HC Deb 26 January 1976 vol 904 cc209-18

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter which is not only of great importance and concern to many thousands of my constituents but has significance in a wider national context.

I begin with some basic facts. The Silver Street sub-post office has served its community since before the First World War. It existed in 1913, and for the past 63 years the shop has been sited on the corner of Silver Street and Sheldon Road. The shop has changed its uses and owners, but there has always been a sub-post office in it. It has always been a minor hub of activity and a centre of life in the community it serves.

In June 1971 the business being carried on at 101 Silver Street was bought by Mr. V. S. Patel and Mr. H. T. Patel in partnership from a Mr. Green. With it went the sub-post office and the sub-post-mastership, because the sub-post-mastership was thereafter transferred from Mr. Green to Mr. V. S. Patel. The Post Office authorities at all times knew that Mr. H. T. Patel ran the business, evidently to their satisfaction, and that Mr. V. S. Patel, who held the authority, lived not at 101 Silver Street but elsewhere, in North Harrow. All the correspondence from the Post Office to Mr. Patel was addressed to him at North Harrow.

The two Mr. Patels then decided in mid-June to terminate their business partnership and they assumed, wrongly, that it would be a simple matter to arrange that the authority which was being held by Mr. V. S. Patel should be transferred to his partner. They believed that this would be approved by the Post Office automatically. Up to that moment there had been no question of efficiency, integrity or viability. In fact, it is interesting to learn that the way in which the Post Office measures the level of business conducted is in what is called a unit of account. This unit of account is made up of the value of the postal orders, the allowances, the licences and other uses of the post office.

In 1971 the flow of traffic through the post office was measured at 236,531 units of account. In 1975 it had declined to 225,771 units of account, a decline of 10,760. But over five years, in an area where the houses were being demolished for road widening and so on, there had been a decline in the business of the post office of only 5 per cent. It is a simple matter to arrange that the authority which had been held by one of the Mr. Patels should be transferred to the other. They were shocked and dismayed to find that their partnership dissolution would lead to the eventual decision to close the post office.

I fully understand the right—in fact, the duty—of the Post Office to examine the viability of a post office whenever a resignation occurs and that the disposal of the licence is not in the gift of the resigning sub-postmaster but is the responsibility of the Post Office.

What happened next after the resignation had been handed in gives me grounds for the gravest disquiet. Without consulting anyone or any body, the district postmaster decided to close the post office, by letter to the then sub-postmaster of 15th October. It is important to note that at that stage, after the decision had been made to close the post office and it had been made public, no contact or consultation had taken place with either the council of the London borough of Enfield or any organisation of a welfare or social kind or with the local Member of Parliament.

I should like to read briefly a letter which was signed by the chief executive of the London borough of Enfield to Sir William Ryland last week. In this letter he says: The resignation of Mr. V. Patel led to an examination of the present and future requirements of the area. This was carried out last Autumn resulting on the 4th November, 1975 in a formal notification to the Council (without any prior consultation at official level with the Council or apparently any other interested bodies) to permanently close the sub-Post Office as from the 18th November, 1975. Within days of the news being made public, a petition was signed by more than 1,000 users of the Post Office. One needs to appreciate why so many people so quickly decided to sign that petition. Many of the users of the post office were not only old-age pensioners but extremely elderly and infirm. They are now invited by the district postmaster to collect their pensions either at the main post office in Silver Street or at the Cambridge roundabout. It should be remembered that there have been major road alignments in the area, which have created a race track of frightening speed. The elderly and the infirm are involved in a journey on foot which is extremely dangerous for the agile and for the foolhardy. It could be suicidal for anyone unsure of himself or herself either physically or mentally. I submit that there are compelling social grounds for this post office to remain.

When the petition was handed to me on 1st November, I immediately made inquiries and was astounded to find the state of non-consultation to which I have just referred. I at once saw the district postmaster, and I say at once that all my dealings with the district postmaster have been cordial, courteous, friendly and fruitful, to the extent that he has been frank and honest in answering my questions. He frankly admitted that no consultation had taken place save for a telephone inquiry to ascertain whether there was any development in the vicinity. He told me that he had been informed that there was none planned and that this had formed part of his reasons in coming to the judgment to close the post office.

I put it bluntly to my hon. Friend the Minister that anyone with any knowledge of the area around the post office would find it incredible that a decision to close that office could be taken in the belief that no development was planned. At my request, the district postmaster postponed the closure and agreed to meet the council.

At this point I wish to pay full tribute to the council, which has throughout shared my incredulity and anger at the action which has been proposed. The chief executive and the councillors have continued to make the strongest protest and representation, the latest to Sir William Ryland and Lord Peddie as recently as last week.

Contrary to there being no development planned, the council told the postmaster that at six separate sites all within 300 or 400 yards of the post office, starting in 1976 and scheduled to be completed in 1978, the council and the GLC will build 450 units accommodating 1,600 people.

Again, I think it appropriate to quote from the letter from the Enfield Council to Sir William Ryland which went off last week: Sterling Way has recently been opened to divert the North Circular Road from Silver Street. Thus, Silver Street is now a much safer area in which to shop. There are approximately 1,000 dwellings already served by the sub-post office. A further 500 are in the course of construction or about to be constructed. While there are few businesses in the locality, there is the North Middlesex Hospital, which is being redeveloped and extended and where the Area Health Authority also have set up their headquarters. Both the hospital and the headquarters of the AHA must generate a considerable amount of post office business. At present, the hospital has 658 available beds. Shortly accommodation for a further 640 patients will become available.… There is a pedestrian way from the North Middlesex Hospital under Sterling Way (the dual carriage North Circular Road). A list of the developments is then set out, and, significantly, the chief executive says, with reference to Sterling Way and the other developments: I should perhaps say that when the initial decision to close the post office was made, this was without the knowledge of the above developments". Not only will these units generate more business from old-age pensioners and others, but every unit will become a post office user, because while the properties which have been destroyed were in disparate ownerships all the new units will be council units. The rents, whether paid to the GLC or to the London borough, will be paid by Giro, and the post office business will be increased, in my view, by about 50 per cent.

I believe that, under pressure to effect savings, the Post Office has seized the chance provided by the resignation of Mr. V. S. Patel and has failed completely to take account of the growth of post office business in the near future. The closure of this post office will cause great hardship to many of my constituents.

Not only has a petition been signed, but more than 900 local residents have taken the trouble to write to me. They comprise residents from Silver Street, Bulwer Road, Denton Road, Haselbury Road, Sheldon Road, Sweet Briar Walk, Warwick Road, Cheddington Road, Henley Road, Huish Road, Hinton Road, Huxley Road, Lopen Road and Oakfield Avenue. The occupants of two out of three houses in the vicinity of the post office have taken the trouble to write to me giving their views. I thank them for the way in which they have backed my efforts on their behalf in the past few weeks.

This experience has highlighted the disturbing way in which it is possible for the Post Office to blight the social life of the community and to cause great worry to elderly people, and, indeed, to take such action without adequate or early consultation.

In a report in the Evening Standard tonight a Post Office spokesman is alleged to have said: A lot of ignorant and misguided abuse has been levelled at us. People tend to get blindly hysterical in their criticism when offices close. I assure the Minister that the many people who have been to see me on this matter have not been ignorant, abusive or misguided, and they are certainly not blindly hysterical.

What concerned me was the fact that the spokesman went on to say: We do not consult local people, but after announcing a possible closure we allow time for comments to come in. That is a disgraceful way of operating a publicly-owned business and of taking account of the views of local people.

A letter from the district postmaster dated 15th October 1975 said: I have to inform you, therefore, that the above office will be closed permanently on 18th November 1975. When that letter was written, there had obviously been no time for consultation or comments.

I thought that there was national significance in this matter and I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. He replied as follows: It has not apparently been customary for the Post Office to enter into consultation before making closures. The Post Office Users' National Council tell us that where such closures have come to their attention, it has been through protests from those affected (either individually or through petitions) or their MPs. The Post Office Users' National Council have apparently had a number of representations about such closures this year and have become concerned about the whole question of sub-post office provision. I understand that they are currently in touch with the Post Office, the Federation of Sub Postmasters and such organisations as Age Concern and the Women's Institutes. I very much hope that the Minister will welcome the fact that the inquiry now taking place under the National Consumers' Council, headed by Mr. Michael Young, will look searchingly into this subject. It appears that the Post Office, without paying any regard to people's wishes, is closing sub-post offices.

It must be emphasised that in 1972 some 127 sub-post offices were closed; in 1973 the number of closures was 166; in 1974, 196; and in 1975, 216. No doubt I shall be told that globally this amounts only to 1 or 2 per cent, of the total, but I wish to point out that in 1975 twice the number of such offices were closed compared with 1972.

In view of the weight of evidence on this matter, I ask the Minister to take the view that we should keep these offices open where that is reasonable. I hope he will add his weight to ensuring that that happens and that it will lead the Post Office to think again.

12.15 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)

I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for raising what I have always regarded as an important subject, namely, the closure of sub-post offices. I recognise that any closure must be a matter of concern to the community concerned. It is understandable in circumstances of this kind that those affected will question the necessity of the closure and the sensitivity of those responsible to local needs and sentiments.

I was particularly concerned when my hon. Friend drew my attention to the comments which appeared in today's Evening Standard, particularly the last paragraph which he quoted concerning consultations. I shall return to the question of consultations in a moment. I have no doubt that the Post Office authorities will have noted the article and my hon. Friend's comments.

I must make clear my standing in decisions of this sort. The plain fact is that the 1969 Post Office Act changed the Post Office into a nationalised corporation and, as such, gave it full responsibility for the running of its day-to-day affairs.

The Act gave the Post Office powers to provide postal services, including counter services, and imposed on it a duty so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Isles while having regard, among other things, to efficiency and economy. The Act gives the Secretary of State certain reserve powers to give the Post Office directions of a general character. I am sure the House will agree that detailed decisions affecting particular sub-post offices do not fall into this category.

Since 1969 successive Ministers, of both parties, have maintained a consistent attitude in their refusal to intervene in operational matters. To do so would clearly he against the wishes of Parliament as expressed in the 1969 Act. To adopt any other course would be a retrograde step and would progressively undermine the authority and judgment of the Post Office Board. So long as the Post Office continues to conduct its business in accordance with the Act, it is right that Ministers should not interfere in the day-to-day management.

The general policy of the Post Office in respect of the closures of sub-post offices is to strike a balance between meeting the needs of the community being served and the cost of providing the service. This is not in any sense to discount the importance of the social factors but is to recognise that these cannot be the sole criteria. I am sure my hon. Friend would not regard this as unreasonable.

The broad yardstick which is adopted by the Post Office in reviewing the need for a sub-post office is that an office is not normally opened within one mile of an existing office in a town or within two miles in a rural area. Local factors are also taken into account including the volume of business transacted at the office concerned, the nature and terrain of the area it serves and the availability of local bus services. Full consideration is also given to the needs of local residents, pensioners in particular.

Well before the event, local authorities and Post Office advisory committees are notified of any impending closures and the reasons for them. Their views and those of other interested parties are taken fully into account before a final decision is reached. That is why I am concerned about the comments of my hon. Friend and the Evening Standard article in particular. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the closure of a sub-post office is not undertaken lightly and that the Post Office rarely closes one unless the postmaster resigns or retires or, as sometimes happens, it cannot find a replacement.

My hon. Friend referred to the number of closures. The number of sub-post offices is published each year in the Post Office Report and Accounts. The figures show conclusively that the Post Office has acted with a full and proper degree of responsibility, although I can fully appreciate that national figures may be cold comfort to my hon. Friend and those whose views he expresses in the House. Over the past 10 years the number of sub-post offices has fallen from 23,200 to 22,000, representing a rate of net decline, after taking account of new offices opened as well as old offices closed, of less than one-half of 1 per cent. a year.

These figures give no support to the view sometimes expressed that the Post Office is engaging in a massive cut-back in its counter services, nor do they imply that the Post Office is failing in its duties under the 1969 Act. By comparison with other countries, both in terms of the area served per post office and in terms of population served per post office, the service provided by the Post Office is amongst the best in the world.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the need for full and adequate consultation in reaching a decision on the future of a particular sub-post office, and I am aware of his own dedicated efforts in this case. However, in view of my earlier comments, I am sure he will not expect me to go into great detail on that case.

Although it is true, I am told by the postal authorities, that the initial notice was perhaps somewhat shorter than is customary in such cases, the Post Office decided as a result of the representations received, including those from my hon. Friend, to postpone the date of closure for a further three months while the original decision was reviewed. It concluded, however, that in the light of all the known factors, including welfare and social considerations, the original decision should stand.

I am told that there is a Crown post office less than half a mile to the east and that there are two sub-post offices less than a mile away. In such circumstances it would hardly be right for me directly to intervene, although I am sure that the Chairman of the Post Office and his board take note of the comments of hon. Members.

As for the Post Office's future plans, I remind the House of the pledge given by the Chairman of the Post Office to the Post Office Users' National Council in February 1972: it is not in fact our intention to reduce the number of offices on such a scale that might in any way be regarded as substantial". Sub-post offices are an integral part of the national Post Office network. Without them it would not be possible to provide anything like the present number of counters to the public.

The Post Office is a large and diverse business covering the spectrum from small sub-post offices in rural areas to advanced telecommunications complexes. Each of these activities presents its own problems and opportunities. It was in recognition of the many changes which had taken place over the six years since the Post Office became a corporation that the Government accepted the advice of the Post Office Users' National Council to set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. C. F. Carter, to review the whole range of the Post Office activities. My hon. Friend referred to that committee. I am sure he will be aware of the letter which hon. Members have received from my noble Friend Lord Peddie to the effect that the Council is making a study of sub-post offices.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

As one who is suffering from a similar problem on the Isle of Wight, may I ask whether the Minister feels that the Post Office Users' National Council should be involved in this sort of situation? If people cannot get complaints dealt with by a Minister, surely the Council should have some sort of appeal procedure for these problems. I have a case where a petition of more than 2,500 signatures is backing the local authority and everybody else against the closure of a post office. We cannot get a change of mind, and I know that it is no use coming here for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Mackenzie

I am always concerned about post office closures. I have already indicated the standing given to the Secretary of State and myself by hon. Members. This is not a standard I have laid down for myself. There is no way in which I am permitted to interfere with the day-to-day management of the Post Office, and I would never seek to do so. An opportunity has now been afforded to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to raise these matters with Lord Peddie and I hope he will do so.

I know that there is great strength of feeling in the House. I have post offices in my own areas about which I am concerned, though I shall make no further comment on that.

I would like to say how much we appreciate the work done by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and the Post Office staff at larger offices. They provide a valuable service to the community, and we have seen how the many extra duties they take on are always carried out in the highest standards of public service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.