Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
MR ALAN
COOK CBE, MS
PAULA VENNELLS
AND MR
HOWARD WEBBER
10 JUNE 2008
Q100 Mr Hoyle: What about misleading
statements that were not accurate, would that be another one?
Mr Cook: It could be.
Q101 Mr Hoyle: In a letter dated
15 April Mr Cook stated. "We have not identified any new
developments that would alter the final decision ..." You
stated that the developments would not matter because we have
not got new developments in this area. In fact, we have got significant
new developments. You did not think it mattered but I think it
does. In an email from Howard Webber to myself on 9 May it says
that POL claim "no more than 300 houses would be built in
the area". You will not believe it, but a further letter
was sent on 23 May that states there are 450 dwellings, so it
is going up within two weeks of your own letters, not you personally
but POL. It says there will be 450 dwellings within one kilometre
of the Bolton Road post office. Why have we picked one kilometre?
Every other criterion works on one mile and three miles. That
in itself is a nice little cover-up or camouflage exercise, is
it not? You then go on to recognise there are actually 856 properties
to the south of this post office. There is the former Lex, Pilling
Lane site where there are 400 and the planning permission is granted
and the work is due to begin. Social housing is rising by 30%
in all of the cases I am giving you because that is what Chorley
now insists upon. There is social deprivation and it is a high
pensioner area as well. There is the land off Burgh lane (English
Partnership land) where there are 150, planning permission has
been given and the work is due to begin. That is on top of a site
that is already underway that I am not going to count. On Vertex
Training Centre Land there are 150 to 200. On land off Little
Carr Lane there are 56 and that is nearly complete. There will
be another 100 houses over the next two to three years. That is
856 properties and that is without other land that I could name.
That is on permissions given. Now, you have got to admit to me
that is a lot of properties. This is all to the south of this
post office. There is not another post office until you reach
the village of Adlington. What is going wrong and what is going
on?
Ms Vennells: Mr Hoyle, let me
try and take some of those points and answer you as best I can.
First of all, you implied that we do not care. We do care. We
care desperately. We have people doing these jobs and working
extraordinarily hard. In the case of Bolton Road, as you know,
we tried to contact the council several times and received very
little information from them. We chased them a number of times
and eventually we did get through some information. I think it
was between 300-400 were approved by planning permission.
Q102 Mr Hoyle: That is within one
kilometre of the post office?
Ms Vennells: I am not personally
aware of the details, but it was within the area that we were
looking at with Postwatch for that particular branch. The view
was that that would not make a material difference to the provision
of services that we were looking at in terms of receiving offices.
As you now know, prior to going to public consultation we did,
with Postwatch's involvement, take another branch out of your
constituency and that was to address some of the concerns that
were raised about whether there would be sufficient capacity around.
One branch was kept in. That was not so overtly obvious because
it was not part of the public consultation process. As I said,
we went back to the council several times but we could not get
the approved data on planning permission.
Q103 Mr Hoyle: It is public knowledge.
I gave you the figures. It seems that you do not believe me. I
am the Member of Parliament who represents the area and I have
stated where the properties were being built. I gave you the numbers
and said that it would reach 1,000. It is now at 850 and with
planning permission it is more. It is 1,000 if we take the other
sites that are under negotiation at the moment. I gave you the
numbers. I phoned the council on two occasions just to get the
latest figures and it was not a problem. The information is also
on their website.
Ms Vennells: Let me try and take
those points separately. You gave us the information. Of course
we take what you give us as the truth. Why would we not? You are
a Member of Parliament and you are a member of this Select Committee.
It would be incredibly irresponsible and stupid of us, frankly,
not to do that, which is why we followed up to try and get the
planning permission information. We needed to have this document.
It has to be proven to us that the amount of housing that is going
to be built is actually what the council has approved. The figures
we could get led us to believe that the provision that we had
allowed for was adequate. Within your own constituency I believe
the figure for the population that can use post offices is that
only about 20% do. When you apply that factor then even in the
Bolton Road area we believe, to the best of our knowledge, we
have given you provision. Do we believe you or not? We met you
again very recently. I believe we have agreed to walk the ground
with you to look at the area south of Bolton Road because it is
very, very important to us that we provide the right provision.
As we have said in all cases, if we have got it wrong or if the
provision changes in an area, which is very relevant in your case,
or if we are going through a process which is carrying on past
the end of the closure process, we will review it and we will
put in the right amount of post office service provision. That
is not an issue for us at all.
Q104 Mr Hoyle: You are not even getting
close because on 9 May you stated to me that there were 300 houses
to be built in the area. The planning permission that you were
told about is for 400. How did you manage to downgrade it to 300?
You managed to lose 100 houses straightaway and that is on the
nearest development across the road from this post office. The
fact is that the majority of this is social housing. What concerns
me is that there are 856 properties with planning permission.
Does that make a difference or not to the case?
Ms Vennells: We will have a look
at the data with you when we walk the ground, Mr Hoyle.
Q105 Mr Hoyle: Just suppose I am
correct—
Ms Vennells: I do not carry in
my head the individual counter sessions for the receiving branches.
Q106 Mr Hoyle: I will help you. It
is between 1,000 and 1,500 at this branch that you have closed,
which is higher than most of the post offices you are retaining.
Ms Vennells: And there would therefore
have been sufficient capacity in the receiving branches to help
there.
Mr Hoyle: The nearest branch—because
you are going to trip yourself up now—is actually on a road
where there are no public transport links from this ward to the
nearest branch and, therefore, you will say they should go to
the Crown post office. You have got to go at least half a mile
to the Crown post office from this post office because all the
new developments are to the south where there is no post office
until the next village. Less than 90% are outside of one mile.
You are putting forward as evidence that they should go to the
Crown post office. What you have also not taken into account is
that we have got a brand new village to the north of the Crown
post office called Buckshaw with 3,500 properties and no post
office. There is a limit and a saturation point to everything.
This is the fastest growing district in the whole of the north-west
with thousands upon thousands of houses. You have not dealt with
this correctly. You have not envisaged the growth that everybody
else has. The fact of the matter is that it has been a complete
sham from start to finish because in the report you sent to me,
the council and anybody else who was interested you say that the
nearest post office is on Highways Avenue two miles away. Highways
Avenue is in Exton. It is nowhere near this post office. You would
go past two post offices to get there. From start to finish you
have had no correct information. At your last meeting you said
to me that Buckstone Village, where the new properties I have
discussed are, is not relevant. First of all, it is not called
Buckstone, it is called Buckshaw. Secondly, it is nowhere near
this post office. The 850 properties that I have described are
to the south of it. You cannot even get it right now when you
have had four attempts. I would also be interested to know what
Mr Webber thinks because it is a complete shambles. You ought
to hold your hands up and say you have got it completely wrong
and re-open the post office tomorrow and do the best by the people
of Chorley that you have affected because what you have done has
been absolutely ridiculous.
Q107 Chairman: The reason I am letting
Mr Hoyle pursue at such length an individual constituency case
is not only because it is his birthday but also because it raises
some very important issues of principle. It highlights the problem
of a short consultation period. I think it shows the problems
of communication as well between local authorities and Post Office
Ltd in extremely graphic terms. I think it also raises important
questions about the quality of the work you are doing. Mr Webber,
is there anything you would like to say about this?
Mr Webber: We were left in a rather
uncomfortable piggy-in-the-middle position. Mr Hoyle wrote to
me first at the beginning of April. I think his letter arrived
on 7 April and I was on holiday at the time so I did not get round
to it for a week. I then asked Post Office Ltd for their comments
because it suggested that there had been serious factual discrepancies
between what we had been told and what Mr Hoyle believed to be
the case about the new development. I have to say, if I had been
Post Office Ltd at that point I would have leapt in straightaway
and told me, as Chief Executive of Postwatch, to butt out and
said, "We'll deal with this. We will have a meeting with
Mr Hoyle. We'll sort these matters out." They did not and
that was a failing in my view. Instead I had to wait three weeks
or more for a reply from Post Office Ltd, and the reply came on
8 May, which was two working days before the post office was due
to close. That is what led to my email to Mr Hoyle on 9 May. I
am not going to comment on the factual accuracy of the issues
because that really is something that both Mr Hoyle and Post Office
Ltd are much more able to do than I am. In terms of an approach
to dealing with MPs in general, I think it is very unfortunate.
A lot more speed would have been helpful. Also, I have a feeling
that it would have been useful from the point of view of Post
Office Ltd to talk directly with Mr Hoyle at that point rather
than to use me as an intermediary.
Q108 Mr Hoyle: I think you have hit
the nail on the head. Do you think it was coincidental or deliberate
that you only managed to answer Mr Webber on the day that you
closed the post office?
Ms Vennells: No, not at all.
Q109 Mr Hoyle: Why did you take so
long to answer the letter?
Ms Vennells: There are a couple
of points. Had you written to us we, would have responded to you
directly.
Mr Hoyle: I have sent letters. You really
do not want to make matters worse. Can you put the spade down
because you should be embarrassed by what you keep telling me.
Either get your facts right or say you cannot answer. I have sent
letters to Allan Leighton, to yourselves and Mr Cook. Everybody
has had a letter from me. I kept saying to everybody that they
had got this wrong, that they had not taken this evidence into
account. Mr Webber could not even get an answer. Why did it take
at least two or three weeks for you to answer Mr Webber on the
day you closed the post office? You have got to feel embarrassed
yourself by that or have you no shame whatsoever? I represent
these people. You do not know the upset this has caused. You do
not care. I care. It is time you had a conscience as well. What
are you going to do to put right this wrong?
Chairman: You are going to be walking
the ground with Mr Hoyle quite soon.
Mr Hoyle: That does not do anything.
Chairman: The Committee would like to
follow this in a little more detail because it raises some really
important issues of principle. My sympathies are with Mr Hoyle
on this. Let us move on from the specifics now to some of the
other questions. We would like to see quite a detailed account
of what went wrong on this occasion because it does serve to highlight
real concerns that the rest of us who have not had yet must share.
Q110 Mr Hoyle: How could a post office
be closed when the facts about housing development have not been
taken into account correctly, when the process has been ridiculed
by the regulator, when the post office in question was well used
by the local population and every report that you have done has
been wrong? Nobody can make a true judgment on closure based on
those facts. Do you agree with that?
Ms Vennells: Mr Hoyle, there are
a number of points in that. In terms of our workings with Postwatch
on this, one of the reasons it took sometime to get back to you
is that we were very concerned that we checked that the information
was correct. Mr Webber will remember that we had various conversations
about this. I wanted to get the detail from the local Postwatch
people as well as our own teams locally to make sure that we had
responded to the criticisms that were being levelled at us properly
and whether we had got the numbers right or not. As we have said,
we are very happy to walk the ground with you and we are very
happy to share with the Committee the lessons that have been learned
from this. What we have also done—and we have agreed this
with Postwatch—is agree that we will share at a local level
with the Postwatch people whatever information we get from MPs
relating to the local consultation process so that there is no
confusion whatsoever. I am grateful in a sense that that has been
raised as part of this. I am not grateful that this has happened
in your own constituency. We will look at it in terms of future
provision. We followed the consultation timings that we are working
to and came to the decision having looked at all the information
we had available to us.
Q111 Mr Hoyle: We will walk the ground
and I am grateful for that. Let us say we have proved the case.
Will you re-open the post office if I am right?
Ms Vennells: We will look at the
provision of services that are required. It may be that you require
post office services in a different area. If this building is
happening at a period of time to the south of Bolton Road, it
may be better for us and better for the communities, which is
the most important thing, that the post office services are available
where they are needed. Part of the brief for this programme is
for us to make savings. There is no point in us re-opening the
post offices if we can do it more efficiently and as well somewhere
else.
Q112 Mr Hoyle: Let me just clear
this up once and for all. The people of this area have been cheated
because of how it has been dealt with. Three thousand people who
used this post office signed the petition. They are local people
who need it. If you have got it wrong and the things that I have
stated have not been taken into account, why is it that you cannot
put back this post office? Just tell me why. We are talking about
something that is from here to Big Ben away with 400 new social
houses. We can find something better than this. The other thing
that was wrong in the report was that you could not park. You
can park outside this post office and across from it and it is
within walking distance. I could carry on forever picking holes
in what is wrong. As you have got it wrong why can you not reopen
this post office? It is in the right place, the shop is empty,
the postmaster did not want to go and others will take his place
if he does not come back. Why is it you cannot reopen this post
office? Just explain why to me. Please bear in mind that when
the press phoned up your Manchester press office to ask what the
chance was of reopening this post office the answer was, "There's
no chance whatsoever. We will never do that under any circumstances."
Why?
Mr Cook: There would be no point
in offering to walk the ground if you were not prepared to change
something as a result.
Q113 Mr Hoyle: What do you mean by
change?
Mr Cook: Potentially either re-open
a branch or put some form of provision in there that is not there
now. There is no point walking the ground with you if we are going
to say nothing has changed.
Q114 Mr Hoyle: I appreciate that.
That is a major step forward. Thank you for that. Can you tell
your Manchester press office not to tell my local press here that
there is no chance of re-opening anything in this area?
Mr Cook: That is not guaranteeing
that—
Mr Hoyle: I did not say it was, but it
is a step in the right direction.
Q115 Mr Binley: I want to bring up
two post offices in Northampton. One is now closed and the time
has gone to resuscitate it. You said the criteria were public
transport primarily and changing population density. Gloucester
Avenue and Western Favell are both in well-established areas with
sizeable numbers of elderly people. The consultation took place
over Christmas and so that took virtually two weeks out of our
period for consultation, which made me angry and I wrote to you
about that. There was no change in the relationship between public
transport and population density from the time we started to the
time we ended and yet you closed one and saved the other. Why?
Ms Vennells: Mr Binley, I cannot
comment on the two individual post offices—
Q116 Mr Binley: You will just have
to, with respect.
Mr Cook: We knew that one was
coming!
Mr Binley: If you had done more research
you might have known mine might be coming as well.
Q117 Chairman: Why can you not comment?
Ms Vennells: I do not know the
individual post offices. What I can say is that this is the type
of feedback that we get constantly because we have a programme
where we are closing post offices and wherever we close one it
will cause enormous difficulties for people.
Mr Binley: Mr Cook made the point about
the criteria for consultation and the criteria that mattered in
changing your mind about whether a post office stayed open or
not. I have given you two examples of sizably stable areas served
by post offices. One you decided to reprieve—and I am very
grateful for that—but the other you did not. On the basis
of the criteria suggested I need to understand why not. I am happy
that you write to me because I can see no reason why, on the basis
that you have just told me, in relation to criteria, and I think
that is important to the people that are facing this programme.
Chairman: It goes back to the first question
that Mr Hoyle asked about this issue of principle. What is taken
into account? You have given some general answers, but it does
seem more of an art form rather than a science.
Q118 Mr Binley: I have made the point
about the consultation period. The Chairman is absolutely right.
Ours was even less. You might take that into account. The second
point I am making is that people in Northampton consider the thing
to be a sham. We are back to that local perception of what you
are all about.
Mr Cook: I gave Mr Hoyle some
of the reasons why one would be overturned, public transport or
whatever.
Q119 Mr Binley: You are going to
write to me.
Mr Cook: Yes. Obviously I put
in increased housing because I knew that was where Mr Hoyle was
coming from with another example. I think the way Mr Webber articulated
it earlier on is important. You listed the ones that had been
overturned for a whole variety of circumstances and if I remember
you correctly, you said none of them in isolation was big enough
to create the overturning but the combination together was. I
do not really like the expression it is more an art form, but
the reality is that this is not a black-and-white thing. We are
trying to shut 2,500 post offices in as sensitive a way as we
can. Every community that is adversely affected will have a jaundiced
view of the process.
| 
