Memorandum submitted by Brooks Newmark
MP
POST OFFICE
CLOSURE PROGRAMME
You may be aware that I raised a flaw in the
Post Office consultation process in Essex during BERR questions
last week. Needless to say, I was unsatisfied with the Minister's
response, at column 1239; all the more so because I had already
written him to raise this precise issue.
I should like to draw the Committee's attention
to the circumstances in this case in advance of the publication
of your final report. While many Members will, no doubt raise
complaints about the outcome of the consultation process for their
constituencies I believe it to be a minimum requirement that the
process itself should be both accurate and open.
The circumstances are as follows. The Essex
consultation reported that three branches in my constituency would
be closing. During the consultation I received a detailed briefing
from two Senior Relations Managers at Post Office Ltd. who assured
me that the George Yard Branch in Braintree was well equipped
to receive the displaced business from two of the closed branches
to the north of Braintree.
They further assured me that Post Office Ltd
was working closely with staff at the George Yard Branch to ensure
additional capacity was available and that some acknowledged problems
with customer service would be corrected. Their investigations
were detailed enough to conclude that George Yard would receive
an additional 17% business as a result of the proposed closures
but not detailed enough, it seems to discover that the Co-op intended
to end its co-location arrangement.
In January my local press discovered that the
George Yard Branch would be closed and relocated a quarter of
a mile further south, exacerbating a trend whereby the north of
Braintree had steadily lost its Post Office branches. I raised
this issue with Alan Cook of Post Office Ltd and enclose my correspondence
with him, which largely speaks for itself.
I must now question the purpose of a consultation
which proceeds on the basis of fundamentally inaccurate information.
I further question whether it is worth Post Office Ltd briefing
Members of Parliament and involving us in the consultation process
if its own members of staff do not have accurate information to
hand. I was also deeply uncomfortable at being given confirmation
of the move "in strictest confidence" after news o the
change had already broken in the press which would seem to make
a mockery of an open consultation process and undermine public
trust.
I do not believe I have received an adequate
answer, from either Post Office Ltd. Or the Government on whether
it is acceptable for the closures to proceed on the basis of inaccurate
public information. I should be grateful if the Committee could
give consideration to the matter in your final report.
5 March 2008
| 
