Don't cut Royal Mail services - nationalise it instead

<div>I am responding to your consultation because I am alarmed by plans to cut our second-class letter deliveries from 6 days a week to 3. Your proposals would similarly see delivery days for letters from the NHS cut to 3 days a week.When Royal Mail was first privatised in 2013, the public was promised that privatisation was the only way to save the Universal Service Obligation. With Royal Mail’s takeover by Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský on the verge of being completed this month, is it not time to admit that privatisation has simply failed? A primary justification for privatisation was to safeguard the USO, but now, in private hands, you are considering undermining the USO.I fully recognise that how we use letters has changed. We are sending and receiving fewer of them than before. But letters are still vital to people’s lives. The ability to get letters daily has simply not lost its vital importance to the quality of our lives.Therefore, the Universal Service Obligation must continue to be protected. These cuts would be disastrous for people who receive letters for all sorts of reasons from their doctors. It would likewise uncut our social fabric by limiting our ability to send and receive birthday, Christmas and anniversary cards in a timely way.Royal Mail can be brought back into public hands, with profits from the parcel side reinvested to subsidise the same level of letter deliveries. And, the company can expand its range of services, which could help it grow its profits to support unprofitable but very vital parts of the public service.Please find below my response to your Royal Mail consultation. Thank you so very much for your time and consideration. <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 695px; border-collapse: collapse; height: 5306px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><thead><tr style="height: 62px;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border: 1pt solid black; background: #000046; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-left: none; background: #000046; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">Your response</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 2.1: Do you agree with the provisional conclusions set out in our Equality Impact Assessment? Please state your reasons and provide evidence to support your view.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No response</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 2.2 Do you agree with our assessment under the Welsh Language Standards? Please state your reasons and provide evidence to support your view.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No response</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 3.1: Do you agree that we have identified the reasonable needs of post users? Please provide reasons and evidence for your views.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No. Your consultation document suggests that post users value reliability over speed.While it is true that we value reliability, it is also undeniable that the delivery speeds of each class of letter matter to us. It is the single most important consideration in how much we are willing to pay to send our mail. Caring about the speed of delivery is deeply ingrained in the decision we make as to whether to use a first-class or second-class stamp. Your proposal amounts to raising the prices we pay for second-class mail (on the 7th of April) but without users getting the speed we expect for second-class mail. We are paying more for slower delivery. This is unacceptable.When we say we value reliability, we mean that we value our post arriving reliably when it is supposed to arrive. Changing the USO suggests you have interpreted the public's view to mean what we care about is our letters reliably arriving eventually. This is a mistake.Patients, families and businesses that rely on the postal service value both reliability and speed. In many cases, our letters are time-sensitive. I also know that many patients on the NHS waiting list, whose opportunity to receive surgery can sometimes come at short notice, need to be able to receive their letters as soon as possible. Receiving it reliably at a time when it is too late to take advantage of the opportunity can be harmful. There are equally other ways in which delays in the delivery of letters, even by one day, could be harmful to people. In some cases, it can accrue penalty charges. Ofcom has indicated that cutting down second-class letter deliveries from 6 days a week to 3 could save Royal Mail between £400 and £650 million. Yet, the company paid out an average of £230 million in dividends to shareholders every year in the last decade. This amount if retained in the service could go a long way toward saving much of the service you intend to cut.Instead of cutting a service we rely on, ask the government to bring Royal Mail into public ownership and run it in the public interest. </td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 3.2: Do you agree that the market is meeting the reasonable needs of post users?  Please provide reasons and evidence for your views.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No. In 2023 Royal Mail reduced opening hours at half of their customer service centres across the UK.In the same year, Royal Mail’s parent company paid out £127 million in dividends to shareholders. This is an example of how a service communities have relied on for decades is undermined to benefit shareholders. Before privatisation, the public was promised that selling off the service meant that we could continue to have the same level of service because the market would be more innovative and run the service more efficiently. Surely a consultation on reducing the level of the service we receive is clear evidence that that promise has been broken. The market has failed. It is time to bring the service back into public hands, merge it with Post Office, and cross-subsidise the letters section with profits from the parcel section. As a public service, it does not need to make profits. All profits can be reinvested into maintaining the Universal Service Obligation. </td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 5.1: Do you agree with our proposals and impact assessment on changes to the delivery frequency of Second Class letters so that those items would be delivered every other day from Monday to Friday, and would not have to be collected, processed or delivered on Saturdays? Please provide reasons and evidence in support of your views</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No.You are proposing to reduce the frequency of second-class and bulk mail deliveries. But at the same time, on the 7th of April, the price of second-class stamps is going up. We will be paying more for less service. That is not acceptable to me.Privatisation was supposed to result in a better service without regular price increases. When Royal Mail was privatised 1st class stamps cost 60p; and 2nd class stamps cost 50p. From the 7th of April, 1st class stamps will cost £1.70, while 2nd class stamps will cost 87p. Over that same period, the public has endured an ever-worsening quality of service.It is true that we now send fewer letters than we sent in the past. And as a result, a degree of reorganising in how the postal service works is needed.However, I disagree that this means reducing the frequency of letter deliveries. The demarcation between letters and parcels is fundamentally artificial. Royal Mail should be taken back into public ownership and re-combined with Post Office to enable parcel profits to subsidise letter deliveries. This will enable letter deliveries to continue at current levels. Moreover, as the Greeting Card Association has said these proposals show that “small businesses and consumers’ needs are not being understood in the now 24/7 world”. They add that “these proposals would be detrimental to the greeting card industry, leaving businesses and consumers reliant on an unregulated 1st class service to be certain of a delivery date or for a Saturday delivery.” I share their concerns.The latest polling shows that at least 75% of the public wants Royal Mail back in public ownership.</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 6.1: Do you agree with our proposal to set the First Class national D+1 performance target to 90%? Please provide reasons and evidence for your view.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318"> <div>No</div><div> </div><div>Royal Mail missed its national delivery targets every year for the last two years. This has resulted in a fine of £10.5 million in 2023/24, and £5.6 million in 2022/23.</div><div> </div><div>Before this, the company also missed delivery targets but was excused from fines because of the impact of the pandemic.</div><div> </div><div>Reducing the targets only serves to move the goalposts of what is considered adequate performance in such a way as to allow them to escape future fines. It does not serve the service user. And as a public service, Royal Mail should serve the interests of the public exclusively.</div> </td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 6.2: Do you agree with our proposal to set the First Class PCA D+1 performance target to be 3% lower than the national target (i.e. for the PCA target to be 87% to align with our proposed 90% national target)? Please provide reasons and evidence for your view</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318"><div>No.</div><div> </div><div>My comments in response to question 6.1 apply here too.</div></td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 6.3: Do you agree with our proposal to introduce a new First Class ‘tail of mail’ target of 99.5% at D+3? Please provide reasons and evidence for your view </td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318"> No.Your new “tail of mail” targets require Royal Mail to have delivered 99.5% of first-class mail within 3 days, and 99.5% of second-class mail delivered within five days. You have not made clear how this differs from the statutory principle of delivering first-class mail in one day and second-class mail in three days. There is no need to complicate how you measure Royal Mail’s performance. How I and service users like me measure Royal Mail’s performance is simple. We want it to deliver letters from us to others, and from others to us, in the required time of one day and 2-3 days for first and second-class mail, respectively. Maintain and enforce rigorously the current targets. Don't introduce ever more convoluted performance metrics that only muddy the waters as to whether Royal Mail is doing its job well.</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 6.4: Do you agree with our proposal to set the Second Class D+3 performance target to 95%? Please provide reasons and evidence for your view.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318"><div>No.</div><div>My comments in response to question 6.1 apply here too.</div></td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 6.5: Do you agree with our proposal to introduce a new Second Class ‘tail of mail’ target of 99.5% at D+5? Please provide reasons and evidence for your view.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318"><div>No.</div><div> </div><div>My comments in response to question 6.3 apply here too.</div></td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 7.1: Do you agree with our proposal to regulate D+3 access services, subject to a margin squeeze control and the other protections outlined above? Please provide reasons and evidence for your views.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No response</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 12; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 7.2: Do you agree with our proposal to change the specification of D+5 access services to remove Saturday as a delivery day? Please provide reasons and evidence for your views.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No response</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 13; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 7.3: Do you agree with our proposals to maintain a margin squeeze control on D+2 access services, where the relevant retail services are Royal Mail’s First Class retail bulk services? Please provide reasons and evidence for your views.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No response</td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 14; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes; height: 55.6pt;"><td style="width: 315.219px; border-right: 1pt solid black; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-left: 1pt solid black; border-image: initial; border-top: none; background: #f2f2f2; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="283">Question 7.4: Do you agree with our proposals for pricing transparency and amending how access services are defined? Please provide reasons and evidence for your views.</td><td style="width: 348.031px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; border-right: 1pt solid black; padding: 2.85pt 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="318">No response</td></tr></tbody></table>Please keep my details confidential, but you may refer to my responses in your reports and public comments on the consultation. </div><div>Thank you very much.</div><div> </div>

“Negligent” and “incompetent” Royal Mail bosses want to cut some postal services by HALF - make your voice heard