Supplementary evidence from BERR
Thank you for your letter of 12 March seeking
clarification on a number of points in the context of the Committee's
watching brief on the network change programme and the future
of the network as a whole. I apologise for the delay in replying.
Responding to your points in the order they
are set out in your letter:
ACCESS CRITERIA
Does the Government intend to incorporate the
geographical access criteria, used for the Network Change Programme,
into the Universal Service Obligation, which at present includes
much weaker distance-related criteria?
The Government has no plans to extend the criteria
to the Universal Service Obligation. Postcomm, the independent
regulator, has responsibility for ensuring the provision of the
universal postal service and it would be for them to consider
such changes. The Committee will also be aware that an Independent
Review of the Postal Market was announced by John Hutton in December
last year. Under its terms of reference, the Review Panel will
be looking at how the universal service can be maintained in the
light of the current trends and postal market developments.
Why is there no "proportionality" in
the national access criteria (other than the postcode district
criterion), which would provide additional protection at the English
regional/devolved administration level?
The Government's response last May to public
consultation on the post office network confirmed the Government's
commitment to maintaining a post office network with national
coverage. The minimum access criteria which have been introduced
are therefore designed to maintain such a national network, but
with particular protection for deprived urban areas, rural areas
and, with the individual post code district criterion, deeply
rural and/or sparsely populated areas. In addition, the Government's
consultation response made clear that it expected Post Office
Ltd, in developing detailed area plans, to reflect the principle
that no country within the UK and no group of inhabitants at the
area plan level should be significantly more adversely affected
than any other.
Once the Network Change Programme has concluded
will the "additional" criteria, about matters such as
accessibility, economic impact and public transport, be applied
to future post office closures? If so, how? If not, will any other
factors besides geographical accessibility be taken into account
when taking local decisions? Will there be any "review process",
as in the NCP, for decisions made about future closures outside
of the NCP? If so, might this be open to MPs and local authorities
to invoke?
We are looking to Post Office Ltd and Postwatch
(and, as appropriate, its successor body, the new National Consumer
Council) to review and update the Code of Practice on post office
closures and relocations to reflect the network circumstances
after the network change programme. It is therefore too early
to state definitively what factors in addition to geographical
accessibility will be considered in taking local decisions. But
it is expected that experience from the network change programme
will be taken into account in revising the Code of Practice. Equally,
at this stage, it is too early to say what review process, if
any, may be adopted.
Will responsibility for monitoring the access
criteria rest with the NCC alone, or will BERR also monitor the
extent to which they are met?
Post Office Ltd will monitor its compliance
with the access criteria and the NCC will independently validate
this. BERR will seek monitoring returns from both bodies but will
not itself undertake any direct monitoring function.
What do you expect Post Office Ltd to do if 2011
Census data show that the access criteria within particular postal
districts (or nationally) have been breached because of population
growth?
Where future population growth in any given
area leads to breach of the access criteria, we would expect Post
Office Ltd to introduce new service provision to restore compliance.
If a proposed post office closure would lead to
a breach of the access criteria within a particular postal district
(or indeed nationally), would you expect Post Office Ltd to provide
postal services directly?
We would expect Post Office Ltd to provide continuing
postal services, either by outreach or on any other basis, which
would maintain or restore access criteria compliance.
DEVOLVED RESPONSIBILITY
Last year the Committee noted that the Government
had suggested there should be greater devolution of responsibility
to local authorities in England and devolved administrations.
Does the Essex County Council case fit with the Government's plans?
Will it inform future decisions?
We are considering what scope there may be for
devolving greater responsibility for decisions on post office
service provision to a local level. However, any such approach
would have to be consistent with our overriding aim to maintain
a post office network with national coverage and minimum national
standards.
The proposals from Essex County Council and
from some other local authorities are to provide funding from
their own budgets to support the continued provision of postal
services in some areas where post offices are closing under the
network change programme. The Government has encouraged Post Office
Ltd to fully explore any serious proposal from local authorities
to maintain a service where branches are scheduled to close.
COMMUNITY MODELS
Are there any current sources of funding which
might be used to help communities preserve their post office using
a community model? Will the Government consider providing "seed
funding" for community initiatives specifically to preserve
post offices within a community shop or other venture?
BERR does not have any funding provision to
support efforts to preserve post office service on a community
model basis. The £1.7 billion funding package announced in
May 2007, including the £150 million annual Social Network
Payment, is designed to support a network of around 11,500 branches
providing reasonable access to post office services nationally.
Any additional postal service provision above this would be the
financial responsibility of the body or organisation concerned.
6 May 2008
| 
