Dr Ashok Kumar MP explains why he plans to resign from the Government he has supported loyally for 12 years if plans to partprivatise Royal Mail go ahead.

ONLY last week, I asked one of Peter Mandelson’s new ministers when the Bill part-privatising Royal Mail was to be introduced to the Commons. He said it was sitting in the Prime Minister’s in-tray waiting for a decision from Gordon Brown.

This week, Lord Mandelson has suggested that the Bill has been posted into the long grass.

This is a victory – perhaps only temporary – for the Labour back benches. Since the Government first proposed the part-privatisation at the end of last year, the issue has been hotly debated within the party.

Privatisation has always been one of our most divisive ideological issues. However, the opposition to this measure goes way beyond the “usual suspects” on the left of the party who oppose privatisation outright.

In fact, more than 140 MPs, including myself, put their names to a Commons motion opposing the selling off of any part of Royal Mail. All the opinion polls suggest that the public are strongly against the Government’s proposals.

Unlike many of my colleagues, I do not have a strong ideological opposition to privatisation if it produces a better service.

However, Royal Mail is a unique and crucial public service on which people depend. It is also an important part of our cultural heritage.

Therefore, we should be extremely cautious about making any drastic changes unless they are essential to Royal Mail’s survival, as well as being in the interests of the public as taxpayers and customers.

The Government’s argument is that the partprivatisation is indeed central to Royal Mail’s survival, but I do not feel that this case has been effectively made.

There is a great deal of consensus about the problems facing the Royal Mail: the huge pension deficit; the decline in mail volume caused mainly by the rise of email; the need for fairer regulation; and crucially, the need to modernise.

However, there is less consensus over how to raise the funds necessary to solve these problems.

According to Adam Crozier, the chief executive, several hundred million pounds are needed to modernise. Yet in 2006, the Government provided Royal Mail Group (RMG) with a loan of £1.2bn to fund modernisation and only half of this has been spent.

So there are funds still available for modernisation.

Given that RMG made £321m in profit last year and every part of the group was in profit for the first time in 20 years, I believe we should explore other ways to raise funds before selling off a proportion of a hugely-valuable Government asset.

In the current economic climate I am not convinced that a sale of equity is the most effective and efficient way to raise funds. In addition, opening the door to part-privatisation could lead to full-scale privatisation in the future which would, in my opinion, not be in the best interest of the public.

The Business and Enterprise Select Committee Report on the Postal Services Bill, published in April, questions whether the proposed partnership would indeed inject the necessary cash. It concludes that it is “far from clear that the private sector proposed partnership will, in fact, do this”.

MANY people have pointed out that the Government has invested a huge amount in bailing out the banks when only a fraction of this could have funded the reform of Royal Mail and sorted out the pension deficit.

Another possible solution, which I know ministers have considered, is to turn Royal Mail into a not-for-profit, independent company like Network Rail, which would then be able to invest in new technologies and unlock its great potential. This would also allow Royal Mail to use its own assets to get loans, which could be used to solve the pension problem.

This is just one alternative which the Government should look at more closely before taking the drastic step of part-privatisation.

Another crucial reason why so many Labour MPs oppose the proposals stems from the fact that we made a manifesto commitment in 2005 to maintain “a publicly-owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health, providing customers with an excellent service and its employees with rewarding employment.”

Going against a manifesto commitment on an issue about which the public feels so strongly is something we should avoid except in the most extreme circumstances.

I personally made a commitment to postal workers in my constituency and in writing to the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU), based on the manifesto promise, that I wouldn’t support any measures to sell parts of Royal Mail.

Many of my colleagues will have made similar commitments and I, for one, am not willing to go back on my word. Having made my case against the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, I sincerely hope the Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson listen to Labour MPs, like myself, who feel that they cannot support the Government on this issue.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I have always admired Lord Mandelson and have never doubted his great contribution to the Labour Party. But I can’t agree with him on this issue.

I am proud to have always been loyal to the Labour Government over the 12 years I have been in Parliament even when I had doubts, such as over the Iraq war or 42 days’ detention, but on this occasion, with a heavy heart, I cannot ignore the commitment I made to the CWU and the postal workers whom I represent.

It will be the first time I’ve voted against the Government and, despite my respect and admiration for the Secretary of State for the Environment Hilary Benn, I will be forced to step down as his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

So, can I make a plea to the Prime Minister to leave the Bill in his in-tray and to Lord Mandelson to leave it in the long grass at least until after the election. Then we can make a manifesto pledge that would give voters the chance to endorse or oppose the policy and, in turn, to give the Prime Minister a mandate to make this most controversial of changes.

■ Dr Ashok Kumar is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland