| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Baker: If the Post Office has decided that it is possible to move the office back temporarily to the previous site, why could not that have been done when it left Mayfair Cards at the end of the year?
Mr. Johnson: I cannot answer that question, but I will ensure that the Post Office advises me on the matter; the hon. Gentleman's point is reasonable.
At Studd Farm, the post office closed last week, following the resignation of the sub-postmistress on health grounds. It was hoped that the closure would take place at the end of May, but for reasons that I agree we cannot go into, it happened earlier than expected, due to circumstances beyond the postmistress's control.
Although the vacancy has been advertised, as the sub-postmistress gave three months' notice of her resignation, unfortunately, no applicants have yet expressed an interest in buying the business. In the meantime, the two nearest alternative offices at Polegate, which is a little more than half a mile away, and at Wannock, which is about three quarters of a mile away, have the capacity to handle the business previously transacted at Studd Farm.
The specific issues relating to the three offices that were raised in tonight's debate highlight the range of problems and circumstances that can arise in managing and maintaining a retail network of more than 18,000 post offices. The points raised by the hon. Gentleman are related to those matters.
The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the period of three months' notice was adequate. If he thinks that three months is too low, what would have been the effect on the sub-postmistress at Studd Farm? She has been working out her three months' notice while waiting to retire on health grounds. The Post Office faces a huge range of circumstances. If three months is considered to be too short a period for companies such as W. H. Smith, how would one deal with the problem of a postmaster or postmistress who wants to retire through ill health or for some other reason? A longer period would be unreasonable for them.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that the hurdles set for taking over a new business were too high. He also referred to the financial checks made on sub-postmasters. If there were more rigorous checks--as perhaps there should be--that would create another hurdle and delay the introduction of a new post office service.
Those are complicated matters. The spotlight that the debate has directed at the network gives us all an opportunity to consider them. The hon. Gentleman has done his constituents a service by raising those points; I shall take them up further and in detail with Post Office management.
In many ways, the problems highlighted by the hon. Gentleman epitomise the challenges faced by the network. The Government are committed to finding
solutions that preserve an essential detail of our social fabric and that have our support, that of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and, most importantly, that of the communities that they serve. All hon. Members appreciate that, despite the problems described tonight, which are highlighted in many of our constituencies, the Post Office does a tremendous job. We want to keep a ubiquitous network and to ensure that a continuous service is provided to the public. We need to ensure that the review of the service solves as many problems as possible--including those raised in tonight's debate--without creating a new set of problems, as might occur if we take a shortsighted approach.
- Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Nine o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |