Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-29)
POSTWATCH
16 NOVEMBER 2004
Q20 Chairman: But there are instances,
are there not, where Crown post offices have gone into convenience
stores and they have been closed because the new owners of the
chain of convenience stores have decided that they could use that
space more profitably? Now, would it not be the case that, perhaps
in the franchising agreement, if the owner changed, then the clock
would start again?
Mr Fisher: My understanding, and
I think you will need to check the detail with Post Office Limited,
but when they are offered a franchise contract, it is for a minimum
of seven years and the expectation is that they will continue
until the end of that period and then they would have to take
a decision whether to renew or not, so I suspect that some of
the franchise contracts which have been let over the last seven
years, as they come up for renewal, we will see whether the partners
want to continue. We are aware that with the consolidation that
has been going on in the high street with the convenience offerers,
the policy decision taken, and you mentioned Tesco's, but there
are others, is that they do not see a post office as a particularly
lucrative business to continue running, so we think there is a
risk that when these renewals come up, we will not see such certainty
about the franchised operations continuing, hence our recommendation
that if that happens, in order to weigh customer interests, the
Post Office ought to have an obligation to maintain the service
in the area, perhaps only on a temporary basis until they find
somebody else to take on the franchise.
Q21 Judy Mallaber: You talked earlier
about consultation, but could I just clarify that where Post Office
Limited say that quite clearly the act of conversion, as such,
is not a matter of consultation, and they say this very firmly,
that it is up to them as to how they deliver their services, whether
directly or through agents: do you accept that argument at all?
Mr Carr: No, but what we do understand
is that they are in charge, it is their business, and if they
decide to make that conversion, then that is based purely on a
commercial decision and there is very little that we can do about
it. It is the substance which occurs after that in which we are
involved. In other words, they say, "We will make this conversion
because that is our right to do so and we will consult you about
the detail afterwards", but it is a very perfunctory arrangement
which does not go into any sort of detail and we have no rights
or powers during the course of that process. Furthermore, there
is no right of appeal beyond that. If we do not agree with them,
the final decision is theirs and we cannot appeal to anybody.
Q22 Judy Mallaber: I take it you think,
on the question of consultation generally, that there should be
no difference at all between consultation on Crown post offices
and consultation such as we had on the Urban Reinvention programme?
Can you see any differences at all in terms of the principle or
the practicalities of how that consultation should take place?
Mr Carr: None whatsoever. In fact,
if anything, there should be an even more detailed arrangement.
It was the view of this Committee that the consultation period
should have been 12 weeks because that is a standard government
thing, and we agreed with that. We thought we had done well to
get to eight weeks.
Mr Fisher: I think there is a
difference and I think it is the scale, that you might get a sub-post
office where a matter of hundreds of people use it, and obviously
it is very inconvenient for them if that post office closes, where
you can take a fairly quick decision about how that affects an
area. I think it is quite different where if a Crown office closes,
that may have an impact on a number of sub-post offices nearby
and we, and others, I think, need time to evaluate what that impact
would be and whether there is adequate service provision in those
offices, and some may need improved disabled access, they may
need extra counter positions, so I think, if anything, there should
be a longer timescale for Crown office closures. You can argue
slightly differently for conversions, but I still think it is
an important category and needs to be thought through separately.
Q23 Judy Mallaber: You also gave us the
example of the case that you made for retention of the Notting
Hill branch to Post Office Limited. What has the company's reaction
been to that and to the representations that others made, including
the local authority?
Mr Carr: I will ask Kay to answer
that because she led the campaign in conjunction with Tony Benn.
Ms Dixon: Notting Hill was a very
interesting case because everybody was absolutely in agreement
there, the Member of Parliament, the local authority, the local
action group which was set up very rapidly and very efficiently,
and Postwatch. We were all of the opinion that the Notting Hill
Crown office, a directly managed branch, should not close. Frankly,
it all got off to a bad start right from the word go because the
consultation was during July and August and any of you who know
anything about Notting Hill and Kensington will know that on the
whole it is pretty empty during July and August, so that went
down badly to start with, so the whole thing really got off to
a bad start. The local authority were not consulted at an early
stage, which is something we have asked for for some time now,
but this is not happening. Everybody was against this closure,
particularly local businesses, and it is a thriving area, Westbourne
Grove. It is not the main Notting Hill shopping area, but it is
still a primary shopping area with a lot of small businesses and
shops all the way along Westbourne Grove and down the side streets.
The point that they make is that as the post office was closing,
and it is now closed in fact, with the closure of this post office
it was going to affect their working patterns. Whereas at the
moment, they can put up "Back in five minutes" on the
door and rush up to the post office to post a package to a customer
or whatever it might be, now they are going to have to go off
some distance across the borough to a different post office and
it may only take 35 or 40 minutes, but that is a jolly long time
to leave a small shop closed, so there was that, the impact on
local businesses. Notting Hill has a higher than average percentage
of people working from home and again it has an impact on them.
There is also a delivery office in the same building as the Notting
Hill post office, so we particularly asked that a mailing facility
should be left available so that these small businesses and people
working from home could go and drop off their mail at the end
of the day without having to put in the time to drive through
the traffic or walk or whatever it was going to be, but that has
been turned down as well. The Post Office said that, for operational
and other security reasons, it would not be possible, which seems
quite extraordinary because this is a facility that is there anyway.
There are vans and people going in and out all day, so it seems
absolutely extraordinary that a small counter could not have been
kept open at the caller's office to provide this facility that
local people had asked for. The response to all the representations
from all the people that I have mentioned was very disappointing
indeed. The only small concession we got on the whole issue was
that we managed, because of the summer holiday period for example,
to get the consultation period extended by two weeks just to bring
it in line with consultations that were going on in a Network
Reinvention area plan for the whole constituency. Very disappointing
indeed was the reaction we had and I know the local action group
were particularly upset about it.
Mr Fisher: Under the Urban Reinvention
programme, where an office is closed there is Government funding
for improvements to the remaining offices. That funding does not
apply to sub-post offices impacted by a branch office closure.
I think there is an argument that if POL are going to save a couple
of hundred thousand pounds a year by closing a branch office some
of that first year of savings should be used as a fund to help
sub-postmasters to improve the lot of their office.
Q24 Chairman: Perhaps we can mention
the role of Government in this. It is a publicly owned enterprise
that is carrying this out. Have you made any representations to
Ministers at this stage on this issue?
Mr Carr: Not specifically on the
Crown office issues.
Q25 Chairman: We know that you have made
representations on a number of issues, Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: We sent a letter in to
the Minister on 13 October on some contested closures related
to the deprived areas and we still have not had a response. Responses
are fairly slow these days from the DTI. It would be wrong to
suggest that the DTI are not interested in Crown offices, but
they are somewhat reticent and reluctant to get engaged in the
detail and this has been the case throughout the Urban Reinvention
programme. There was one exception to that and that was Minister
Timms who intervened in February because the Urban Reinvention
consultation processes were not convincing anybody, and he was
able to step in and force changes which did have a beneficial
effect, not entirely, but it was noticeable and I think we did
a much better job as a result of it. We would welcome that kind
of interest and support because this is going to be an important
thing. I go back to the point I made at the beginning which is
that these offices are not just post offices, they are Crown offices
and they are absolutely vital to seven million people a week and
that is the difference. I would imagine that that kind of information
would get them to step up to the plate and start making certain
that this thing goes in the right direction and that means that
they have got to be prepared to say what they want and agree that
with both sides of their business, the shareholder, the executive
and the consumer side and, if necessary, be prepared to ensure
that proper rates are paid to POL for the services that they provide
to the public.
Q26 Linda Perham: Did you say you had
put something in to them about the deprivation issue?
Mr Carr: Yes, that is correct.
Q27 Linda Perham: They did not provide
a package of support for the rural post offices. I am just wondering
whether you are envisaging appealing to them for some kind of
package of support in this case where the Crown offices may be
kept open if a closure is threatened in areas of deprivation,
particularly areas of urban deprivation.
Ms Dixon: There are two separate
issues which come together. There is the letter we wrote to the
Minister about the urban deprived isolated offices, which was
trying to clarify the Government's policy on the degree of protection
they wanted to offer because of the social role they provided.
Some of the Crown offices do serve those sorts of areas. Coming
back to the earlier point, if we are looking at what are the characteristics
that determine whether a Crown office should stay open, that is
exactly the kind of thing we would want to take into account,
plus distances to alternative offices, transport links and suchlike.
Q28 Chairman: I think the point we will
probably reflect in our Report is that there are a number of offices
which cater for segments of areas in which there is severe deprivation.
It may well be in areas like Notting Hill, where you have considerable
affluence alongside considerable squalor, the degree of disadvantage
greatly outweighs the affluence, even if it does not outweigh
the number of people concerned. The high dependence on such places
is a matter of some significance as well. This is something that
we are anxious to identify and if you can point to any instances
where you have seen it that would be of assistance to us.
Ms Dixon: At the end of the Network
Reinvention programme, which we more or less are at in Greater
London, we had a meeting with all the local authorities at which
Post Office Limited were present and there were a number of recommendations
that came out of it, but one of the key things was that were there
to be any such programme again—we did not know about what
looks like a fresh programme at that time—there should be
some way of looking at deprivation on a smaller scale than on
ward boundaries. As you have just pointed out and Notting Hill
is a very good example, there are some very, very poor people
at the non-posh end of Notting Hill and that is common to many,
many wards throughout Greater London and I am sure other cities
as well and that is something that we have raised with Post Office
Limited and it would be something for us and for them and probably
for the Government to get involved in because there has got to
be a measure other than the index of multiple deprivation which
is done on a ward basis and which is too wide a measure for post
offices.
Q29 Chairman: It begs the question why
do they not use postal districts.
Ms Dixon: Indeed.
Mr Carr: Just one final point
which I forgot to make earlier. As I said, we want to see a full
operational overall strategy for the future of this network but
with full consultation with the staff, the unions and the stakeholders,
but there should be no closures until this Committee has finished
its work on Crown offices.
Chairman: We will bear that in mind.
Thank you very much for that. As ever, we would be grateful to
have any additional information you think may help us. Thank you
very much.
|
