Letter from Tim Boswell MP
You kindly wrote to me on 6 December concerning
the Post Office Network Change programme. I am enclosing some
briefing comments on the process as it is applied locally.
First I should record that the Post Office has
made some effort to produce sensitive and rational solutions to
meet its budgetary needs, and there is nothing locally which is
self-evidently perverse or absurd, although there is substantial
local pressure in connection with most of the seven offices earmarked
for closure.
My main concern relates to the degree of consultation
with the Postmasters involved. I appreciate that this is a difficult
issue in that in at least one case the pattern of the Post Office
decision became known in advance and led to some rather irregular
private briefing before any formal announcement. However, I am
aware of at least two cases where it might have been possible
to reach monetary agreement with the Postmasters to close an alternative
Post Office (perhaps because the Postmaster was ready to retire),
and I certainly feel it important that the Post Office should
not close its mind to these situations and/or to those where there
is strong community pressure to establish or enhance a community
retail outlet. (Incidentally, the community in Sulgrave in a remote
part of my constituency, where there is now no proposal to close
the office, some years ago established a very thriving community
retail shop which has together with postal services retained an
important community hub for the village).
I also feel it may be worth paying some attention
to the possibility of more "lateral" solutions, particularly
for special needs. One elderly and disabled lady commented to
me that she would now be entirely dependent on lifts or the goodwill
of her neighbour to get out to get her pension, and I am wondering
whether the Post Office could consider some system of pre-booked
"flying bus visits" to meet these needs by domiciliary
visits.
31 December 2007
| 
