| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Dec 2002 : Column 1042—continued
2.41 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman (Hammersmith and Fulham): I should like to take the opportunity of today's Christmas Adjournment debate to raise a subject that is a matter of grave concern to me and many of my constituents in north Fulham, namely the proposal of the Post Office to close a Crown post office in North End road. That area of north Fulham has recently been the subject of a successful bid for the new deal for communities regeneration programme, which I cite as evidence of the fact that it is a deeply deprived area, certainly the most deprived and poorest in my constituency.
The area served by the post office is bounded by the Queen's Club tennis estate and Baron's Court underground station to the west, Talgarth road to the north and Lillie road to the south. The area has five housing estates built between 1912 and 1977 and the housing tenure in the area is 67 per cent. social housing, 14 per cent. privately rented and 19 per cent. owner-occupied. The area has been in long-term decline and the rate of unemployment is well above the local average at 11.2 per cent.
Some 12 per cent. of the households in the area have an income of less than #5,000 per annum and 25 per cent. of households have an annual income of less than #10,000. Single parents head 15 per cent. of the families living in the area, which has a significant non-white population—well above the Greater London and national average. Eighteen per cent. of the population have English as a second language and, of that figure, 15 per cent. have no or little English. Educational attainment is significantly below the borough and regional average. Some 36 per cent. of residents of working age have no recognised qualification, compared with a borough average of 12 per cent.
Crime in the area is high—nearly 50 per cent. higher than the regional average. Victims of crime are much more likely to be black, from an ethnic minority community or to be elderly residents.
Poor health is a fact of life for far too many of my constituents in this area. The social services have a much higher mental health case load and the area has a disproportionately large number of children on the child protection register. Because of poor diet, very high levels of smoking and drug and alcohol abuse, life expectancy is well below the national average.
I should like to outline concerns not only on the decision to close an extremely important local facility but on the manner in which the Post Office conducted the whole consultation exercise.
On Monday 25 November my office received a telephone call from Ms Jackie Illsley, a senior regional Post Office manager, asking my staff whether they had received a letter posted on the previous Saturday—23 November—advising me of the Post Office's proposals to close the Crown post office in my constituency. Bearing in mind the poor record of the mail service locally, I was frankly surprised that the Post Office had any realistic expectation that a letter posted on Saturday would be likely to arrive in my office by Monday morning. My office said that no such letter had been received; an hour or so later, a fax arrived from Ms Illsley advising me of the Post Office's intention to close the Crown post office.
I learned later that at the time that the letter physically arrived in my office, the staff at the local post office had already been informed of the intention to close their place of work, despite the fact that under the Post Office's own procedures, the local Member of Parliament is supposed to be given adequate prior notice of any closure proposals.
The next day I met Ms Illsley in the office of the leader of the council, Andrew Slaughter, and one of the other local ward councillors, David Williams. The three of us made clear our strong objections to the proposal to close the post office. I asked Ms Illsley whether she could advise me why that particular post office had been singled out for closure and how much money it would lose in the current financial year. She advised me that she was unable to inform me of that figure, although she said that it was somewhere between #100,000 and #500,000.
During a rather acrimonious meeting, the leader of the council and I made it clear why we thought that it was inappropriate to close the post office and why the proposals for other locations for people to use as an alternative to North End road were unacceptable. One alternative that Ms Illsley gave us was a post office in Earl's Court, which is more than a mile away from the North End road post office and extremely inaccessible, particularly to the many elderly clients who use the one in North End road.
At that point, Ms Illsley admitted that she was unaware of the fact that the Earl's Court post office was in a different local authority. It was quite clear to Councillors Slaughter and Williams and me that no real thought or effort had gone into identifying other appropriate alternative locations.
At the end of the meeting with Ms Illsley, I spoke to a journalist from the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle who advised me that earlier that morning she had been sent a press release from the Post Office informing her that the North End road post office had to close because it was losing #107,000 a year, a figure that Ms Illsley was unwilling to give me, the local Member of Parliament, later that day.
Last week I attended a public meeting at the Bhavan Indian cultural centre in Castletown road, which is next to the North End road post office. It was extremely well attended given the short notice and bearing in mind the inclement weather and the fact that it was so close to
Christmas. Councillor Slaughter and representatives of the Communication Workers Union were present, as were three senior managers from the Post Office, including Ms Illsley.It was the unanimous view of those attending that the Post Office proposal was unacceptable and that the Post Office had failed to take into account the damaging effect that the proposed closure would have on this very disadvantaged community. The overwhelming view expressed by local residents about the proposal was that no serious effort had been made to analyse the effect of the closure on the area and that the Post Office had made no attempt to take into account its duty as a public body to provide a key public service for the local community.
I am pleased to report that following representations that I know were made by Kay Dixon, the chairperson of Postwatch—the independent body that is supposed to look after the activities of the Post Office—who chaired last week's public meeting, the Post Office has now agreed to extend by one month the consultation period on its proposed closure.
Throughout this whole debacle, the Post Office has claimed to the leader of the council and to me that this was and is a genuine consultation exercise and not a Xdone deal", to use Ms Illsley's phrase.
The council is running a very vigorous public consultation exercise and more than 1,000 postcards have already been returned to the office of the leader of the council expressing residents' grave disquiet about the proposal.
I am pleased to report that the local Labour party has run a vigorous campaign and that more than 500 signatures have been received separately by my office expressing support for the campaign to keep the post office open. Only last night, Hammersmith and Fulham council passed a unanimous resolution, with support from all the parties represented on the council, calling on the Post Office to reverse its decision. I am hopeful that, bearing in mind the strength of feeling locally, the Post Office will recognise that its proposals are unacceptable and that the decision will be made to renew the lease on the post office, which Ms Illsley has confirmed is an option, and that this important local facility will remain open to serve the interests of some of the poorest people living in this area of London.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this important matter to the attention of the House. May I take this opportunity to wish you and all hon. Members the compliments of the season?
2.50 pm
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): The House should not rise for this Christmas until it has heard about the experience of my constituents whose Christmas three years ago was ruined because their homes were flooded, and who now realise that they are very unlikely to be better protected in the future.
The area under threat is the Iford bridge park on the banks of the River Stour, the site of about 100 so-called mobile homes although, like many such homes, they are actually permanent homes—in this case for retired or semi-retired people, some of whom are disabled. Some of them have sunk their life savings into their homes.
On Christmas night 1999, the river overflowed its banks and the homes were flooded. The residents were evacuated by the police, to whose efficient response I paid tribute at the time. I visited the site as the residents were returning home to assess the damage and to retrieve what they could. Twenty years before, in 1979, the site had been even more seriously flooded when it was under water for more than a week, after which it was understood that measures would be taken to reduce the risk.
In response to representations that I made about the experiences of Christmas 1999, I was amazed to learn from the then Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the countryside, now the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), that after the 1979 experience the then owner of the site had declined the offer of flood protection at public expense. That was also news to residents of the site when I arranged for officials of the Environment Agency to meet them. It was then agreed that a new protection scheme should be investigated.
Last year, the agency proposed a one in 15 to 20 year protection scheme and the residents were willing to accept it. Sadly, however, at my public meeting with the residents on 25 October this year, we were told that the scheme would not meet DEFRA criteria for public funding. Instead, a much more modest one in seven year defence scheme, costing about #170,000, was to be investigated. However, there was unlikely to be any funding for it because we are located in the south-west region, which is not to benefit from the Government's new funding for flood protection—apparently.
The week following that meeting the river overflowed again and the residents were evacuated. Two weeks later, on 14 November, nearly all of them were evacuated for a third time because the site was under two feet of water, which internally damaged 13 homes. Two homes were severely damaged and one was written off. Power to all the homes could not be restored for several days.
This Christmas, after three major evacuations in as many years, my constituents understand that they cannot expect any better protection from the Government in the future.
I have asked Bournemouth borough council to produce a report on the situation for its members to consider. The council is the planning and licensing authority for the site and is responsible for providing emergency services. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I look forward to supporting the representations that I anticipate members of the council will want to make to the Government.
In the meantime, it will be helpful to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, whether the Government's flood protection policy differs for the residents of mobile homes and those who live in more conventional properties. Do the Government give the same weight to mobile home parks and permanent dwellings in the provision of flood defences in flood risk areas? Will any of the extra #150 million funding for flood defences announced by
the Government in June this year be available for the south-west region? I am told by the Environment Agency that it will not. If the answer to that question is yes, it will give some hope to my constituents this Christmas that #170,000 of that amount might fund some protection so that they do not continue to face the prospect of no protection.Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you and Mr. Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, the Officers of the House, every hon. Member and all my constituents a very happy Christmas.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |