19 April 2007

19th April 2007 Northampton

The European Postal Market and the Destruction of UK Post Offices This is wrapped up in the Postal Services Directive which the Employment Committee voted through on April 12th and which had been debated the previous day, when I made the following intervention,- " Mr President, I do not normally support nationalisation , preferring private enterprise but for the post I do believe in a national system. The main reason for privatisation is to give the customer choice but for the ordinary person, ie most people, there is no choice in a privatised postal service. Unless, that is, for posting letters you have the crazy idea of different post boxes, in different colours, for different companies all lined up together! Over the last few years in the UK post offices have been closing by the hundred, many in rural areas. But post offices are more than just a postal service, in small communities they are a focal point for social life. So you are asking this committee, the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, to contemplate approving a directive which will cost jobs and destroy a part of the social fabric! In addition, many people are complaining of a poorer service as domestic receivers, getting late post, or no post at all. We also have rising prices. For instance, if I want to send a nice document this size (waving an A4 sheet) without folding it I pay more than if I fold it in half and use a smaller envelope. Barmy. Much of this nonsense is due to the liberalisation of postal services which came in a few years ago. Here commercial firms bid for, and take, the lucrative part, the business mail. We all know what happens then. My own bank envelopes come with a commercial firm's logo; the various branches email the details to a central department, where statements are prepared, one truck takes it all away and they only have to deliver to main postcode areas. The post office then takes over the expensive part, sorting to local areas and final delivery, as well as collecting individual mailings from all the post boxes. The result of taking this lower cost part from the post office is to raise the cost of their remaining business. So prices rise, jobs are lost and social amenities are destroyed. Its barmy, quite loopy. I shall therefore vote against adopting this directive, which I know is hopeless, so I will support the rapporteur's amendments which seek to postpone the date of implementation." The rapporteur was Stephen Hughes, Labour North East and he thanked me in open committee for my support! The following day a committee vice-president, Thomas Mann, PPE, Germany, remarked that he found my contribution very interesting! Clearly he had not considered the implications of privatisation of the post. Listening to the rest it is pretty clear that not too many others had either. This is rather surprising because earlier this year a meeting the socialist group in parliament (PSE) accepted the fact that business mail was 80 percent of general postal services. That meeting of the PSE was followed, yesterday April 18th 2007, by one of the ALDE group (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), to which the British Liberal Democrats belong. Seeking to "unravel the myths" on the EU’s demand for postal liberalisation by 2009 this was hosted by the Swedish MEP Ollie Schmidt. His co-host was Bill Newton Dunn MEP, Lib -Dem East Midlands, who was an hour and a half late. Wolfgange Pickave of Deutche Poste, their Director for Regulation in Brussels complained that British post offices are subsidised but argued that public funding to maintain a universal service, is preferable to allowing certain areas of the postal market to be reserved for the universal service provider. But he said "The money collected should be divided equally amongst the service providers". "Mr Pickave argues that the British Post Office is subsidised, then agrees with it, but wants an equal subsidy for Deutche Post" commented UKIP MEP Derek Clark. "In that case what can Deutche post offer us that the UK does not have already?" Jan Bart-Henry of TNT Netherlands was more explicit about the hopes of private postal providers. "TNT are cherry-pickers" he admitted. "We don't want the rotten apples". He claimed that TNT does not threaten the incumbent service provider but only force them to become more efficient. "We creamskim, it is normal business practice - lets not duplicate universal services and force universal service obligations on new entrants". "I doubt TNT could cope in a truly with a level playing field with the Royal mail" said UKIP MEP Derek Clark "and according to Mr Bart Henry they don't want to. What concerns me is who is going to deliver down to Dartmoor, across to Gwynedd, up to Skye and Orkney? What is going to happen to the Rural post office and the villages that depend on them?". Co-host Liberal Democrat Bill Newton Dunn MEP roused himself to state that "The UK Post office was overmanned and loss making. Thatcher could not privatise it as it was such a disaster. New Labour is making a courageous effort to privatise it to prevent it dying from inefficiency". He obviously felt that wrapped up the arguments for and against, as he promptly fell asleep again. "I am very disappointed" said UKIP MEP Derek Clark, "I hoped the Liberal Democrats would want to help maintain rural services but they seem pro anything that comes out of the EU". He is desperate to work". Other member states lack realism. They do not seem to understand the scale of business mail and the impact upon the remaining service by allowing commercial operators to take this lucrative sector. They have not considered that this inevitably raises the costs of the remaining services. If one asks why they have this blinkered attitude it is because they are mostly amateurs producing a theoretical solution to a problem which may or may not exist. This also explains why the above account of the ALDE meeting suggests a great deal of muddled thinking. The damage done to UK postal services is due in large part to liberalisation where Dutch and German companies have taken sectors of our business mail. This begs the question, “Why does the Royal Mail not make a bid for corresponding services in Holland and Germany?”. The answer is simple, at the moment Dutch and German law forbids it. When they too have fallen in line with liberalisation will the Royal Mail be in good enough shape to make such a bid? Derek Clark MEP Northampton 19th April 2007

Read the full news article

11 April 2007

April 11th - 12th 2007 Brussels Commentary Employment Committee

Brussels Commentary Employment Committee April 11th - 12th 2007 This was a quiet two day session but the Postal Directive which I had highlighted in an earlier commentary was debated and voted on. I made the following intervention,- " Mr President, I do not normally support nationalisation , preferring private enterprise but for the post I do believe in a national system. The main reason for privatisation is to give the customer choice but for the ordinary person, ie most people, there is no choice in a privatised postal service. Unless, that is, for posting letters you have the crazy idea of different post boxes, in different colours, for different companies all lined up together! Over the last few years in the UK post offices have been closing by the hundred, many in rural areas. But post offices are more than just a postal service, in small communities they are a focal point for social life. So you are asking this committee, the Employment and Social affairs Committee, to contemplate approving a directive which will cost jobs and destroy a part of the social fabric! In addition, many people are complaining of a poorer service as domestic receivers, getting late post, or no post at all. We also have rising prices. For instance, if I want to send a nice document this size (waving an A4 sheet) without folding it I pay more than if I fold it in half and use a smaller envelope. Barmy. Much of this nonsense is due to the liberalisation of postal services which came in a few years ago. Here commercial firms bid for, and take, the lucrative part, the business mail. We all know what happens then. My own bank envelopes come with a commercial firm's logo; the various branches email the details to a central department, where statements are prepared, one truck takes it all away and they only have to deliver to main postcode areas. The post office then takes over the expensive part, sorting to local areas and final delivery, as well as collecting individual mailings from all the post boxes. The result of taking this lower cost part from the post office is to raise the cost of their remaining business. So prices rise, jobs are lost and social amenities are destroyed. Its barmy, quite loopy. I shall therefore vote against adopting this directive, which I know is hopeless, so I will support the rapporteur's amendments which seek to postpone the date of implementation." PS. The rapporteur was Stephen Hughes, Labour North East and he thanked me in open committee for my support! The following day a committee vice-president, Thomas Mann, PPE, Germany, remarked that he found my contribution very interesting! Clearly he had not considered the implications of privatisation of the post. Listening to the rest its pretty clear than not too many others had either. Derek Clark MEP Brussels April12th 2007

Read the full news article