Royal Mail has recently announced the closure of Gloucestershire’s Mail Centre with plans to relocate the work 34 miles away to Swindon. This decision appears to have been taken with the minimum of consideration to maintaining a quality service to businesses and residents of Gloucestershire and also, of the environmental impact of the extra distance involved in transporting mail out of, and back into Gloucester, via Swindon.
The closure of Gloucestershire’s Mail Centre will affect anyone living in the county. We need to get as many residents of Gloucestershire to tell Royal Mail and the Government that their plans are not acceptable. To help with the campaign we suggest that you register objects to Royal Mail’s about their decision to close Gloucestershire’s Mail Centre, by writing to Allan Leighton, Chairman, Royal Mail, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ.
You can also visit the campaign website for more information and up to date news at www.savegloucestermailcentre.co.uk where you will also be able to sign the on-line petition and see the Early Day Motion in the House of Commons objecting to the closure. Copy of my letter below:
Allan Leighton,
Chairman, Royal Mail,
148 Old Street,
London,
EC1V 9HQ
6th November 2006
Dear Mr Leighton,
I am very concerned regarding the intended closure of Gloucester Postal sorting office. This is yet another attack on local service provision which will result in the loss of many jobs. As you know some of these jobs will be relocated to Swindon and these workers will have to drive the 34 miles each way on a daily basis to do the same job for which they previously travelled only a few miles.
A significant number of letters sent in Gloucestershire are sent to local addresses in Gloucester: these currently travel a few miles in total as opposed to around 70 miles to Swindon and back. We have just had the Stern report and it is now more than clear we live in a world where we need to reduce emissions.
Indeed the Post Office website has details of its 'Corporate Responsibility' where it identifies 17.5% of its CO2 equivalents emissions coming from people commuting to work; and its business travel by road as contributing 41% of its CO2 emissions. The Post Office expresses a commitment to cutting these emissions and yet wants to move workers from Gloucester to Swindon and carry local letters to Swindon and back. This is purely short term financial gains.
Gloucestershire’s Mail Centre is known within Royal Mail for its excellent productivity. It is vital we retain local centres and reduce our carbon footprint.
Yours Sincerely,
Cllr. Philip Booth, on behalf of Stroud District Green Party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hi,
I used to work for Royal Mail and now work for a competitor.
Your argument regarding transportation does not necessarily stack-up, and seems to be a subjective ascertion rather than one with any facts backing it up.
By reducing the number of mail centres as technological improvements are made means that the energy needed to keep Gloucestershire Mail Centre open is taken out. Royal Mail can reduce the number of transportations to two mail centres and make it only one. It is true they may have to increase the number of runs into depots in Gloucestershire, but this does not outweigh the savings on larger transportation.
Secondly as an employee of a competitor I can also state that Royal Mail is losing considerable volume on its outward operation and will mean further closures, consolidation and a reduction in their outward operation. If you do not understand what I mean by this then I strongly suggest you get an education about the postal industry before putting up petitions on the internet.
I suggest you spend your time more wisely and ask whether have three or four companies offering networks is actually more damaging to the environment.
As a masters student of architecture, and the environment I am happy to debate this further with you
You are right that there is a bigger picture re CO2 emissions - and Royal Mail are arguing these can be cut by the closing of Gloucester - however they have not been prepared yet to release any figures to show how that will be. Workers travelling further distances to work is clearly one aspect - Royal Mail acknowledge they have still to do a final feasability study. This whole issue needs carefully looking at because there are other factors as noted like the loss of a significant business to the local community - evermore centralisation does not necessarily lead to savings like those on larger transportation you mention.
Labour have effectively been privatising the Post Office - carrying on with what the Tories had hoped to do but never dared.
This year's "full market liberalisation" of postal services by Labour, three years ahead of the rest of the EU, threatens the Royal Mail's long-term commercial viability and the future of our universal postal service. Competitors, like the Dutch postal giant TPG, via its British outlet TNT Mail, are able to prey on UK business while having a protected market at home.
It is not surprising these competitors target business mail where the real money can be made. This will cut Royal Mail's income leading to stamp price rises and cuts to the workforce. As in other public services, the "choice" agenda often leads to public taxes subsidising private corporations. The unique nature and social benefits of Royal Mail mean that, like the railways, it was never a suitable industry for the introduction of competition.
Labour may not have privatised our mail completely but their actions are destroying it. The decision to end the Post Office account-card contract after 2010 guarantees the closure of many more of our town and country post offices on top of all those we've already seen lost in Gloucestershire in recent years.
More on this later but must dash now!
Royal Mail is falling apart because the Government is letting it - introducing unnecessary competition - even local Labour parties and their MPs are supporting this petition - it mustn't close.
Dear all,
Your arguments are emotional, not thought through and presented in a hap hazard slap dash way.
Royal Mail are not centralising their operation, but its more about having too many mail centres period. They have been closing them since the 1970s. The older mail centres are unable to cope with the size of the new machines, which are able to handle more forms of mail mechanically. This means being able to process the mail more efficiently and thus able to keep the prices the same or actually lower them in real terms as agreed in the recent stamp price agreement (please go to postcomm's website for clarity)
Royal Mail do not have carbon emissions experts as they closed down their environment team nearly 3 years ago. The head of environment left, but a fe stayed and were absorbed into the corporate social responsibility team, which reports in the HR Director (Tony McCarthy)
I can assure you that any feasability study will demonstrate that cost savings to closing Gloucester Mail Centre will also be found in overall reductions in carbon emissions.
As for privitisation Allan Leighton is clear about wanting to give 20% to the workforce, and there will be no full privitisation at least in the next 5 years.
Please ensure you do not get the Post Office (counters) mixed up with the Royal Mail, which is the End-to-end operation.
I might also add that any competitor will not be offering a service a across the country. This means they will need to send plenty of volume through Royal Mail at a minimum of 13.5p, which is actually making Royal Mail a profit.
Royal Mail successfully lobbied for a 13.5p access charge and have also just put in Pricing in Proportion, which will also make it difficult for competitors to 'cherry-pick' as the price for sending items to only the rural areas will increase as their mail mix will not be evenly distributed.
It is not in the interests of the competitors to see the Royal Mail collpase as they will need to use them and ensure a good quality of service to enable them to make any money.
As for the Counters business I agree with you that the government are responsible for destroying the business model. They will need to either re-introduce lost business or allow the post-office to compete as a private organisation.
As an urban dweller I have seen local post offices close. I am also dismayed to see rural one's close as well as they are important to the fabric of this country. However, the setup is a seriously lose making affair even after considerable cost savings being made.
You say Royal Mail are not centralising their operation - call it what you like but to me it is centralising. Yes it is great Allan Leighton is standing up in some places for workforce but I have severe reservations...and agree with Greens on this one - this is basically privatisation and profits for shareholders rather than investment in a public service.
I agree with Greens that liberalising the postal market provides “rich pickings” for big companies when all Britain really needed was one mail system that worked properly. Why would anyone want a choice of postal providers if the single system we've got now worked properly? Surely the only choice the public is interested in is whether a letter gets there on time or not … we do not need several postal systems, just one single one that is properly invested-in. The reality of Tony Blair's ‘choice’ agenda is that there are a lot of companies that stand to make a great deal of money out of our public services. Labour's agenda is not about providing real "choice" for consumers, but a choice of rich pickings for multinational corporations.
One of the comments aboves mentions the new machinery being too large for Gloucester Mail centre - yet as the workers there report, there is no indication that a feasability study has been completed. Do you know otherwise? 400 people work there and they will have to travel to Swindon to keep their jobs - a terrible journey at the best of times and worse still if you have childcare commitments etc..
Royal Mail, have as the writer above notes, been closing centres elsewhere - that doesn't make it right - and such moves impact badly on local communities in many ways that are not so obvious at first. I await with interest the feasability study...
The extra lorries will travel an extra 2 million miles per year to get gloucesters mail to and from swindon.
Please consider the full implications and not just the increased movements from gloucester to swindon.
One should also look at the reduction in journeys to and from hubs to gloucester mail centre.
I honestly don't know the impact on the environment of doing this, but suggest a holistic view before determining whether this move by Royal Mail impacts on the environment.
Also the loss of jobs in one area should not be attacked just because you are their MP. As the MP should should weigh up the full picture before deciding on what to do. Maybe you disagree and think you are there to represent your constituents, which is a valid point. What happens if a constituent wants you to represent something you disagree with?
I leave you with these thoughts
Some interesting points made above since I last entered this discussion. I have to say I am still unconvinced that the move of 400 jobs and services to Swindon will be a good one. I certainly await with interest an analysis of the impact the move will have on the environment - it is also good to see all local MPs now coming out against the move.
A long time ago I read 'Small Is Beautiful' by E. F. Schumacher;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
It had a profound impact on me and still today has much to say. Local services have an importance which can't be measured in purely 'financial' terms - or at least is not measured because of the way our economic system works. See several excellent articles at:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1075&Itemid=103
Not meaning to go too far off topic, but check out the link to Amazon for a variety of views on Schumacher's book. http://www.amazon.com/Small-Beautiful-Economics-People-Mattered/dp/0060916303
Royal Mail's services come at different levels. The bulk transportation of mail to various cities requires a centralised network, which maximises loads on the largest lorries. Local services such as the Post Office, and delivery depots requires a local approach and knowledge. I agree with Phillip that this aspect cannot be lost, but at the same time inefficient collection, process and transportation of mail around the country does not require a local approach.
We should all be conidering what we need to send by mail, as e-substitution has been the main driver behind Royal Mail's rationalisation of mail centres. This and the fact that new letter processing machinery is too large for the older urban mail centre, and better suited to the suburban/business park warehouses located near transportation junctions. You only need to look around Rugby at the moment to see where it's going. Also look at Christaller's Central Place Theory and the K7 network approach.
I do believe however, that with the advent of broadband we will see the gradual movement away from large urban centres into a more homogenous spread of people and therefore less requirement for large transportation of goods and services, but a movement towards some goods and services again being produced locally and sold locally. However, by the time this all happens the water levels would have risen enough to flood most of our ubran areas including London and Bristol.
Just a thought
Yours a former Royal Mail employee and graduate in Development Studies, but not necessarily a tree hugging hippy!!!
You could cut loads by banning junk mail - but guess that subsidises other mail services? Or does it? And another issue not mentioned here yet is Peak Oil - there is a helpful collection of articles on the GLos Green party website under Green issues. Oil is basically going to get more and more expensive so shorter distances to travel will be needed for mail, more stuff on the railways and as the person above notes more use of email.
Sounds like we are getting onto common ground.
Direct (Junk) mail subsidises other forms of mail. This makes up the huge volumes, and the banks are the biggest spenders by far. So if you want to be green don't use a big bank?
Mail as a social format has gone, mail as an advertising medium is steady at the moment. It may rise if better products are available, and may also decrease if not.
Home delivery fulfillment from the internet is seriously growing. Be it groceries or books.
Peak Oil is an interesting topic, one being discussed on my masters course at the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales. It's a bi like George Soros. If he said oil had reached it's peak there would be considerable panic, prices rise and all hell breaking loose.
I think we are moving towards peak oil, but it will be put off as companies improve their extraction rates and are able to exploit reserves such as oil sands etc...
Royal Mail have looked at alternative fuels, but at the time it wasn't commercially viable. This is where government could play a role, but they get so much tax from petrol that its not in their interests. I understand Royal Mail will move to using synthetic oil in the next couple of years. A person called Tony Shaw who procures for the network fleet is the person to ask.
I really believe that Royal Mail could start to move towards biofuel for their large vehicles, but I'm not sure its on the agenda at the moment. Maybe it's time we started lobbying them. I would also suggest keeping an eye on TNT and DHL in the UK as their fleets will begin to grow considerably.
Until next time
County Council voted unanimously against the move last night.
Biofuels can help but beware! They can possibly be renewable and carbon neutral, as burning them simply releases carbon dioxide the plant used during its life - but greenhouse gasses are also emitted during manufacture. Infact in some cases in the US they use signficantly more fossil fuels in their production than the energy they produce - GM crops, fertilisers, pesticides etc all requiring energy inputs.
Biofuels are not the answer to global warming, peak oil or our dependence on Middle East oil.
To tackle climate change the EU introduced the EU Biofuel Directive - this demands that by 2010, 5.75% of our fuel should come from biofuel, even though only half of this target can be met from crops grown in Europe. The Directive did not look at any environmental effects of importing biofuels from the tropics.
Palm oil from Asia and soya oil from Brazil is many times more efficient than the most efficient European crop. Malaysia and Indonesia will destroy their rainforests to grow palm oil for biodiesel sold in Europe. The loss of these forests will impact on our climate - indeed the destruction of rainforests is linked to about 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions from all human activities. That’s five times Kyoto!
Europe could reduce its CO2 emissions by 0.3% if it used current set-asides but this could lead to catastrophic loss of wildlife. Infact for the UK to convert from fossil fuels to biofuels we would need 4 British Isles.
Clearly recycling chip fat should be promoted - but this would only satisfy 0.3% of UK transport.
Biofuels present us with a moral dilemma. 40% of global land is now devoted to agriculture. James Lovelock has said - “if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry.” Expansion of the biofuel market, will compete with agricultural land, or intensify land use or expand the area of land used for agriculture.
Global grain consumption already exceeds production. Rising grain prices will endanger the lives of the world’s poor.
Those worse affected by global warming will be in the majority world. Should they be condemned to starvation so that we can feed our cars?
Amazingly if no-one exceeded the 70 mph speed limit, we would not need the EU Directive of 5.75% biodiesel in our tanks!
Interesting but not surprising the vote last night. Dont' be surprised if more constituencies face this same problem as Royal Mail increase the level of automation in their mail centres. This is money that the Government gave them to offset the pension deficit.
I warn you now that automation will be entering into delivery depots by 2010. This will mean further jobs going in deliveries, and possibly the closure of smaller depots as they will not be able to handle the machinery (this is an unknown at the moment).
As for biofuels you make some strong points. Importing crops will encourage deforestation as seen previously, even though palm oil is the most efficient.
I also agree regarding cutting speeds down. I can't see how we are going to achieve this without a dramatic intervention either economically or a regulatory approach on top of the speed limit.
Merry pre-Xmas
Thanks for greetings - sadly what you write is all too true - there are huge pressures to move towards automation. Another symptom of our distorted and damaging economy - taking no account of the loss of local jobs and the impact on the local economy plus no account of fuel prices that could double and triple in coming years. Clearly it would be foolish to be against all automation - it has brought huge advantages - but we have to start asking ourselves what we will do in this country - our jobs are being exported daily to new call centres or overseas manufacturers.
Peter Mandleson at the EU says we can compete in IT but when Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas pointed out that China is producing two million high-tech graduates each year and undercuts on price and everything else Mr Mandleson did not have an answer.
Chinese costs are artificially low because of its appalling record on the environment and it's failure to protect workers from exploitative pay, long hours and industrial accidents: some 100,000 deaths in industrial accidents every year, and over 100 million Chinese living on less than a dollar a day.
The free trade model just isn’t working; it is running wild.
It is time to look at the Green alternatives - We urgently need a trading system based on high social and environmental standards, with quotas where necessary. This would be both fairer and more sustainable for workers everywhere.
None of this sadly will in the short term put a stop to the relentless pressures on bodies like the Royal Mail.
Post a Comment