Conclusions and recommendations
Role of Government and the future of the network
1.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question, the Government said a network
of around 7,500 offices would suffice to meet the national criteria.
We do not think it is satisfactory simply to accept that the network
may continue to shrink in an unplanned way between now and 2011;
Post Office Ltd should be obliged to use its best endeavours to
keep the network at a minimum of 11,500 fixed outlets.
(Paragraph 7)
The Consultation Process
2. We
urge the new National Consumer Council to place continued monitoring
of the post office network among its highest priorities. (Paragraph
8)
3. Post Office Ltd
should be far clearer about the basis on which the public is being
consulted. All its literature should make it clear that there
will be reductions in Post Office provision, and that the question
being asked is simply whether the right branches have been identified
for closure. (Paragraph 12)
Confidentiality
4. If
people are to respond sensibly to proposals to close a particular
sub-post office, they need to know why that branch has been put
forward for closure. There may be some details which need to be
kept confidential, but this should be strictly limited, given
the substantial public investment in the network and the keen
public interest in the outcome. We welcome the fact that Post
Office Ltd has been prepared to share more information as the
process has evolved; it should give such information at the outset
of the consultation process. (Paragraph 14)
5. Area Plan Proposals
and their associated publicity should make it clear that closure,
although likely, is not inevitable, and that the status of post
offices scheduled to remain open may change. The notification
that an office, is to remain open should be far more clearly worded.
(Paragraph 16)
6. The Chief Executive
of Post Office Ltd told us that the proposals in Local Area Plans
were refined through the pre-consultation process and that this
preparation is some compensation for the limited time allowed
for public consultation. If this is so, commercial confidentiality
should not prevent Post Office Ltd from holding the discussions
necessary to make sensible proposals. (Paragraph 17)
Local Authority and MP involvement
7. We
also note that although Postwatch appears to be doing a good job
in influencing proposals in the pre-consultation period, several
of the MPs who responded to our request felt that Postwatch could
have been more closely involved in discussions with them. Postwatch
is the only organisation able to take proposals to review; it
would be helpful if it always discussed its position with interested
MPs. (Paragraph 20)
Profitability
8. Local
authorities and local MPs should be more closely involved in the
pre-consultation process. Postwatch appears to be doing a good
job, but it simply does not have the wider responsibilities of
local government, or the representative role of MPs. The Chief
Executive of Post Office Ltd told us that local authorities were
involved in drawing up local area plans before they went out to
public consultation; clearly, some local authorities do not feel
they have been properly involved. Local Area Plans would be improved
if local authorities and Post Office Ltd worked together. (Paragraph
21)
9. Postwatch should
scrutinise proposals to close post offices which are commercially
viable for Post Office Ltd particularly closely and, if necessary,
have powers to block them. (Paragraph 22)
Alternative support for Post Offices
10.
We welcome Post Office Ltd's apparent willingness to contemplate
introducing locally supported post offices. (Paragraph
24)
Management style
11. The
Post Office's future is a matter of public debate. As we have
said, Post Office Ltd is not solely a commercial enterprise. Its
network provides access to essential services, and has a greater
reach than any other. The Government is the sole shareholder,
and the public has a right to expect Government-controlled enterprises
to behave in an exemplary way. After the experience of this inexcusable
lapse, we expect Post Office Ltd to do so in future. (Paragraph
28)
The Government Access Criteria
12. The
evidence we have received from local authorities suggests the
detailed information required to implement the access criteria
properly has not always been taken fully into account. We are
particularly concerned that in some cases the local area plan
has failed to reflect arrangements to transfer Crown Offices to
franchised premises in a different location. If Post Office Ltd
cannot take into account information about matters that it controls,
confidence in the wider information underlying these plans is
undermined. Post Office Ltd must do more to demonstrate that local
area plans are accurate and based on current information. (Paragraph
31)
13. We underline the
fact that the geographic access criteria are national, and can
be met even if coverage in certain local areas falls well below
the national standard. We do not know the extent to which the
national criteria are met in each local area plan. We expect Post
Office Ltd, as far as possible, to take the geographic access
criteria into account at local area plan level, not just meet
them nationally. (Paragraph 32)
Accessibility
14. We
welcome the fact that Postwatch surveys proposed franchises for
accessibility. We trust it also considers accessibility when it
considers proposals for sub-post office closure made as part of
the Network Change Programme. However, we are far from convinced
that Post Office Ltd itself is fully engaged with the need to
ensure that services are accessible to all. This needs to be given
much higher priority. (Paragraph 34)
Local economies
15. We
believe that there should be a presumption against closing a post
office where this is the last shop in the village, or in a deprived
urban area. (Paragraph 35)
16. Post Office Ltd
must take great care to ensure that any reduction in compensation
to a sub-post office that closes, but where the remaining business
intends to offer new and competing services, is not excessive.
The purpose of reducing compensation is to limit competition with,
and encourage business to migrate to, remaining post offices nearby.
The argument for this reduction is weaker in areas where there
is no ready access to such offices. Because of the importance
of such facilities to the local communities, Post Office Ltd should
always be realistic in its assessment of the degree to which alternative
services would really displace business for the Post Office Network.
When reaching its decisions it should give the benefit of the
doubt to the business and so to the people it serves. (Paragraph
38)
17. The timetable
for the Network Change Programme is extremely compressed. We would
be concerned if postmasters had to decide whether to accept the
cut in compensation before they had the time to establish whether
they could attract bill payment or other services, or explore
the terms of such contracts. Postmasters should be given adequate
time to explore these factors before deciding what compensation
to accept. (Paragraph 39)
Outreach
18. We
agree that open-ended questions about the type of Outreach which
may be appropriate are not helpful but welcome the fact that in
recent consultations Post Office Ltd suggests what Outreach arrangements
could be provided. We also welcome the assurance that Outreach
services will continue until at least 2011. In addition we welcome
the statement from Post Office Ltd that they are prepared to consider
Outreach services in areas which had previously lost their postal
services but are within the new national criteria. (Paragraph
42)
19. We believe a single
outreach session of two hours a week is generally unacceptable;
there should normally be at least two sessions per week. (Paragraph
43)
20. We welcome the
proposals to introduce Post Office provision to remote areas.
If this cannot be done by voluntary Outreach arrangements, we
expect the Post Office to provide the necessary services itself.
(Paragraph 44)
Proportionality
21. We
welcome the fact that Post Office Ltd appears to be taking a flexible
and pragmatic approach to the requirement that the closures should
not fall disproportionately in particular areas, and that its
programme takes some account of the varying levels of current
provision. (Paragraph 45)
22. The Network Change
Programme has a difficult balancing act to perform between responding
to local needs and concerns and ensuring that the necessary reduction
in the network is achieved. We welcome the Minister's assurance
that areas which are considered late in the process will not be
disadvantaged. We intend to keep this, and other aspects of the
programme, under review. (Paragraph 46)
Conclusion
23. Post
Office Ltd has been given the task of reducing the network by
a fixed number of branches in a fixed period. The Network Change
Programme began in July 2007 and the final consultation is scheduled
to end in October 2008. That is a very challenging timetable.
As we always feared, this has meant that consultation has been
curtailed, and the whole process has been rushed. The failure
to realise at the outset that the consultation timetable should
take account of the "purdah" for local elections, and
the failure to allow properly for the effects of holidays on consultation
periods, are symptoms of this. The process has been improving
as more experience is gained, but problems remain. There is not
enough clarity about the basis of the consultation; we are concerned
that accessibility is not always taken into account; commercial
confidentiality has prevented sensible discussion. We hope that
all those involved will use this Report as a prompt to make further
improvements. (Paragraph 47)
| 
