Letter from Graham Stuart MP
Thank you for your letter dated 6 December.
I am delighted that your Committee will be looking into this important
issue, which is of great concern to local people in Beverley and
Holderness. Let me explain the current situation in my constituency.
As you may be aware, I represent a rural area
with an older than average population. Some 18% of its population
is over 65, compared with a national average of 15%, and many
people live in isolated rural communities with a less than ideal
public transport network.
The Government's restructuring programme proposed
four local Post Office closures in the constituency: in Hollym
near Withemsea, in Mappleton near Hornsea, in Lockington near
Beverley (albeit replaced by four hours of outreach) and in Grovehill
Road in Beverley. These were all confirmed by Post Office Ltd
just before Christmas, following the statutory six-week consultation
period.
The decision has had a profound impact on the
local community. During the six-week consultation period, more
than 8,000 residents in Hull and the East Riding wrote to the
Post Office opposing the planned closures. I handed in a petition
to No 10 Downing Street containing the names of 5,000 people opposing
the planned closures in my constituency. More than 80 people turned
up to a public meeting on a cold autumn night to show their support
of the Grovehill Road branch. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council
also announced that it was opposed to the closures.
Of all the decisions to close individual Post
Offices across Beverley and Holderness, and across the country,
the Grovehill branch seems one of the most bizarre. Grovehill
is a huge success. It takes in between £150,000 and £165,000
each week and is used by around 1,500 loyal customers. Roughly
65% of these are over 65. The branch is a lifeline for hundreds
of people. I joined a long queue of customers on a Monday morning
in November an hour before the branch opened.
With Beverley set to expand further, there can
be little doubt that the branch will be in further demand in the
future. Its closure, therefore, cannot be justified on purely
economic grounds. Nor, however, can it be justified on social
grounds. The recent Trade and Industry Select Committee report
on the restructuring programme rightly stated "We believe
that other natural and social barriers should also be taken into
account. These might explicitly allow for other factors affecting
actual accessibility, rather than raw distance". This is
especially relevant to Grovehill.
The branch is situated on one of the largest
social and private housing estates in the whole of the East Riding
of Yorkshire. Its occupants are among some of the poorest and
most vulnerable people in the area. There are also lots of elderly
people living in and around the estate. Forcing these people to
walk from the centre of Beverley, at least 20 minutes away, carrying
large amounts of cash, does not strike me as a sensible proposal.
The closure of Grovehill will also have an adverse
impact on congestion. If the branch were to close, people would
be forced to use the main Register Square branch in the centre
of Beverley, which is not on a through road. The nearest bus stop
is more than 250 yards away, which was mentioned in the Post Office's
consultation document even though the bus from Grovehill does
not travel to it. People from Grovehill will find themselves at
the town's main bus station—around 500 yards away. There
are no parking spaces outside the branch except for those with
a disabled badge, and precious few of them. Congestion in and
around Register Square is already a frequent occurrence end will
only be exacerbated by the addition of hundreds of Grovehill Road
customers.
I can see no reason for Grovehill's inclusion
in the Governments closure programme and in this respect, the
decision to go ahead with its closure was made with little reference
to the views of local people, who overwhelmingly voted for its
intention. This has led to widespread disillusionment with the
process of local consultations and has left people feeling removed
from the centre of decision making.
Many people had complaints about the consultation
process itself. Firstly, the six-week statutory period was far
too short. It provided insufficient time for residents and local
councils to digest the consultation document and establish their
response. It also prevented local people from building up a proper
campaign network. The Cabinet Office guidelines suggest a timetable
of 12-week and this surely would have been more suitable.
Secondly the conduct of Postwatch was a cause
of great concern. Postwatch, the supposed consumer voice, were
remarkably quiet throughout the whole process. One representative
turned up to the public meeting to discuss the Grovehill Road
branch, but said little. Other that that, I was not contacted
by them at all throughout the six-week period.
It is the responsibility of Postwatch to ensure
that individual branch closures do not have an adverse impact
on local communities. They have the authority to contact the Royal
Mail Group when they think a decision needs to be looked at again.
They should have been much more visible to the general public
and should have made more of an effort to explain their supposed
role in the process.
Post Office, on the other hand, were easier
to deal with. They kept me informed of what decisions were being
taken and when. They agreed to meet with me to discuss each individual
branch closure and were fully briefed on all the issues surrounding
that branch. The consultation document was clear, concise and
published in good time and I received few complaints from my constituents
about its layout. They also turned up to the Grovehill Road public
meeting.
One area of concern relates to the general lack
of information available to my constituents. For example, at the
Grovehill Road public meeting we were repeatedly told that the
Post Office was losing £3 million a week, yet we were not
given specific information about the profitability of the branch
(I was told only in confidence). People therefore couldn't make
a proper assessment of the branch's viability. Without wishing
to pry into the personal finances of the Sub-postmaster, some
non-confidential information would have enabled people to see
if there was a pattern of increasing or decreasing profit or loss.
Another area of concern relates to the number
of Post Office branches the Government has stated it wishes to
close across the country. Alistair Darling, in his statement to
the House last year, said that 2,500 branches would be shut. This
was the Government's figure and we were told that it was non-negotiable.
We were also told that if one branch was to earn a reprieve, another
one not too far away would have to be sacrificed. Yet I have not
seen any mechanism for how that subsequent loss would be consulted
on. This strengthens the argument made by some that the consultation
was not genuine and that the Government intended to close these
2,500 branches no matter what.
In conclusion, my main areas of concern are
fourfold: the totally inadequate length of the consultation process
itself, total ignorance of what would happen in the event of a
reprieve for a local branch, the role (or lack of) that Postwatch
played in the proceedings and their non-efforts to engage with
the local population, and the extent to which the final decisions
reflected the will of the local population. In the case of Beverley
and Holderness, and the four Post Office branches mentioned, it
is my opinion that they did not. In the specific case of Grovehill,
the decision to close the branch was one of most bizarre I have
ever seen. This is an area that needs to be addressed in your
inquiry.
15 January 2008
| 
