Letter from Andrew Turner MP
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity
to express some views on the process of consulting with regards
Post Office branch closures and the Network Change programme.
I thought it would be helpful to provide some
background so that my comments with regards specific issues on
the Isle of Wight have some context.
Between 14 December 2006 and 8 March 2007 the
Government ran a 12-week consultation on the Post Office Network.
In May 2007 the Government issued its response
to the now called "Network Change Programme" which set
out minimum access criteria for the Post Office to use in order
to determine which closures would take place.
The first point I think it is worth making is
that it is almost disingenuous to hold something called a "consultation"
with regards post office closures as already at this point it
appears as though the decision had been taken to close 2,500 branches
out of the network of some 14,300 branches.
To use the word consultation in respect to proposed
individual post office closures often gives the most vulnerable
in society false hope that there is a very good chance that the
decision to close can be reversed. As such I would recommend that
the Post Office stop using the word consultation as I am sure
that the closure figures will indicate that it is statistically
very improbable that any decision will be reversed.
On 11 October of 2007 we received a letter with
the Area Plan for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The plan included
the proposal to close five urban and five rural branches on the
Isle of Wight.
Formal consultation commenced on 16 October
2007 and lasted for six weeks until 26 November.
On 23 November 2007 the Isle of Wight Chamber
of Commerce, the Isle of Wight Rural Community Council and myself
responded to the consultation.
Unfortunately I never received any response
from the Post Office to the submission and in an email of 9 January
I was told that this was due to an administrative error. I think
that, in future, greater care should be made to ensure that elected
representatives are communicated with by the Post Office.
Whilst the removal of any post office service
is regrettable we specifically made representations on four of
the 10 branches threatened with closure. In the reasons given
for the closure of three of these branches, it appears as though
representations made in response to the consultation were either
ignored to an extent or not read.
LOWTHER BRANCH
Mention was made about the unique geographical
nature of the area, given that there are some of the steepest
inhabited hills in the country in the catchment area of the branch.
This issue which was raised as one of the objections
to the closure seemed to have been completely ignored in the area
plan decision booklet, as was the issue with regards deprivation.
CALBOURNE BRANCH
An objection was raised to the closure of this
branch, with specific mention being made about the uncertainty
of the alternative services available.
In the Area Plan Decision Booklet this
issue was not mentioned as having been raised, which again makes
you question the whole "consultation" process.
The proposed alternatives included Brighstone.
It is impossible to reach and alternative Post Office (at Carisbrooke
and Yarmouth) so neither should include Brighstone as an alternative.
HUNNYHILL BRANCH
Future developments were identified as was the
vital issue of providing local banking services; yet again this
was not mentioned in the Area Plan Decision Booklet.
Whilst I appreciate the Committee cannot look
into specific closures, it appears as though responses to the
consultation have not always taken into account representations
made by interested parties making the consultation process itself
seem almost sham like. As such I believe in future any Area
Plan Decision book may well be advised to give much more comprehensive
reasons for both closure, and why reasons submitted as to why
a branch should remain have been overruled.
We have also been led to believe that in meetings
between Postwatch and Royal Mail to discuss the Area Plan, Royal
Mail have only provided verbal confirmation as to their proposals.
This seem to be unacceptable and I would suggest that there should
be some process whereby Royal Mail puts in writing to the Consumer
watchdog what its intentions actually are in order to avoid any
misunderstandings.
Finally I question whether it is helpful for
the meetings between the Postwatch and Royal Mall when deliberating
potential closures in a Members constituency to remain confidential.
13 January 2008
| 
