention to the people who are driving proposals that would have a disastrous effect on a valued public service.

The regulator PostComm is unelected, unaccountable and seemingly untouchable.

Last year, the government passed legislation ensuring three things.

That the British Post Office will remain public;

That post will arrive at every doorstep in the country every day – the "universal service; " That the price of a stamp will be a reasonable amount and the same no matter where you send a letter in Britain.

All three promises from the elected government are under threat from PostComm.

We demand that the government gets a grip of this body, which it created.

Our slogan is "Rein in the Regulator."

We accuse PostComm of being driven by a madcap, Railtrack-style dogma that says that competition is always good and "public" is always bad.

It is the reverse of what the Prime Minister has been saying over the last few weeks.

PostComm's proposals are that, by April 1, it will grant licences to competitors wanting to provide large mailing services involving a minimum of 4,000 items.

This means a threat to 30 per cent of the Post Office's revenue and 40 per cent of its volume.

By April 2004, the regulator wants to grant licences to operators to provide large mailing services involving between 500 and 1,000 items, which means threatening 60 per cent of revenue and 70 per cent of volume.

Finally, in four years time, by April 2006, it wants the complete liberalisation of all British postal services.

In short, it wants to threaten 100 per cent of the Post Office's revenue and 100 per cent of its volume.

So, what will this mean for the "universal service?"

We believe that it would point to the end of postal deliveries at an affordable price to every British doorstep – even though this is supposed to be guaranteed by law!

The point is this – currently, the postal service works on a basis of crosssubsidy.

We all accept that it costs less to deliver a letter in a single town than it does to deliver one from London to the north of Scotland.

It is estimated that the cost of sending a letter to a doorstep at the other end of the country is actually in excess of £15.

We are able to send it for the cost of a first-class stamp because it is subsidised by the savings made on delivering a letter within a town, which is clearly less than the 27p that we pay.

Nevertheless, the public is happy with the system. The government knows this.

That is why it passed the Post Office Act.

The alternative is that, every time you want to send a letter, you would need to find out the exact price that you would have to pay and find a collection of stamps to add up to this amount.

Different tariffs within Britain would make posting a letter a bureaucratic nightmare. You'd have to start working on your Christmas cards in January!

Competition threatens this whole single pricing system – known as the Rowland Hill principle, which was, incidentally, invented and accepted in the Victorian era, although it was free trade's golden age.

Competitors are not interested in delivering to remote or rural areas or even to suburban or domestic addresses.

Competitors want to make money out of the system. They want to cream off inner-city business routes. They want commercial mail in London, Manchester, Glasgow or Cardiff.

The regulator does not realise or care that, by giving them this right, it takes away Post Office profits that enable domestic and remote addresses to be served by the single tariff.

It forces the postal industry to drive up prices to these areas and, eventually, the whole universal service will go.

It will be impractical and unaffordable.

The public loses out. A few speculators gain.

This is the core of what we want to point out today.

The CWU is not afraid to say that competition is not always a good thing, even though, in certain circles, this is considered heresy.

In many areas, we accept that it is useful and even desirable.

In others, a monopoly is sensible, logical and practical.

We want the government to tell PostComm to get away from its dogmatic approach and look at the future of a successful public postal service.

If it does this seriously, it will pull back from these proposals completely today and seriously consider the view that the best answer for the public is no competition at all.

The type of "competition" is itself unfair and unreasonable.

None of the competitors will be expected to deliver to every door in Britain.

They can pick and choose where they would care to deliver.

The regulator is building in advantages for them aimed at ensuring that they take away Post Office business.

This unfair competition would have a disastrous effect on public-sector jobs.

Even before the proposals, the Post Office stated that it wants to cut 30,000 jobs in the next year and a half.

Of course, we will fight that on behalf of our members, but there is also an important social and democratic issue here.

We believe that the public want to provide jobs in the public sector to which they and their children can aspire.

They want jobs that they will be proud to have and which will offer them fair wages, good conditions and security of employment.

We don't want industries that we own, public services, to be run as job-slashing, wage-chopping sweatshops.

The public want to be owners of services of which they are proud.

And they want those industries to be run for them, not for the stock market.

The reverse will happen if PostComm is allowed to have its way.

The network of Post Offices, which can provide a real social focus, especially in rural areas, would be decimated.

If the business loses revenues and profits in its core letters business, it is bound to re-evaluate how extensive a physical post office network can be sustained.

Already, local post offices are closing at an unprecedented rate. Last financial year alone, 547 offices closed.

Support for our campaign has come from many sources.

A National Audit Office report published on January 24, called Opening The Post, admitted that "the introduction of competition could result in a breakdown in the delivery of a universal service at a reasonable uniform price."

The Economist says that the Post Office "could be left with insufficient returns to cover its overhead costs and hence to finance remaining services without across-the-board price increases that might further erode its competitive position."

So, who supports the PostComm proposals? A handful of competition fanatics in the regulator's office and a smattering of delivery firms which want to make money out of the public.

And against them? Everyone who wants a public postal service, post delivered every day to every doorstep in the country and a standard price for British stamps – that is to say, the country.

Support us today. Demonstrate your support for your postal service.

We want to continue to deliver "letters for the rich and letters to the poor."