Letter from Nicholas Palmer MP
Thank you for your letter of 6 December. I'll
describe the process in my constituency as accurately as possible
and will read the Committee's views with interest.
This was the sequence of events:
1. The Post Office informed me that it was
reviewing branch provision in my area.
2. The chairman of the local NFPO branch
approached me to ask me not to oppose all closures in a knee-jerk
reaction, but to consult the postmasters themselves on their views.
3. Postwatch contacted me to ask whether
I would like to meet to discuss possible closures—at this
stage they seemed quite keen to do so—but said they were
unable on grounds of confidentiality to tell me which branches
might be affected. I said that a discussion in theory which didn't
focus on anywhere in particular would be of limited value, and
suggested that they contact me once we could discuss the potential
closures.
4. The Post Office informed me that three
branches in my constituency were proposed for closure: Nuthall,
Bramcote Hills and Rylands.
5. I consulted constituents and established
that the Nuthall closure was generally seen as understandable:
there are three other nearby branches, and I have not received
a single objection. There was strong opposition to the other closures.
One of the two postmasters involved was himself opposed; the other
declined to express an opinion.
6. I organised petitions over the two controversial
closures and analysed the Post Office's case in some detail, identifying
issues that I felt they had not satisfactorily addressed or had
misunderstood. Around 1,500 people signed the petitions, and there
were many who also wrote directly to object with reasoned argument.
7. As I hadn't heard further from Postwatch,
I contacted them by telephone to ask them to discuss with me the
objections to the two closures. They suggested emailing my comments.
When I explained that I was ringing as an MP, they said politely
that as a particularly important stakeholder I should email my
comments to a different address. In due course they replied that
they would take them into account, but did not respond to my request
for a discussion. Shortly afterwards, they made their own submission,
which did not oppose either closure. My impression is that by
the time I approached them, shortly before the deadline, they
had decided their position and did not wish to discuss it further.
8. The Post Office decided to close all three
branches, and sent a brief summary of their reasons, addressing
some but not all of the arguments.
9. I have now (yesterday) applied under the
Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the detailed analysis
that led them to this conclusion.
It seems fairly clear that the Post Office was
convinced that the contraction of the network was necessary in
order to safeguard the remaining network, and neither they nor
Postwatch seemed very interested in engaging on the detailed proposals
for specific branches. My impression is that the Post Office was
confident that their calculations were correct, and saw the consultation
phase mainly as a check that they had not overlooked some particularly
crucial fact, rather than as a way of assessing public opinion.
If this is the case, it would probably be helpful in future rounds
if they made this clearer, since the encouragement to the public
to send in opinions on the proposals arouses mistaken expectations.
I am not sure what to make of the communications with Postwatch,
but if they feel they can play a useful role in this, I recommend
that they contact MPs proactively after the proposed closures
are known but before they have decided on their own position.
12 December 2007
|
