Select Committee on Business and Enterprise Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 58-59)

POSTWATCH

29 JANUARY 2008

  Q58 Chairman: Mr Webber, it is just worth putting on record again we are talking today about the closure programme and we are quite restricted on that purpose. We are very grateful to you for coming in. We understand why your Chairman cannot be with us today. I also ought to say publicly that we will actually have another short set of witnesses next week, subject to their availability. We hope the Communication Workers' Union will be able to come and talk about different aspects, in particular the high street Crown post office franchising programme. We hope to have that additional set of witnesses next week, subject to their availability. Thank you very much indeed for your written evidence to us. I believe you would like to make a brief opening comment which, in the circumstances, would be very helpful.

  Mr Webber: Thank you. It actually echoes much of what George Thomson said in his opening comments. I was not around for Urban Reinvention, the last closure programme, but colleagues tell me that by comparison this programme is vastly better organised, vastly better run, the relationship between Postwatch and Post Office Limited, although by no means cosy, is a very constructive one, and I think we are acting as strong critical friends. We have a much closer role in terms of a lengthy pre-consultation, and I am sure you will want to ask about that. It does mean that the plans which reach the public, when they do reach public consultation, are much better than they would otherwise have been, and probably than they were in terms of Urban Reinvention. That said, we do have a number of concerns, and I hope we will cover those in the course of the next minutes. The main ones I think probably stem from the speed with which the process is being implemented. I can understand why the Government and why Post Office Limited want the programme to be implemented at the speed it is; but, nonetheless, it means there is not as much time for reflection as we would like. It means that Postwatch, as well as the Committee itself, remain deeply concerned about a six-week public consultation period; and we argued strongly, and I know the Committee argued strongly, for a 12-week public consultation period. The main focus of our concern, I think, is Post Office Limited ("failures" is too strong a word) inadequacies in terms of communicating with their customers and with the communities that they are serving. The mechanics of the process are working pretty well given the speed with which it is being implemented. Their communication with customers is not as good as we would like it to be, although it is getting better.

  Q59  Chairman: Thank you, that is very helpful. You are happy then about the Post Office's processes. Do you think the branch information that is available is sufficiently robust? We have heard some suggestions that it is not always as accurate as people would like?

  Mr Webber: Generally it is pretty good. With a programme like this, with the whole of the UK being covered, obviously general answers provide only general truths. There are weaknesses, but in general it is pretty good. Obviously one of the weaknesses is that we all have to rely on census data which is now pretty solidly out-of-date, since we are seven or eight years from the last census. Apart from that, in general the information is relatively good.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 30 May 2008