HC Deb 29 May 1962 vol 660 cc1319-30

11.13 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Mr. W. T. Williams (Warrington)

The case to which I should like to draw attention tonight is a rather unhappy case, of which the Minister already knows a great deal. It is one, as he knows, which has given me great concern and anxiety and which has given rise to a good deal of concern in my constituency.

The facts of the case, quite briefly, are that in August, 1961, the sub-postmistress of Folly Lane sub-post office in Warrington discussed with the head postmaster there the possibility of resigning her position. The sub-postmistress, Mrs. Tabern, at that time had no fewer than thirty years' service with the Post Office, twenty years of that as sub-postmistress of the Folly Lane sub-post office. Her reasons for resigning were such as I think would commend themselves to the sympathy of the House. She has a sick daughter who has been receiving treatment at a London hospital. After being an in-patient in the hospital, the daughter now has to visit a specialist continually in London. The second daughter was hoping to have begun college training in London in the autumn.

Mrs. Tabern has told me she explained to the head postmaster her anxiety to remove to London for these reasons, of her need to sell her own premises if she was to buy other premises in London, and of her fear, if the negotiations broke down in respect of her new premises, of losing her livelihood unless some arrangement could be reached by which it would be possible for her, if the negotiations broke down, to withdraw her resignation. At that time the head postmaster told her that he understood the position and assured her that in the circumstances she would be able to withdraw her resignation "until the very last date."

It is clear that there is some ambiguity about those last words and apparently they have been differently understood by Mrs. Tabern and by the head postmaster. Mrs. Tabern thought them to mean until the last effective day of her resignation. The head postmaster took them to mean until the last day on which new applications would be received. Perhaps even that would not have mattered but, as things turned out, this lady feels she has now a number of grounds of grievance about which not only she but nobody can be very happy.

In the event, a number of applications were received and a young lady was appointed who had been employed as a clerk at head office and who bought premises about 150 yards away from those occupied by Mrs. Tabern, premises which Mrs. Tabern needed to sell if she was to proceed with her own purchase of London premises. The House may feel that perhaps it was unfortunate that the head postmaster, knowing her position, as the situation developed, did not warn Mrs. Tabern of the way things were going. He had to give consent for the removal of the premises from Mrs. Tabern. He must have known that the consequences to Mrs. Tabern of being unable to sell her premises would be disastrous to what were, after all, her proper plans.

Mrs. Tabern says that the first intimation she had was on 15th December, 1961, that is about three weeks after the closing date for the receipt of new applications. She was then told by the head postmaster that a new appointment had already been made and that the new post office was to be further down the lane, about 150 yards away from hers. According to her understanding of the agreement, she then attempted to withdraw her resignation but she was told that that was impossible as the new appointment had been made and new premises negotiated. The effective result of this procedure has been that Mrs. Tabern has lost her source of livelihood and has been unable to obtain the alternative office which was so important to her and to her family.

I have spoken of the unfortunate fact that the head postmaster did not advise Mrs. Tabern of the way things were going as he might well have done. There are, however, other rather more unhappy features of the case on which I have already spoken to the Minister. In the first place, it is required that copies of vacancies are sent to the vacant office, the nearest other office, the head office counter, the Ministry of Labour, and the local secretary of the Federation of Sub-Postmasters.

In this case, Mrs. Tabern has insisted throughout that she never received any notice, and that she was never told of the closing date for vacancies. The Minister has said that, in fact, it is unlikely that the head office could have made a mistake about this, but I have in my hand the notice to the secretary of the Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The Minister may care to look at it, and see that there has been a mistake, because there is no reference in this notice to any closing date.

Further, Mrs. Tabern has since assured me that a member of the head office staff will confirm that Mrs. Tabern had rung up to complain that no notice had been sent to them while the intermediate days were running. It is not my object to make public scandal, but I can let the Minister have the name of that official if she wants it.

On the question of allocating premises other than those already in use, I have already spoken to the Minister of the failure of those personally concerned—for, after all, this lady had served the General Post Office for thirty years without blemish and without complaint. But the situation that has arisen has given rise to wider concern merely than that. On 13th March of this year, after I had discussed the case somewhat unprofitably with the Minister, I asked the Postmaster-General: …(1) what are normally the minimum distances in urban areas between sub-post offices; (2) in what circumstances, and for what reasons, permission is given for post offices in urban areas to be situated within less than the normal distance between sub-post offices. The Assistant Postmaster-General replied: The normal minimum distance between sub-post offices in urban areas is a mile, but we do not apply this standard rigidly. We also take into account the number and position of the houses in each area, the nature of the local shopping facilities, whether the journey to the nearest post office is particularly difficult, and the possible need to make special provision for old age pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1962;Vol. 655, c. 137.] In view of the discussions that have taken place between the Minister and myself about Folly Lane, and since the Assistant Postmaster-General knew at the time of the background of those Questions, I hope that I shall not be thought discourteous if I say that I thought those Answers a little disingenuous. I therefore asked the Postmaster-General, on 27th March, 1962: …(1) for what reasons he authorised the establishment of a sub-post office in Folly Lane, Warrington, which was situate further from the Dallam Estate than the sub-post office which it replaced, and is within a distance of 700 yards from its neighbouring sub-office? The hon. Lady replied: As I told the hon. Member in reply to his Questions on 13th March, we do not apply our standards rigidly where special circumstances obtain;and, as regards Folly Lane, our decision meant that local residents were not deprived of facilities they had had for many years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1962;Vol. 656, c. 97.] In the circumstances of this case, it would seem that those last replies were perhaps a little more than disingenuous. In the first place, some six years ago, as the Minister knows, Mrs. Tabern herself asked leave to remove her sub-post office from her then premises to the address for which permission has been given to her successor. She was refused permission to transfer, on the grounds that it was too near the sub-post office in Bewsey Road, which was the neighbouring post office less than 700 yards away.

That, I am told, can be confirmed, if the Minister chooses, by contacting the sub-postmaster in Bewsey Road. It is a little difficult to see in what respect the situation has changed so that what was then regarded as fatal to a transfer is now regarded as being all right. In fact, the change in poliicy has caused some anxiety, not only to Mrs. Tabern and her friends, and to others in the constituency, but also to the Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The general secretary of the Federation wrote to his local branch in Warrington to suggest that it might be better to make a protest to the head postmaster about the re-siting of this office. I read from his letter the relevant paragraphs: There is provision in the Rules for the Staff Side to be consulted when a Head Postmaster is considering the repositioning of a Sub-Office. While we must recognise that the Rule is mainly concerned with forward planning to meet developing areas, its existence at least gives you some ground for protest in the present circumstances. I understand from Mrs. Tabern that some years ago they wanted to move to get better premises, and the Head Postmaster at that time would not agree to the move suggested because of the effect on the Bewsey Road, which will be within half-a-mile of the new location. …the Federation had an agreement with the Post Office to ensure that when it was intended to re-position an office there would be prior staff consultation and that this is provided for in Head Postmasters' Manual C I 6. That does not appear to have been done in this case. The letter makes the further comment that this gave rise to in turn to some concern, and continues: Although it does not affect any action you can take, I understand that a serving Sub-Postmaster from Nyewood, Rogate, Petersfield, applied for this appointment but that the Head Postmaster said he could not be appointed as he was unable to attend for interview until after Christmas. Mrs. Tabern's resignation did not take effect until after Christmas. In these circumstances, I feel that it is perhaps unfortunate that until these matters were brought to the attention of the Postmaster-General as early as 22nd December, and before the new appointment had taken effect, the only response from the hon. Lady to the appeals that came not only from me but also from others in Warrington who are greatly disturbed was that it was impossible to do anything about it and to express her regret that there was nothing she could do to help Mrs. Tabern.

It is difficult to see now what can be done, but it is certainly not right that the sense of grievance of a servant of the General Post Office for thirty years at such treatment should go unrecorded.

My last appeal to the hon. Lady is this: will she not even now do what lies in her power to mitigate the misfortune that this lady has incurred? Will she not see to it that everyhing that can be done will be done to ensure that any chance Mrs. Tabern may have to find another place to serve will not be denied to her? If, as the hon. Lady told me, she feels that to undo this act would be unfair to other people involved, will she not consider that as the letter of the law has been strictly and perhaps unfairly invoked against Mrs. Tabern, she also has some claim upon the concern of the Postmaster-General?

11.28 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike)

The facts as put forward by the hon. Gentleman are, of course, substantially as we discussed them in March and even in January this year. I do not think I need weary the House by going over these facts again. It is true that Mrs. Tabern did discuss with the head postmaster of Warrington in August last the reasons for her resignation, and they are reasons which command the sympathy of all of us. Indeed, they commanded the sympathy of the head postmaster and led him to assure her that he would help her as much as he could in her move at that time.

I believe I am right in saying that he assured her that every assistance would be given to her in her search for a sub-post office near London so that she could see her daughter. On 30th October, she sent in her resignation, which was acknowledged by him on 31st October. As the hon. Gentleman has said, notices of vacancy went out on 6th November, which stated that the last day for applications was 24th November.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mrs. Tabern now says that she did not receive that notice of vacancy. Tonight he has told me that he has knowledge of the fact that she did telephone the head post office. I can only regret that he did not tell me of that fact before, because this is the first time I have heard it, and at this point I am not in a position either to accept or deny that statement. The hon. Member and I have discussed the matter fully, once personally and also by letter, and I am sorry that this is the first time that he has acquainted me with the fact that there was a mistake in the notice to the secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Even so, these factors do not alter the case upon which I based my judgment in January this year—I think that the hon. Member said that 22nd December was the first time that I heard of it.

Six applicants applied for the post of sub-postmaster as a result of the vacancy notice which was posted up, and three of those were chosen for the short list. All three were people well qualified to run a sub-post office and at that point what the head postmaster had to decide was which person could offer in the first place the best qualifications, allied, of course, to suitable premises for the discharge of the duty of sub-postmaster.

I stress that we have to have careful regard to the qualifications of the person concerned and along with this we have to take into consideration the new premises which he might offer and consider whether those premises are equally suitable premises for the general public and the efficient running of a post office.

On this occasion, only one person in the end proved suitable, having qualifications and premises. The hon. Member mentioned a Mr. Morgan who was a sub-postmaster down in Hampshire and who could not come for an interview until January. But the facts about Mr. Morgan's application were not only that he could not come for an interview until January, but that he had stated to the head postmaster that he would be unable to take up his duties in February, which was the operative date when it was necessary for the sub-postmaster to take up his duties.

In the event, Mrs. Pressage, one of the applicants, came forward without premises and was therefore ineligible for the post and, as I have already stated, another candidate, Mr. Morgan, stated not only that he could not come for an interview until January, but that he could not take up his duties in February, when it was necessary for the sub-post office to be taken over by the new applicant. The only applicant with the qualifications was Mrs. Lycett who was a counter clerk, as the hon. Member said, at the Warrington Head Post Office, well qualified for the job of sub-postmistress, having the premises at 26, Folly Lane, which are, as the hon. Member said, 150 yards on the other side of the road from the present premises.

The hon. Member mentioned the fact that six years ago the head postmaster then said that these premises were not suitable for the repositioning of the post office, which was then being run by Mrs. Tabern. He has made some play of the obligation, which we try to fulfil wherever possible, of consulting all the interested parties when we are repositioning a post office. But on this occasion we were not concerned with the repositioning of the post office but with the appointment of a sub-postmaster, or sub-postmistress, to take over the premises on the relinquishing of the office by Mrs. Tabern on 31st January.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned also that the head postmaster when discussing this problem with Mrs. Tabern had said that he would allow her to withdraw her resignation right up to the last day. Naturally, I do not deny that Mrs. Tabern may in all honesty have thought that he meant that she could withdraw her resignation right up to 31st January, but it is unrealistic to consider for a moment that he was in fact giving her that impression. His responsibility is to ensure that there is a sub-post office in operation from the moment of the relinquishment of the previous office so that there is complete continuity of the office for the purposes of the general public.

So in this case his responsibility was to ensure that there was a new sub-post office in being with a new sub-postmaster on 1st February, 1962. It is quite un realistic to suppose that he really gave the impression to Mrs. Tabern that she was able to withdraw her resignation right up to 31st January. What the head postmaster, in his honest attempt to help Mrs. Tabern as much as possible, wished to convey to her was that, in fairness to the other applicants who possibly had entered into negotiations for new premises, he would be bound to consider the applications which had come in but if she had second thoughts before the last day when applications closed he would consider her plea to withdraw her resignation.

It is an unfortunate factor in this case that out of the five notices that went out, Mrs. Tabern's, according to her, was not received by her. We cannot explain why that notice was not received by her. We know that—this is my knowledge of the case—the notice was sent out to her.

The position I found myself in at the end of December when the case was brought to my notice was that on 14th December the head postmaster had confirmed the appointment of a new sub-postmistress. He had confirmed the appointment of Mrs. Lycett, who at that point had bought new premises and had entered into a contract to adapt the new premises to the requirements of the General Post Office so that she might carry on the sub-post office there. At that point he had notified her that she had been successful and that she was due to start her office as sub-postmaster on 1st February.

Mrs. Lycett immediately started the adaptation of her premises. There was very little time. It was just before Christmas, with all the delays that occur over the Christmas period in trying to do structural alterations to premises. She had to get on straight away with the adaptation of the premises at 26, Folly Lane in order to reach the point on 1st February which she did.

The head postmaster himself went to tell Mrs. Tabern of the new appointment on 15th December. There was, of course, no need for him to go himself to tell her of this, but he thought that in the circumstances he should go and tell her of the new appointment. It was at that point that she asked for her resignation to be withdrawn. It was at that point that he explained to her that it was too late. As I say, it was not until 22nd December, when the new sub-postmistress had already been confirmed in her appointment, that the appeal was made to me that the whole matter should be put back into the melting pot. We all have the greatest sympathy with Mrs. Tabern. I have assured the hon. Member that we shall do everything we possibly can to help her to obtain the position of sub-postmistress either in her own district where she is now or in the London district to which she wishes to move.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say some things about the way in which we position our post offices and about the yardsticks which we use. I should like to take this opportunity of stressing that, although we have obviously to lay down fairly rigid yardsticks for the use of head postmasters when they are deciding upon the positioning of post offices and the granting of new sub-post offices to districts, at the same time we try to be very flexible in our interpretation of those rules. So the position is that when the head postmaster has looked at the circumstances of the case and has probably decided that within the strict interpretation of the rules there is no case for a new sub-post office, it is at that point that the regional headquarters reviews the case. These matters are constantly being reviewed, as I am always telling the House. We are constantly looking at the positioning of our sub-post offices. It is at that point that the regional headquarters looks at the case to see whether there are any exceptional features and ways in which we can discharge our responsibilities to the public without being too rigid in keeping to the letter of our own rules. It is at that point that we try to be as flexible as possible.

Even after this review has been entered into, these cases come up to headquarters, where it is my responsibility to look at them and find if there are any exceptional cases. As the hon. Gentleman knows from Dallam Estate in his constituency, having looked at the case myself and seen all the features of the case, I decided that exceptionally a sub-office could be granted. That is the way these rules are worked. There is nothing disingenuous about our replies, nor is there anything insincere about my repeated assurances to hon. Members that we do look at these matters very sympathetically.

There is nothing much that I can add tonight to the facts which have been outlined by the hop. Gentleman and the facts as I have tried to portray them to the House. I should like to stress that in this case the head postmaster acted perfectly correctly. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman thinks that he should have bent the regulations here and should have helped there. His responsibility was to make absolutely certain that, when the resignation of Mrs. Tabern became affective on 31st January, he had a fit and proper person with fit and proper premises to continue the sub-office in that district on 1st February. All his efforts were bent to that end and he chose a first-class person to run the post office. The post office is well positioned to serve the needs of the district and we believe that the new postmistress is doing an excellent job.

We are all sorry for the circumstances in which Mrs. Tabern finds herself at this time. I can only repeat my assur- ance that anything we can do to see that she gets suitable premises near London will certainly be done by my Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.