Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
POSTWATCH
29 JANUARY 2008
Q120 Mr Wright: Going on to that
particular consultation, you alluded to that just now where you
said that Post Office Limited have agreed that from January 2008
all Outreach proposals going to consultation would include operational
service details?
Mr Webber: Yes.
Q121 Mr Wright: You may not be able
to answer this particular question. The Lancashire and Fylde plan
released on 22 January appears to only state opening hours. Has
Post Office Limited made a mistake in this case, or could you
explain how consultation on Outreach works?
Mr Webber: I am not too sure about
that. Could I write to you on that? If it is not sufficient then
there needs to be a separate six-week consultation period for
Outreach, subsequent to the main public consultation.
Q122 Mr Wright: It does not affect
me. It is the wrong end of the country to me but it may well do
in the future. Moving on to the Crown offices, the CWU believe
you have reneged on your responsibility to represent users by
accepting the principle of franchising of Crown offices. Why did
you do this? Do you believe that subsequent consultations have
been effective?
Mr Webber: The principle we have
is to ensure that customers have proper and effective access to
post office services. We are not doctrinaire about whether that
is provided by a sub-post office, a franchised office or a Crown
office, provided it is adequate; provided that there is proper
access for disabled people et cetera and that it is open the right
hours within the right place. The evidence we have got so far,
and we have done some research on this, is that the WHSmith franchises
are, in general, offering services at least as good as, and in
some respects better than, those offered by Crown offices. Certainly
the range of services is at least as good; queuing time seems
to be less in WHSmith offices than in Crown offices. Although
we are very much in favour of a flagship network for the post
office, we are not so committed to that that we are going to object
in principle to franchising, if the franchising provides a service
of at least as high quality.
Q123 Mr Wright: So you have already
done the comparison work on that particular model?
Mr Webber: Of those that have
opened so far. Obviously we are still in the middle of the process,
but so far it looks fairly good. I know, for instance, one of
the objections to many of the WHSmith franchises is that they
generally tend to have the post office sited either in the basement
or on the first floor. Obviously it is then important that you
have a lift available or, at the very least, that for customers
with mobility difficulties services can be provided on the ground
floor. In all cases one or other of those options is available—either
a lift, or services available on the ground floor. That is one
of the things we would certainly look for in any WHSmith or any
franchise proposal.
Q124 Mr Wright: Surely the decision
to move franchises to WHSmith—and I have got one in my town
centre, which is probably only 200 yards away from the original
post office—would have taken into account the place it was
going to be in? For instance, if it is in the basement or if it
is on the first floor, surely part of that process should have
been that the first thing you have to do is to give general access;
and not say, "Well, it's going to go in WHSmith. You determine
where it's going to go, and therefore we'll deal with it afterwards"?
Mr Webber: I agree. We would certainly
oppose greatly any proposal that did not have that. So far we
have not needed to oppose on those sorts of grounds.
Q125 Mr Wright: You mentioned the
fact that there are one or two in the basement?
Mr Webber: They are basement or
first floor but there are always facilities for people with mobility
difficulties to receive a good level of service. That is indeed
a bottom line requirement for us.
Q126 Chairman: Are you happy that
you have enough information about the plans for Crown offices
to inform your decisions in relation to the closure programme
of sub-offices?
Mr Webber: Yes, in general; and
where we do not that is a reason for escalating the sub-post office
proposed closure, as in the Liverpool cases we were talking about.
Q127 Chairman: I think the CWU and
National Federation both have concerns about the impact of those
changes. You could move the location of a Crown office very significantly
in a town with an impact beneficial or otherwise for sub-offices?
Mr Webber: Absolutely, but in
general we do have the information that is necessary and if we
do not that is a very clear reason for escalating a case.
Q128 Chairman: Criteria for choosing
which Crown offices were transferred to WHSmith, are you happy
that process is sufficiently transparent? Quite honestly, the
town I live in, the city I live in (and I am not the Member of
Parliament for it), I live in Worcester, I am quite clear there
the reason that particular Crown office was closed was a huge
site ripe for redevelopment rather than a rational decision about
the needs of the city and the post office services it was to receive?
Mr Webber: Obviously I cannot
comment on the individual case. To argue on the other side, as
has been pointed out, the Crown post office network is losing
£70 million a year; it is possible that those losses could
be cut very significantly by the sort of redevelopment you are
talking about. One has to take that into account as well.
Q129 Roger Berry: Reference has been
almost exclusively in terms of franchises to WHSmith but obviously
there have been transfers from Crown offices elsewhere. My local
post office used to be a Crown post office and it is now residing
in the local branch of the Co-op. There are a number of organisations
providing helpful services. Have those been appraised as rigorously
as has happened in terms of WHSmith franchises?
Mr Webber: Yes, there has been
a standard six-week consultation period and discussion with us.
Q130 Roger Berry: I mean the outcome
of the shift in provision?
Mr Webber: Yes, we would certainly
check what has happened to queuing times and so on in cases like
that.
Q131 Roger Berry: This information
is on your website, is it?
Mr Webber: I have to say I do
not know whether it is on the website. I will write to you about
that.
Roger Berry: One question that has frequently
been raised, and it is raised at the time of any consultation
on a change in the status in Crown offices of course, is whether
franchising threatens instability in terms of the future. What,
if any, guarantee that the franchisee will continue to provide
those services? In my case if the local Co-op decided tomorrow,
"That's the end of this arrangement", does that not
create a degree of a problem?
Q132 Chairman: In my case that is
precisely what happened—the Co-op did decide to stop providing
post office services.
Mr Webber: From our point of view
it creates a problem for Post Office Limited. It is their responsibility
to ensure that there are adequate replacement facilities at least
as good as those which have closed down. Obviously one cannot
guarantee that a contract will last forever.
Q133 Roger Berry: Has any progress
been made on the arrangements for future monitoring of the network
to meet the accessibility criteria? Decisions will be made over
the next few months—to what extent will the monitoring situation
in future years be rigorously undertaken to ensure that the accessibility
criteria continue to be met?
Mr Webber: There are two points
to make on that. The first is, as you will know, Postwatch itself
ceases to exist at the end of September as it is merged into the
new National Consumer Council. The new National Consumer Council
will have the responsibility to ensure that the accessibility
criteria are still met. It is a statutory responsibility which
I am sure they will discharge. The other point, and it is one
which I hope we will be getting onto, is the relatively newly
revealed figure of 7,500 outlets, which apparently is all that
is necessary to meet the access criteria. Frankly, it is going
to be a rather easy job for the new National Consumer Council
to check that those access criteria are met. What is going to
be a more challenging task is to ensure that a network of around
1l,500 remains.
Q134 Chairman: Can I test you on
this question about what happens if the franchisee stops providing
a service, say, the organisation goes bust. The Co-op in my town
could not afford to carry on operating the Crown office. Fortunately,
the old Crown office building stood empty and there is now technically
a sub-office back in the old Crown office building offering what
looks like a Crown office service, but actually is a sub-office.
Thank God it stood unused for a year or two. The problem is, once
you have shut the Crown office and flogged off the site and you
have gone to the best partner in the town or city for a partnership
and they say they cannot do it any more, there may not be another
place that is good to take the operation to. The Post Office then
have a huge problem in terms of expense in meeting its commitment?
Mr Webber: I agree. I cannot really
put it better myself, and it is a problem for the Post Office
to resolve.
Q135 Chairman: You have seen the
written answer in answer to a question I asked, prompted by my
able clerks, asking what was the Government's assessment of what
number of outlets met the criteria, and the figure that came back
was 7.500, substantially higher than the outcome of disclosure
process of somewhere around 12,000. We were told that Post Office
Limited is being tasked, in consultation with you, Postwatch,
while you survive, to carry out "an updated study and analysis
of the minimum number of post offices required to meet the access
criteria". In other words, to review that 7,500 figure. Is
that happening?
Mr Webber: We were interested
to read that ourselves because we had not been told that that
was the case! It was nice to learn it. We have discussed this
with the Department since, and it is something which we will be
doing, certainly. From our point of view, that figure of 7,500
is interesting but relatively academic; in that we do have a statement
made by the previous secretary of state to you a year ago saying
that around 12,000 post offices were necessary for appropriate
national coverage. I specifically asked the Department whether
they stood by that view after seeing the answer to your question,
and they said the "Government's funding package and POL's
business cases are both based on the network being sustained at
around 11,500 post offices to 2011. The Government continues to
view such a network as necessary to provide an appropriate level
of national coverage".
Q136 Chairman: That is 500 gone already!
Mr Webber: It is 500 gone already
admittedly, which is unfortunate. I think we can possibly live
with that. It is actually quite a useful commitment that we are
not looking at a network of 7,500. We are looking at a network
of 11,500, and if the network fell significantly below that (and
7,500 is vastly below that) there would not be an appropriate
level of national coverage.
Q137 Chairman: What worries me about
this are two things: first the Government's commitment financially
only goes to 2011, which is not a very long-term commitment. I
remember the earlier report of the Performance and Innovation
Unit at Downing Street which came up with some alarmingly low
figures for what number of offices you could keep and meet the
reasonable access criteria; and that is why we abandoned the idea
of access criteria. I am concerned. As individual sub-postmasters
decide to leave the network for whatever reason, retirement for
example, those access criteria can still be met for a very long
time. If that financial link dries up we will see a very substantial
shrinkage in the network?
Mr Webber: Absolutely. That is
why we think the access criteria are of secondary interest. What
is important is what the Government agrees is necessary for appropriate
national coverage, which is a much higher figure.
Q138 Chairman: It is the political
commitment to the network that you think is important?
Mr Webber: Yes, absolutely.
Q139 Chairman: We have finished almost
bang on time. I do not think my colleagues have anything else
they particularly want to press you on. Have we covered all the
things you hoped we would cover?
Mr Webber: Yes, certainly.
Chairman: If on reflection you find that
is not the case, please feel free to give us any further information
in writing, but very quickly, preferably next week as we have
the Post Office. There is some information we will seek in writing
afterwards. I am very grateful.
| 
