Yesterday in Parliament

Tucked away in prime ministers' questions yesterday (held by Harperson deputising) was a question from the redoubtable Ann Winterton . She asked for confirmation that:

… the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handing it over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors.

According to Ann, there was a sudden hush in the House - an embarrassed silence – almost as if someone had done something unmentionable in church. Then Harperson, dutifully briefed by her gifted civil servants, delivered her "non-answer". The "real reason", she said, was "the analysis in the Hooper report, which we commissioned as long ago as December 2007."

Now, this is an interesting response, as the Hooper Report tells us that the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail is ... er ... European Union postal legislation, and also EU state aid rules.

Basically, says Hooper, Royal Mail needs to modernise, which requires considerable investment. But "that transformation would have to be carried out under European rules on restructuring aid." That in turn would "impose considerable restraints" and thus take time. But, unless Royal Mail can modernise faster than EU rules would allow, "a forced restructuring under European rules is highly likely."

That, concludes Hooper, "would be a costly and poor outcome for the taxpayer, for consumers, for Royal Mail and its employees." By contrast, he adds, "private capital is generally more flexible and more tolerant of necessary risk. It can be raised more easily, faster and for a wider range of purposes and does not come at the cost of competing public priorities."

Thus does Hooper recommend that "there should be a strategic partnership between Royal Mail and one or more private sector partners." And, while the precise nature of such a partnership is a matter for the Government to negotiate, at its core, "will be Royal Mail's obligations under the universal service, as required under EU and UK law." The UK law, incidentally, largely transposes EU law.

Why Royal Mail cannot fund its modernisation programme from its own resources is explained by Booker in his column . Here, the problem is Britain's keenness to comply with three EU postal services directives, designed to end national postal monopolies by 2010 and to promote "cross-border" integration of the EU's postal services.

Because of these, Royal Mail had to surrender the most profitable part of its operations, when bulk business mailing was opened up to rival firms. It still has to deliver business mail, for a knock-down price of 14p an item, while the 19 companies that bid successfully for the business of collecting and sorting them cream off all the profits. This was a major factor turning Royal Mail's profits into a £179 million annual loss, which means it has no money for its modernisation programme.

As to why other European postal services have not been similarly affected, Hooper himself notes that "the UK has been amongst the first countries in Europe to open the postal sector to competition." In other words, this is exactly the situation described by Booker.

So why was there such a deathly hush in the House? Well … the Conservatives are supporting the Government, against the Labour back benches, to get the legislation passed.

The last thing the Tories want is for it to be known that the privatisation programme is entirely driven by the EU, thus putting the party in a position of supporting EU rules. This, with the euro-elections coming up, would not conform with their new-found (and temporary) image as a eurosceptic party.

Thus we had the hush of anticipation, bolstered by a frisson of fear, in case Harperson gave the game away. When she did not – and, of course, she was not going to – there was a collective sigh of relief. Business continued as usual – in Europe and ruled by Europe … but this must never be admitted.

'HOUSEHOLD BILLS RISING, POST OFFICES CLOSING DUE TO EUROPEAN UNION NOT WESTMINSTER', SAYS SUFFOLK PPC

At a series of public meetings in Suffolk during October and November, the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for South Suffolk and UKIP Deputy Leader David Campbell Bannerman, has pinpointed the European Union (EU) as the hidden reason for major cost rises in household energy bills and for Post Office closures.

Speaking at public meetings at Great Waldingham, Capel and East Bergholt in the South Suffolk constituency Mr Campbell Bannerman said:
"The British people are not being told the truth about the influence of the EU. The other 3 parties, the Lib Lab Con, try to hide the significance of EU laws, controls and funding costs on our daily lives. UKIP's job is to tell the truth about the massive control the EU has. In short, we are now being governed from Brussels not Britain."

"The EU is responsible for 120,000 directives and regulations, an avalanche of laws, which affect every area of our lives. 75% or more of the laws passed at Westminster now come from the EU, often without any genuine opportunity to stop or reform them. Membership of the EU costs £50 billion a year, including £10 billion this year net for EU funds out of our taxes. That could pay for an awful lot of hospitals, schools and transport spending in East Anglia."

"Take Energy for example, the EU´s panicky policies to close down coal and oil fired power stations, to fulfil their EU Directives, could mean the lights go off in Britain, and that British citizens are put in serious danger."

"Wind turbines are being massively subsidised - by around £1/2 million a year each turbine - but they only work 25% of the time, and need back up from conventional power stations."

"UKIP would abolish these dangerous EU emissions targets and build more nuclear plants and clean coal plants over time, so we don't have to rely on Putin's Russia or the volatile Middle East. But we can't do this in the EU. UKIP wants a free trading arrangement as the EU's single largest trading partner, which Norway and Switzerland have ( the two wealthiest nations per head in Europe ), but to withdraw from the emerging political state. UKIP wants super trade but not the superstate !"

"Meanwhile post offices are being closed due to EU intervention and EU rules. 2,500 post offices have to close because the EU does not allow Britain to spend British taxpayers' money on supporting British post offices. The EU has made it illegal under State Aid rules to subsidise the post office more than £150 million a year. These same EU rules forced the closure of Rover and the chaos over Northern Rock."

"Residents and businesses will soon have to drive long distances to big post offices, because the EU has devastated the rural post office network, including closing the post office at Acton, near Sudbury. The EU's 1997 and 2002 Directives are also destroying the Royal Mail, eliminating its monopoly from 2009, so that cherry picking rivals can cream off the profitable areas, but abandon the rural areas. The EU is doing to the Royal Mail and post offices what Beeching did to our railways."

Ten thousand EU laws' hit UK since 1998

Nearly ten thousand new EU laws have been imposed on Britain since 1998, new research has revealed.

A report by the TaxPayers' Alliance published today reveals a 9,415 net gain of EU laws over the last decade, with almost half the new laws coming between 2006 and 2007.

In 2007 alone, 3,010 EU laws became UK law.

"Between 70 and 75 per cent of our laws now come directly from Brussels," Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, told politics.co.uk.

"It's not democratic. We have our own parliament and they're only responsible for 25 per cent of our laws. You can't have a system where 75 per cent of the laws come directly in to our system without anyone realising what's going on."

Activists are calling for systemic change in the relationship between Westminster and the EU, with clauses in the European Union transparency bill forcing minister to declare to parliament when new laws are derived from EU laws.

Eurosceptics are also concerned at the low level of scrutiny EU legislation is subjected to in the UK.

"Both the legislative process which has created this regulatory tangle and Britain's relationship with the EU needs a serious rethink," said Ben Farrugia, a Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers' Alliance.