Royal Mail (Part-privatisation)
The final item of business today is a members business debate on motion S3M-3691, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the proposed part-privatisation of Royal Mail. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the continuing debate at Westminster about the possible part-privatisation of the Royal Mail; further notes that over 170 MPs, including over 140 Labour members, have signed the Early Day Motion in the name of Geraldine Smith MP opposing the plans; welcomes the leading role played by the Communication Workers Union in the campaign against the proposals, and believes that any privatisation of the Royal Mail will have a detrimental effect on postal services in central Scotland and across the country.
Let me state my gratitude to members who have supported the motion and allowed it to be brought for debate. I am also grateful to the members who have stayed this evening to participate. I look forward to their contributions—I even look forward to hearing the case for the United Kingdom Governments plans if anyone is prepared to make it, although looking at the Labour benches I am not sure there will be.
Control over postal services may remain reserved to Westminster, but concern about the future of the Royal Mail is shared by many of my constituents in Central Scotland, and by others across the country. In recent years, Parliament has been no stranger to the fight against decimation of our mail and postal services. There have been many motions, debates, questions, briefings, lobbies and discussions about the network change programme that has led to the closure of so many Post Office branches across the country.
Just last year, I ran surveys which showed massive opposition to the closure of branches in Kildrum, Banton, Queenzieburn, Plains and Grangepans—opposition that went ignored in the face of the UK Governments determination to rid the Post Office of what it saw as burdensome and unprofitable branches. To many of my constituents, who used those branches daily and saw them as providing not just a commercial service but a social and economic heart for their communities, the question was, simply, "Why?"
Is it not the case that the man who owns the post office at Kildrum did not want the member to campaign for it to stay open because he wanted to take the money and close it?
Frankly, that is news to me. I have met the man who runs the post office branch in Kildrum—that message was not communicated to me, although I thank David Whitton for passing it on.
Just when we thought the worst was over, Peter Mandelson was resurrected, with his plans to part-privatise the Royal Mail. We hear a lot in the chamber about broken promises, but these proposals do not simply tear up what was in new Labours 2005 manifesto—they drive a delivery van through the commitment to keeping the post public.
There is rightly outrage at the proposals—not only in this chamber, but in communities throughout Scotland that are already hurting from the network change programme, among the 5,500 people who have signed the petition on number 10s website, and on the Labour benches in Westminster, where more than 140 Labour members of Parliament have signed an early day motion condemning the proposals, joined by all seven Scottish National Party MPs and members from other parties.
The defence against that massive opposition is the Government-commissioned Hooper report. The only way to protect the Royal Mails pension fund is, apparently, by privatising the Royal Mail, yet in a devastating critique, the Communication Workers Union says that the report
"fails to provide any new data or analysis of the postal industry. It proposes the privatisation of Royal Mail although it provides no convincing arguments for this."
It is hardly surprising that many people view the Hooper report as a fig leaf for an ideological decision that was already made by Peter Mandelson before the report was even commissioned, and the pension fund argument as a red herring.
Such is the opposition and disarray surrounding the plans that we have today heard that Deutsche Post DHL has decided to pull out of any possible bid for a privatised part of the Royal Mail, and that TNT is apparently losing interest, as well. Not only is the idea not attractive to parliamentarians, the workers and the public, but it now seems that not even the prospective bidders have any confidence in Brown and Mandelsons great sell-off.
The concern that exists about the proposals is based on principle and on a strong practical case. First, there is the simple principle that the Royal Mail should remain part of the public sector landscape, with the ethos that serving people comes first. The Royal Mail would be closer to the communities that it serves, and would be able to cross-subsidise and provide a universal service. A public sector ethos recognises that delivering services is about more than just making money.
I agree that the principle of public ownership is a good one. Why, if the member agrees with that principle, did he not criticise his own Government for its privatisation proposal in relation to forestry?
It would be helpful if the member stuck to speaking about the motion that is before us.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
On a practical basis, we have only to look at the rail network to see what a botched privatisation—trying to create a market where there is a natural monopoly—looks like. Only the dogma of new Labour can square the circle of nationalising banks on one hand while insisting on privatising the mail infrastructure on the other. Perhaps it is an underhand ploy: given that the UK Government has taken over the banks and bought back Network Rail and the London underground network from private hands, perhaps it wants to sell off the Royal Mail just so that it can buy it back in a few years time.
The practical reasons, however, go deeper than that. This week, the Communication Workers Union stepped up its campaign against the UK Governments proposals to part-privatise the Royal Mail. We have probably all seen photos of the giant post box that is currently making its way from John OGroats to Lands End—I believe it has been in Glasgow today and will visit Edinburgh tomorrow.
As the motion notes, the Communication Workers Union is to be commended for its work in keeping the pressure on the UK Government, and for reflecting the very real concerns of postal workers and customers about the consequences of privatisation.
Will the member give way?
No—I am afraid I have given way more than enough times.
The travelling campaign reminds us of the universal nature of our postal service. The universal service obligation keeps the cost of postage the same no matter where a letter or packet begins and ends its journey. That, as we know, is particularly important for people and businesses in rural areas, but it works both ways. People in the urban areas of central Scotland and beyond depend on receiving goods and services from remote parts of the country, just as much as people in rural areas depend on deliveries from our towns and cities.
People in the Royal Mail workforce are concerned about the future of their jobs if part-privatisation goes ahead. I share those concerns. In the face of a recession, the introduction of a private operator leads to fears of declining wages and poorer terms and conditions, if not outright downsizing and redundancy.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that many workable alternatives exist to take our postal services forward. Nobody disagrees that the Royal Mail and the Post Office need to adapt to declining letter numbers and changing demands from businesses that are using the internet to buy and sell goods. The service is functional; it makes a profit of more than £1 million per day, which is more than can be said for the nationalised banks. It contributes to UK Government funds and yet, as the Communication Workers Union says, the UK Government wants to privatise the profit while nationalising the pension fund debt. As such, it is clear that the measures are motivated by Peter Mandelsons ideological obsession with privatisation.
The motions that other members have lodged on the subject give an idea of how we can revitalise our postal services for the 21st century. They include the idea of a peoples bank, using the Post Office network—an idea that could help to boost the sustainability of the Royal Mail Group as a whole—which Hugh Henry set out in a motion that he lodged. Also, as Cathy Peattie has set out, the UK Government agreed to a £1.2 billion loan facility on commercial terms to modernise Royal Mail operations in 2007 and yet, only two years later, just half of the money has been spent. I was delighted to add my name in support of those motions. It is a pity that, as of this morning, no Labour MSP saw fit to support my motion. For the purpose of consensual debate, perhaps that fact is best glossed over.
There are options for modernising the Royal Mail but retaining it as part of the public sector. What seems to be lacking on the part of the UK Government is political will. I return to the question that so many of my constituents ask me: why? Doubtless, other members are asked the same question. Why close all these post office branches, given the lifeline services that they provide? Why part-privatise the Royal Mail when so much else has been brought into public ownership. I think that I am not alone in wondering whether there is a hidden agenda behind the proposals for the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail—
The member should wind up.
If we look back at the post office closure programme, it all becomes clear: the branches that were deemed to be unprofitable and unattractive to private investors were the ones to be closed. If all the reasons against privatisation that we hear this evening are not enough, one reason alone stands out: the Post Office network may be next. I hope that the UK Government listens to the public, the Scottish Parliament and its own back benchers and scraps its plans to privatise the Royal Mail.
We move to the open debate. I call for speeches of four minutes. A fair number of members want to speak, so I ask members to stick to timing.
I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing this debate on the Royal Mail. It gives us the opportunity to praise the achievements of the Royal Mail and to repeat the points that my Labour colleague, Cathy Peattie, made in her motion: "Keep the Post Public". Unfortunately, Cathy Peattie cannot be with us tonight.
The debate gives us the chance to restate our support for the continued public ownership of the Royal Mail and to underline the importance of the universal service obligation to people across Scotland and the UK. It is a matter of social justice that a letter can be posted at the same price to any address in the UK. I am pleased that there are continuing discussions on the subject. I, too, support the Communication Workers Unions position that the best way in which to protect the universal service obligation, including six-day-a-week delivery, is to keep the post publicly owned.
At a time of economic recession, the Royal Mail and its staff are making a profit. The Royal Mail Group third quarter results show revenue of £2.6 billion, up from £2.5 billion last year. All four businesses are in profit. This years profit to date of £255 million compares favourably to the £162 million profit for the whole of last year. This years full-year profits are expected to be double those of last year. The profits would be higher were it not for the uncompetitive conditions under which the Royal Mail has to deliver mail for rival companies. For instance, there is the inbuilt difficulty for the Royal Mail of having to deliver over the last mile. That obligation is essential for the public, but expensive for the Royal Mail.
Although many Labour MSPs have strong opinions on tonights topic for debate, they also know that the matter is reserved. That said, there can be no doubt that Labour MPs are standing up for the principles. Dundee West MP Jim McGovern, a former parliamentary private secretary, is one of the 140 Labour MPs to sign the early day motion on the subject.
As Bill Butler said in his intervention, we should contrast what the SNP is saying in the motion with what it said on forestry privatisation. The SNP Administration eventually backed down from privatising our forests, but no SNP member made a principled opposition and that was on a devolved issue that is within our competence.
Will the member give way?
No. I have only four minutes.
Feartie.
Mr Gibson, that kind of remark is not appropriate. It will not be repeated.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The fundamental problem with the Royal Mail is a lack of capital. I urge consideration of alternatives to recapitalise it to allow it to compete on a level playing field. In 2007, the UK Government agreed to a £1.2 billion loan facility on commercial terms to modernise the Royal Mails operations but, two years later, only half that money has been spent.
Will the member give way?
I will not take an intervention because I have no confidence in what the Conservatives might do to the Royal Mail should they be in power. I am sure that that feeling is shared by members of other parties. That is an important point.
The current proposals could lead to profitable services being cherry-picked and the core Post Office being left with massive obligations and no real earning capacity. I also share the unions concerns about possible job losses at a time when job retention should be a priority.
The Royal Mail is an integral part of the countrys social fabric. I urge cross-party support for the call for a new relationship between management and postal unions and welcome the Communication Workers Unions commitment to negotiate an agreement that would support the modernisation of the industry while retaining universal provision.
I, too, congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate. It will probably not come as a huge surprise to him or the other members that I disagree with much of what he suggested for taking the Royal Mail forward.
The Labour Partys stance has been quite confused so far. Not a single Labour MSP was prepared to sign Mr Hepburns motion, but I guarantee that not a single one will have the courage to stand up and defend Gordon Browns actions. That, in itself, is worrying.
For clarity, I should point out that not a single Tory MSP signed the motion, either.
Well, yes. As I said clearly, it will not surprise Mr Hepburn that I disagree with much of what he said. That is my reason for not signing the motion.
I will pick up on one of Mr Hepburns points. It was regrettable that 2,500 post offices were closed UK-wide, but the Scottish Government made precious little attempt to save any by running extra services through them. Members should consider the example of Conservative-run Essex County Council, which managed to save a dozen post offices by running council services through them. One Conservative council saved more post offices than the entire Scottish Government.
Let us turn to the subject of the debate. The starting point was the Hooper review, which spelled out clearly the fact that there was a real danger of losing the universal postal service without urgent reform. So far, we have heard no sense of urgent reform from the Scottish National Party or the Labour Party.
The technological advance is unstoppable. The rise of e-mail and text messaging means that far fewer letters are sent. There are 5 million fewer sent today than only two years ago and the figure is due to fall by 8 per cent this year, which will cost the Royal Mail something in the region of £560 million, so there are clear problems for it.
There are also inefficiencies within the system. There is little automation within the Royal Mail and all the local sorting is done by hand. In comparison something like 89 per cent of letters are sorted by Deutsche Post using machines. The Postal Services Commission and the Royal Mails leaders acknowledge that it is somewhere between 25 per cent and 40 per cent less efficient than its competitors.
How on earth can the Royal Mail combat the slide if it is less efficient than its competitors and the mail services market as a whole is on the slide due to text messages and the rise of e-mail? We need solutions. I note that even the Scottish Government has accepted that the status quo is untenable, which Mr Hepburn did not seem prepared to do.
The starting point must be protection of the universal service obligation. The suggestion of bringing in some private expertise and capital is good in principle. We will want to see every clause in the bill so that we can ascertain whether things will be achieved, but we support the idea in principle. We must bring in the private expertise of those who have experience of change management through technological advances in the sector and we need to bring in private capital because the Government simply does not have the capital. In a recession, the Royal Mail trying to compete with health, education and justice for scant funds is unlikely to happen.
I, too, congratulate my Scottish National Party colleague Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate.
According to the Labour back-bench MP John Grogan, there will soon be a climb-down on the Postal Services Bill because more than 100 Labour MPs are prepared to vote against that part-privatisation bill. In addition, more than 140 Labour MPs have signed the early day motion at the Palace of Westminster. I fully congratulate all MPs who have signed that motion, but particularly the Labour MPs who are prepared to stand up against Gordon Brown to prevent him from taking this kamikaze decision on Royal Mail.
What the EDM proposes would be the sensible course of action, but Gordon Brown is in charge and we all know that the sensible course of action does not always prove to be his chosen one. The fact that the Governments proposal reneges on a Labour manifesto pledge should set alarm bells ringing, but it appears that Gordon Brown is oblivious to public perception and opinion.
Will the member give way on that point?
I do not have much time, I am afraid.
The manifesto pledge stated:
"Our ambition is to see a publicly owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health, providing customers with an excellent service and its employees with rewarding employment."
I am not sure which bit of that statement allows the comeback kid, Lord Mandelson, to claim that his plans to sell a minority stake in Royal Mail are consistent with party policy. Lord Mandelson was one of the architects of new Labour, alongside Blair and Brown, and recent history has shown that, for Lord Mandelson, the substance of a debate comes a distant second to spin.
Any form of privatisation of the Post Office network has already been widely criticised by unions and the public alike. The main concerns about the proposed action are that there would be major job losses, cuts to vital services and a lack of provision for the staff who remained in place. The future of Royal Mail as a public service should be of the utmost importance.
Will the member give way on that point?
I do not have much time.
The network change programme has already proved unpopular, as we have heard and as I discovered through receiving a large volume of correspondence on the matter from my constituents. I have therefore supported the campaign to prevent post office closures in the west of Scotland. In one Inverclyde post office alone, there were around 700 signatures on a petition against the facilitys closure.
I am sure that we all agree that the elderly, the disabled and people in rural areas are worst affected by such closures. Post offices are highly valued by local communities and in many cases are a key part of the fabric of the community they serve. The privatisation of Royal Mail could put undue pressure on other local businesses and services and would create service access difficulties and unnecessary extra expense for many residents.
I welcome this debate in this Parliament and the fact that there were so many signatories to the EDM that was tabled in the Palace of Westminster. I urge Prime Minister Brown, who is known in some circles as Jonah Brown, to take a long hard look at what he proposes. Does he really want a back-bench rebellion on his hands that would mean that he would need and want the support of the Tories to force the proposal through? I sincerely hope that he does not. I urge him to think again and to maintain Royal Mail as a fully public entity that can provide services to all our communities in Scotland and those in the other three nations of the UK.
I refer to my entry in the register of members interests and congratulate Mr Jamie Hepburn on securing this debate.
Like my colleague Marlyn Glen, and echoing my colleague Cathy Peatties detailed motion of 26 February, I welcome the debate as a chance to praise publicly the Royal Mail workforce for their unstinting service in challenging circumstances to all our communities and to declare my admiration for their union—the Communication Workers Union—and its diligent and imaginative modern campaign to keep the Post Office public. I agree unreservedly with the unions campaign slogan, "The Royal Mail is not for sale." I also wish to place on public record my support for the 150 Labour MPs who have signed the EDM in the name of my Labour colleague Geraldine Smith MP, which urges the Labour Government in Westminster to drop its proposal to part-privatise the Royal Mail.
It is perfectly reasonable that we discuss this reserved matter at Holyrood—I have no quibble about that—but we must acknowledge that any decisions on this service, which is vital to all our constituents, lie with our Westminster colleagues. That is why we must support their principled opposition to this unnecessary proposal.
Like Marlyn Glen, I have no doubt whatever that Labour MPs are standing up for the principle of a Royal Mail that is a publicly owned business with its universal service obligation intact. To be fair, Mr Hepburn refers to that in his motion, which pays tribute to the vast number of Labour parliamentarians who have put their name to the EDM. I know that the overwhelming majority of Labour members at Holyrood and Westminster agree with the position of the workforce as evinced by the CWU. That position also has the overwhelming support of the general public throughout the UK. A major point is that a recent set of opinion polls clearly demonstrate that public support for continued common ownership is in the region of 97 per cent. People view the Royal Mail as a prized part of the social make-up of all the countries within the UK.
The CWU is committed to negotiating an agreement that supports the modernisation of the industry. I do not know where Gavin Brown has been, as the union is willing and eager to work with the Government to deliver the reforms necessary to improve the service for the public. Part-privatisation is not part of any rational solution.
Will the member give way?
No thanks.
The current proposal does not bear close examination. We must work with all who oppose the proposed irrelevant measure to persuade all those who still need persuading at Westminster—whether lord or commoner—to ditch the proposal and to ditch it now.
I also wish to place on record Labour members support for the Hooper reports recommendation that the UK Government take responsibility for the Royal Mails pension deficit. That deficit followed an extended contributions policy that was started by the previous Conservative Government—if people can remember that far back. Of course severe financial problems have resulted from the crisis in the present economic system, but those are no fault of the workers in the Royal Mail. They should not be made to pay for the failures of the present world economy. If it is correct to find resources to keep banks in business and bank workers in work—it is indeed correct—it is also right to take the same approach to bridge the pension deficit.
The Royal Mail is a cherished public service and a profitable business. It requires appropriate modernisation and support to prosper. Let us support—without political rancour if we can manage it—the campaign to keep the post public. Let us do what we can to assist the CWU and our fellow parliamentarians at Westminster in achieving that objective.
The Royal Mail is not for sale. It is not just me who says that, but 97 per cent of our citizens.
I, too, congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate. Indeed, I take my hat off to him; I was under the impression that members business debates are the preserve of issues that are less controversial and that are of a constituency or regional interest. Although there is no doubt that a debate on the future of our postal services fully satisfies the latter criterion, not even Lord Mandelson would attempt to claim that his proposals have been without their critics.
One issue on which there has been full agreement this evening is the importance of the Royal Mail and of the Post Office network to the constituents we represent. Consensus also seems achievable on the proposition that the Royal Mail and the Post Office network face some serious challenges.
Like most parts of the country, Orkney recently went through a process of post office closures. A worrying point is that a small number of branches that were not included in that programme have subsequently found themselves in difficulties. The branch at Lyness has already shut its doors.
Meanwhile, the Royal Mail is asked to compete with private operators, few of which consider the islands to be part of the United Kingdom. While continuing to deliver an excellent service to my constituents, the Royal Mail is often faced with covering the final mile not only for itself but for operators that happily surcharge their island customers.
Responsibility for the mess is not hard to identify. A series of decisions by UK ministers, which were taken with little consideration for the consequences, have each had a significant and cumulative impact. A succession of services—from benefits and bank accounts to television and driving licence renewals—have systematically been removed. Individually and collectively, those decisions have progressively undermined the viability of many branches across the network. The truth is that there is a limit to how many financial services products the post office in Finstown or Flotta will ever be able to sell.
With the Royal Mail, too, the UK Government sold the pass when it liberalised the bulk mail market. Whatever benefits ministers felt would result from liberalisation, the way in which they implemented it has ensured that they have come at a very high price, which is now being paid by Royal Mail customers and staff, not to mention taxpayers.
My argument with Lord Mandelson is not that nothing needs to be done—it is clear that something needs to be done—but that I have serious problems with his proposals and do not accept that they will achieve what he has suggested they will achieve. The UK Postal Services Bill fails to offer the investment that is needed to modernise the Post Office network and it will not enable the network to develop new services and regain its vibrancy and viability, particularly in rural areas. I agree with Gavin Brown that more can and should be done to examine ways in which post offices can become the first point of contact between the public and government.
The bill also fails to facilitate the creation of a post bank—a service that could simultaneously build on the reputation of the Post Office and the trust that people have in it and address structural issues of financial exclusion by offering banking services to all. In addition, the bill fails to allow the Royal Mail to borrow on capital markets or extend its range of services. It is silent on employee share ownership and it will do nothing to level the playing field as regards a statutory universal service obligation throughout the UK.
I assure Jamie Hepburn that Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the bill in the Lords and the Commons—for all the reasons I have given—but it is doubtful whether that will have any effect on the SNP spin machine, which has its dial set firmly on "outrageous". By way of example, I cite the recent comments of Dave Thompson, who appears to be endlessly capable of working himself up into a lather of synthetic rage. His desire to name and shame Scottish MPs who have not signed Geraldine Smiths EDM presumably stems from his ignorance of Westminster procedure and the fact that there are at least half a dozen EDMs that express opposition to the bill.
Given that a recent members business debate involved only two MSPs, one of whom was the relevant minister, I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on giving us the opportunity to participate in a lively and well-attended debate on an issue that is of fundamental importance to all our constituents in all the communities we represent.
Members can imagine that, as someone who is the son of a retired Communication Workers Union member and who is married to another, I take a rather jaundiced view of the proposals on the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail that the Westminster Parliament is considering. I remain unconvinced by the argument that part-privatisation is the only way to deal with the current pension debt and to provide the sums that are required to pay for the modernisation of the Royal Mail.
Like other members, I attended the CWUs recent lobby of Parliament and listened carefully to what its officials had to say. I am not sure whether Mr Hepburn was there that day; he was certainly not there at the same time as me. Be that as it may, I certainly support the CWU in its current campaign.
We were told of the unions efforts to get meaningful dialogue going with management on the modernisation proposals that Mr Brown alluded to. It is a recurring theme of members business debates—one need only think of the recent debate on redundancies at Trinity Mirror—that some managements seem to be reluctant to engage with unions, the representatives of their workforce, so that they can plot a way of competing in the current challenging economic environment.
Despite what might have been said, I know that the CWU is not luddite in its approach; indeed, it wants to talk to management about modernisation. It is doing what any decent trade union would do—defending its members. Part of that defence is to be forward looking and to negotiate with bosses with a view to making the company as competitive as possible.
I am under no illusion about Mr Hepburns reason for lodging his motion. It is typical of the SNPs in-government-but-want-to-be-in-opposition tactics. He said that a delivery van had been driven through Labours manifesto promises but made no mention of the 40-tonne truck that made off with broken SNP manifesto promises on issues such as local income tax, student debt and class size reduction.
I am happy to repeat that I am against the proposed measure. If I were a member in another place, I would have signed the early day motion against it. I just wonder whether Mr Hepburn would have voted against the part-privatisation of Scotlands forests if his Government had not withdrawn that policy.
Labour members keep referring to the part-privatisation of the forests. Does Mr Whitton not accept that there is a world of difference between a proposal that would have involved the leasing of parts of Scotlands forests, the ownership of which would have been retained by the Government, and the proposals that we are debating?
I will make the point that I made earlier: I do not want the debate to develop into a debate on forestry, given that we have just spent two days discussing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.
The debate is simply about privatisation, and the answer to Mr Hepburns question is no.
I am opposed to the proposals not because of political dogma but simply because I believe that the Royal Mail service is best kept in public hands. With proper Government investment, it can still provide a world-class service. The terrific service that our postmen and women provide in this country is often forgotten or taken for granted. Where else can people get a next-day delivery of letters and parcels at a very reasonable cost? Certainly not in the countries where the companies that are said to be interested in investing in the Royal Mail are based. For example, TNT from Holland has made inroads into the UK delivery system and some companies and even local authorities use it to post their mail. However, TNT simply collects mail from its customers and carries it to the nearest Royal Mail sorting office—the final delivery is still carried out by Royal Mail staff. My dear old dad, who used to run a sorting office in Dundee, is mystified by the fact that we deliver competitors mail for them and do not get them to pay through the nose for the privilege.
There is much to be said against the current Government proposals. My colleagues at Westminster are making their views known. The proposals might have seemed like a good idea a few months ago, but the economics, not to mention the politics, have changed. I hope that there is a change of mind.
I ask the minister to address a couple of questions when he sums up the debate. First, what would be the shape of the Royal Mail in an independent Scotland? Would there still be a universal next-day delivery service six days a week for the cost of a first-class stamp at 39p? Secondly, if the minister says that the SNP would not break up the Royal Mail and would do some deal, will he accept that the SNP would not have members at Westminster to vote on any future changes and that we would have a postal service that was run from another country? It is all very well—
The member should wind up.
I am in my final sentence. It is all very well for Mr Hepburn to bring reserved matters to the Parliament for debate, but he and his ministerial colleagues should also try to bring some solutions.
There was once a legend that members business debates were consensual. I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate, which is on an important issue. However, the tone of the debate has not been ideal. If members of any political party in either Parliament are willing to challenge and oppose the proposals, we should welcome that. We really ought to find a way to play nicely together and to work together constructively to form a successful challenge and opposition to the proposals.
I was six when Margaret Thatcher came to power, so I spent a lot of my childhood seeing news stories on the television about public services being privatised. There was a time when we were told that only by getting rid of her lot would we see an end to that practice. Sadly, the UK Government has not begun to think again during its term in office. Throughout my childhood, energy utilities were privatised, but fuel poverty continues to rise. Train services were privatised, and now one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport is out of reach of many people financially. With that kind of record, why on earth do Lord Mandelson and his Cabinet colleagues continue to pursue the blinkered and provocative campaign against the Royal Mail?
As many members have said, the problem with privatising public services is that the priority will become shareholder interests and not the interests of the citizens who rely on the service or the workers who deliver it. In particular, the profitable parts of a service are often cherry picked and the parts with smaller margins or less convenient operations are scrapped. I fear that that would happen with the Royal Mail, however vital its services are to communities, including the rural and remote island communities that Liam McArthur mentioned.
I was struck by something that Lord Mandelson said in March, which gives me a little optimism and hope. He said:
"the shrill nature of some of the current debate is making it harder to make this case to potential partners."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 March 2009; Vol 708, c 1066.]
I urge members who oppose the proposals, and the people in communities and campaign groups who value the Royal Mail as a public service, to get shrill. Let us be more shrill and more assertive in our criticisms.
By our shrillness, we may even convince those companies that would snap up the Royal Mail and recast its functions in terms of profitability that it would be a deeply unwelcome and unpopular move. TNT has confirmed that it would like to buy about a third of Royal Mail. As David Whitton said, TNT has many clients in the private sector as well as in the public sector. As an MSP, I am forever seeing items delivered to my office in TNT bags, with the companys logos all over them. I therefore urge everyone who supports keeping the Royal Mail as a public service in the public sector to boycott TNT and to argue that other organisations—particularly organisations in the public sector—should not be using TNTs services. That would send a specific message to the company that it is welcome to take part in the private sector in delivering private services, but it should keep its hands off the Royal Mail.
If members have been reading the press recently, they will know that I have developed a bit of a Twitter habit, although I am not the only member in the chamber to have done that. However, I have gone one further, and have set up a Facebook group to campaign for a boycott of TNT. I want to encourage people—whether they run small, independent businesses, or procurement operations for large parts of the public sector—to take a stance against TNT that sends a clear message to TNT and to the UK Government that what is happening is not welcome.
As Jamie Hepburns motion states, more than 170 MPs have signed the early day motion. There is also a petition on number 10s website that has more than 10,000 signatures. If I can get anywhere near that number on the Facebook group, we have a very good chance of scrapping this proposal, whichever Parliament we sit in.
I, too, congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing this debate on the proposed privatisation of Royal Mail. Jamie will recall that I set out the Scottish Governments views in response to an oral question just a few weeks ago. However, I welcome this further opportunity to state our views—especially as the tide of opinion, including that of 148 Labour MPs at Westminster, increasingly condemns the Governments plans to part-privatise Royal Mail.
Tonight, we have had Stuart McMillan, Marlyn Glen, Bill Butler, Liam McArthur, David Whitton and Patrick Harvie all finding common cause. There were two dissenting voices: Gavin Brown took a certain position and David Whitton had a strange way of building an alliance and finding a common cause. I will try to do better when I am with him in Kirkintilloch on Monday.
Patrick Harvie touched on a really interesting element—that of the potentially incoming private owner and its shareholder interest. In fact, we are currently shareholders; the people of Scotland are shareholders. I am a great fan of a guy called Eric Beinhocker, who says that shareholder interest is never enough and that the job is to endure and grow, to adapt, innovate and execute better in alignment with customer need. The shrill response that Patrick Harvie mentioned can be informed by such ideas, and by an expectation that the current management should manage better—especially when it has a willing workforce.
The present situation is clearly not in Scotlands best interests. I share the sentiments of my colleague Christine Grahame, who said recently that the plans to privatise Royal Mail are "simply madness". It is extraordinary that privatisation is on the table when it will not promote sustainable growth or quality of life for people in rural Scotland, or for people who are in a difficult phase in their lives. We are convinced that it would be folly to go down the road of privatisation.
The SNP spokesman on postal affairs, Mike Weir, has made it clear that privatisation would spell the beginning of the end for Royal Mail. It would be the thin end of the wedge and would open the door to job losses, service cuts, and a deterioration in working conditions. However, we can see how Scottish Water has achieved continuous efficiencies and an alignment of interests with its population and its businesses. Such efficiencies and alignment are especially necessary in the case of Royal Mail, when Scotlands geography and its proportionally larger rural and small business sectors mean that continuation of the universal service obligation is absolutely vital. It will ensure that we have social cohesion and a reduction of social exclusion. We have to maintain the ability of our fragile local economies to compete effectively in the wider world.
If the privatisation goes ahead, the fear is that there will be a negative impact. Geraldine Smiths early day motion is therefore worth close scrutiny. It makes sensible observations and suggestions, which is no doubt why it has received the support that it has received. I also welcome aspects of the Hooper report in its focus on the necessity of the current universal service obligation being maintained and protected as a primary element of the service. To my mind, that is crucial.
We have been clear from the outset that the key issue of post offices and postal services is not one that the Scottish Government can influence directly. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the call for shrillness, which has enormous legitimacy. That call can be based on Geraldine Smiths early day motion.
I am greatly encouraged by the ministers words. I agree that the Scottish Government cannot make a direct decision. However, does the minister agree that the Scottish Government could encourage public sector organisations not to use TNT to deliver or collect their mail while the proposal stands?
Taking moves against any business that is legitimately seeking its own advancement would be a retrograde step and I will not go down that path. However, I will host a discussion in Glasgow on 16 June to explore how all stakeholders and allies can work together to support and develop the postal service and the Post Office network. That discussion will be useful in bringing into the room many others who feel that they have a part to play, an advance to gain or a contribution to make in taking that forward.
I am convinced that we will have—as we have had in our conversations about newspapers—early engagement with the Communication Workers Union. I welcome the leading role that the union has played in the campaign against the privatisation proposal. Its members livelihoods are under threat, and the union is rightly taking their message to the Labour Party, the Government and the public. Their message is clear: keep the Post Office public. I spent four years of my life working on maintaining that status for Scottish Water, and I believe that that alignment is utterly crucial. The great danger is that, over time, the shareholders of such a company will have absolutely no alignment with the wider Scottish economy, the unions members or the wider Scottish communities that the company serves.
Does the minister, after extolling the unions role, agree with the unions view that the unfair advantages that private companies have should be removed and that there should be a level playing field?
I am very much in favour of level playing fields across the board—that is an absolute given. The Government is determined to ensure that, when we get people talking together, the prerequisite is a level playing field that gives everyone a chance to compete on a fair and equal basis. Part of that level playing field involves the management of the Royal Mail rolling up its sleeves and doing what management has done in other places—achieving a turnaround in effectiveness, which can be achieved in most organisations.
The Scottish Government is clear that the UK Government must reverse its position and withdraw the proposal to go down the route of privatisation. It must focus on investing in the Royal Mail as a public service for the public good. I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate, which has been interesting and worth while.
Meeting closed at 17:58.