After 59 years of work with the Post Office Lord Tony Clarke says any talk of privatisation should be ended

THIS week Post Office (PO) workers are once again protesting about the threat to their industry. A real threat is brought about by voices that continue to advocate that the PO should be privatised. Some voices, such as Allan Leighton, the chairman of the PO, are clear and unmistakeable.
Just three days after Labour’s third election victory, Mr Leighton was saying he supports a future share issue and part privatisation of the Royal Mail. This, from a public servant who should be bound by government policy and should not be seeking to undermine Labour’s election manifesto commitment.
Not so clear are the shadowy people who advise the government. Their influence is not new but it is ever present.
In recent years assurances as to the continued public ownership of the PO have been given. Assurances from a government that many people had expected would end the recurring suggestions that privatisation, in any form, would not take place.
Many of us who are concerned, not just for the staff but also for the future of our world renowned postal service, feel the government has not yet put the matter to rest. It could easily do so, by declaring unequivocally that there will be no privatisation, no part privatisation and no gimmicky share holding schemes for employees.
Behind the scenes there are those who see private ownership, either by a share-based company or employee shareholding, as a means of allowing greedy companies to put profit before service and dividends before delivery standards.
For some time the need for reform of the PO has been evident. The years of industrial unrest made it clear that some changes were necessary. Staff responded magnificently to the challenges brought about by enforced competition, they gave unprecedented co-operation in turning the service around from loss to profit.
The recent return to profitability is welcomed; what a pity it had to be as a result of cutting services and the loss of more than 30,000 jobs, not to mention the closure of so many post offices. The staff have paid a heavy price for the changes.
Like so many within the service I thought that the service and employment would be safe when Labour won in 1997. I worked hard over many years to get Labour elected, believing promises made would be kept.
There had been many promises from Labour during the years of opposition. Different things turned out to be. The Department of Trade and Industry proposals contained in the Postal Services Act of 2000, created the share base of the PO. It also gave birth to the monster we know as Postcomm, an organisation that is supposed to be regulatory but became the means of giving PO work away to get rich quick merchants.
Operators, who again, because of the 2000 Act have the right to dump the unprofitable parts of their operation into the PO for delivery to each home in the country with tariffs charged that give an unfair advantage to the licence holders.
The government allowed a European directive regarding liberalisation to be enacted long before it was necessary to do so. It allowed Postcomm to pay lip service to the need for competition at the same time making decisions that threaten Royal Mail’s long-term commercial viability. As the PO loses market share to the Postcomm agreed licence holders, it has brought about a situation that companies that do not have the fixed infrastructure costs of maintaining and providing the Universal Service, can increase their profits at the expense of Royal Mail.
There should be an end to political interference. For too many years now there has been undue influence placed on the PO, especially in relation to the tariff structures. By playing Pontius Pilate and allowing the biased Postcomm to tie a noose around the neck of Royal Mail the government chooses to ignore the need for fair competition. All through the last few decades the central issue of balancing the books, making reasonable profit for re-investment and maintaining service standards; throughout the piece is the common factor of political interference in the running of the business.
Any plans for the well being of the Royal Mail must take into account what the staff, through their union, have achieved over the past few years. To ignore that co-operation and kick them in the teeth with more talk of privatisation would be unforgivable. How do ministers feel when the government-appointed Allan Leighton makes statements that fly in the face of what the public were told in Labour’s manifesto regarding the future of the PO?
The manifesto commitment was clear: “We have no plans to privatise it. Our ambition is to see a publicly owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health...we will review the impact on the Royal Mail of market liberalisation.”
Before that review takes place we should hear from Mr Leighton that he believes in a publically owned PO, committed to an efficient universal service. If he cannot give such an assurance, the government that hired him should sack him.
I have grave doubts about the future and the value of promises made, that’s why I shall be at the protest meeting and speaking up for the PO I have had direct involvement with for 59 years.

• The rally took place at Friends House, Euston Road, yesterday, Wednesday.