SUB-POST OFFICE (TOTTERIDGE) (Hansard, 3 March 1977)

§ Mr. Reginald Maudling (Chipping Barnet)
It has been a long time since I raised a matter on the Adjournment—at least a quarter of a century, if not more. But the matter I raise tonight, although it may seem of relatively small importance, is worthy of the consideration of the House, first, because it concerns deeply a large number of my constituents and, secondly, because it raises a matter of principle of considerable importance.
On the resignation of the previous sub-postmistress the Post Office decided to close down the Totteridge Lane sub-post office and not appoint a successor. There was great concern in the neighbourhood, especially among elderly pensioners who had been drawing their pensions from the sub-post office.
A deputation went to see the Post Office, led by Lord Brockway, and very persuasive it was, because afterwards the Post Office decided to reopen the sub-post office. I have a letter from the managing director saying that it had decided that there were good grounds for retaining it, notwithstanding the proximity of the Whetstone branch post office. He gave four reasons why it should be retained, and I agree with them.
This decision was greeted with great satisfaction in the district. It was what the public wanted. The Post Office, a nationalised industry, had decided to do what the public wanted. But then a new story spread around that it was not to be retained after all, because of opposition from the trade union concerned. This has given rise to considerable worry, and it is the point of principle to which I want to refer.
The Post Office has told me and the local council: Although we now consider that the office should re-open, it has not yet been possible to convince the National Headquarters of the Union of the strength of our case. But the strength of the Post Office's case is surely the job it is there to do. The letter went on: 776 Consultation has continued at a high level, but I must not mislead you into thinking that this is a simple point to resolve. I should mention that the co-operation of our regular staff is essential since they are responsible for supplying the sub-post offices with cash and stocks. In other words, the Post Office representative was saying that although the Post Office thought the office should be re-opened it could not do so without the permission of the trade union concerned. That has given rise to very considerable concern among my constituents.
There is no doubt that if this sub-post office is not allowed to reopen considerable hardship will be caused, particularly to elderly people, who will have to walk a long way up a very steep hill to collect their pensions and allowances. It is no good their being told that they can send an agent to do it for them. Pensioners do not want to send agents to collect their pensions. They want to collect it themselves. They feel a sense of pride and a sense of privacy.
In some cases, as with fuel allowances, it is not possible for an agent to operate on behalf of the pensioner. Concern has arisen recently because some pensioners in my constituency have been told that they must transfer their books, whether they want to or not, from this sub-post office to the other one a long way up the hill. They do not want to, but they have been told that if they do not do so they will not get their money next week. This is a matter of considerable human, sensible and practical concern.
I of course recognise that there is a strong case for consultation with the trade unions. I recognise the proper concern of the unions for the employment of their members. But I doubt whether it is justifiable to try to maintain the work load at the Crown Post Office by compelling elderly people to climb steep hills to collect their pensions. That does not seem a very good way of going about it.
That is not my main concern. That is not my main reason for raising this matter with the Minister tonight. My main concern is that the Post Office has a statutory duty laid upon it by Parliament to serve the public in these ways. The Post Office has made it clear to me, to the local council and to the local public, that it believes that this sub-post office should be reopened. It has made clear that in its judgment it should be reopened. 777 Surely, therefore, such a service as it is compelled to provide to the public requires the reopening of the sub-post office?
If the Post Office believes that it should do so in the interests of society, but fails to do so, it is failing in its statutory duty. That is a very important issue indeed. It is easy to raise a major matter of principle—the conflict between unions and Parliament. That is happening in this case. It is easy to ask who is running the country and the nationalised industries. Is it the management of the Post Office, which is responsible to the Minister, and through the Minister to this House, or is it the trade unions, who are responsible to no one save their own members? One can make a major issue out of this. It might come to that, but it would be a pity if that happened.
I hope that this matter can be resolved by common sense on both sides. I am sure that it is the concern and responsibility of the Minister to do so. That is the reason for my appeal to the hon. Gentleman. It is a perfectly simple issue, but it is basically a very important one.
My constituents want this service. The management of the Post Office wants to provide it. The only people stopping the Post Office from providing this service are the trade unions. Why is this allowed to happen? What will the Minister do about it? Is it right that a nationalised industry should be frustrated from providing a service which it thinks should be provided and which the public wants?

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield)
Because sub-post offices play a very important part in the lives of so many urban and rural communities a proposal to close one, for whatever reason, is bound to be a source of great concern to the people affected. It is for that reason that I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) for raising this matter.
This is a rather complex matter, involving several different parties with different views, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to explain where the Post Office stands in this matter.
778 The right hon. Gentleman has been in this House far longer than I have, and he will recognise that the Government are not responsible for the provision of or closure of post offices or, as in this case sub-post offices. The Post Office, by an Act of 1969, is no longer a Government Department. By that legislation, it was made a nationalised corporation. In giving the Post Office full responsibility in the 1969 Act to operate as a nationalised corporation, Parliament clearly intended to remove any need for the House to intervene in matters affecting the day-to-day management of the services provided by the Post Office.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has certain reserve powers under the Act to give the Post Office directions, but only of a general character. I am sure that the House will agree that it was not intended that these powers should be used in respect of day-to-day management decisions affecting sub-offices or industrial relations within the Post Office.
Many of us saw the right hon. Gentleman on television tonight, making a rather similar argument to that which he made to the House. He made several points about the statutory duty and the obligation of the Post Office. However, I think that he has rather misinterpreted Section 9 of the 1969 Post Office Act. He is right in saying that the Post Office has a statutory obligation to exercise its powers in providing postal services, including counter services. According to Section 9, the Post Office has the duty so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Isles. The right hon. Gentleman will see in subsection (2) that the Post Office also has a duty imposed upon it to discharge that obligation, and in the discharge of that obligation it has to have regard to efficiency and economy. I draw that to his attention, because I know that he and his party are in favour of nationalised industries not making losses.

§ Mr. Maudling
I have studied that subsection very closely. But, in the light of it, the Post Office still thinks that it should reopen this sub-post office.

§ Mr. Huckfield
I am about to refer to exactly that point. The Post Office is very capable of carrying out that 779 obligation. Throughout the country there are now nearly 22,000 sub-post offices, which, together with nearly 1,600 Crown offices, represent, on the basis of the area served per post office and the population served per office, one of the best Post Office services in the world.
It was especially appropriate that the right hon. Gentleman attached so many of his comments to Section 9. I am sure that he recognises that, in providing counter services the Post Office seeks to maintain a balance between the reasonable needs of the community and the cost of meeting those needs.
The broad criterion that the Post Office adopts 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. These include the volume of business transacted at the office concerned, the nature and terrain of the area that it serves, and the availability of local bus services. The Post Office assures me that it also gives full consideration to the needs of focal residents, especially retirement pensioners.
Well before the event, local authorities and existing Post Office advisory committees are always 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. All of this was done at that stage in the case of the proposed closure of this sub-post office.
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, as he said to me, that in the case of the Totteridge Lane sub-post office it is clear that it was the views of the local residents which obviously weighed heavily on the Post Office's final decision. Indeed, on the first stage of the review the bare facts of the case indicated that it was reasonable to close the office. A branch post office, staffed by Post Office employees, which had some spare capacity was only 586 yards away, in the main shopping area and on a bus route. However, the case for the closure was not clear cut, as the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House tonight, in view of the hilly nature of the area and the fact that on the west side of Totteridge Lane the nearest post office was over two miles away and people living on that side would 780 have a journey of over a mile to reach a post office.
Nevertheless, it was the lack of strong reaction to closure during the formal consultation procedure that seemed to confirm that the original decision to close the office was the right one. Even the right hon. Gentleman did not make any representations at that stage. It was at this stage that local Members of Parliament and local interests were advised, and certainly at that stage during the formal consultation procedure the right hon. Gentleman did not make representations. In fact, it was rather later that the Totteridge Ratepayers and Residents Association came on to the scene and entered the lists. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was representatives of the association, led by my noble Friend Lord Brockway, who met senior officials of the Post Office and, as we have heard, were successful in convincing the Post Office that their local sub-post office should remain open.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been a Member of the House for a long time. I am sure that even he will agree that it is a rather rare combination when he gets together, on the same cause, with my noble Friend Lord Brockway. I should love to comment on that in a variety of contexts. Nevertheless, this consultation procedure took place, the deputation was seen, and the Post Office changed its view, to the effect that the local sub-post office should remain open. This remains the view of the Post Office and it remains the objective of the Post Office, as it has confirmed to me.
The fact that the sub-post office is now closed is contrary to the wishes of the Post Office. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents know, it is because the retiring sub-postmistress, faced with the sickness of her assistant, had to give up that the decision was taken.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the feelings of the Union of Post Office Workers. I am sure that he would recognise that the union has made a significant contribution to Post Office economies and, indeed, has borne its share of the economies that have been carried out. The union has made the point that it feels that those working behind counters have had to bear their share. Over the past 18 months about 800 jobs behind counters and associated with counter services 781 have gone from the Post Office. This is testimony to the fact that the union has taken a constructive attitude to these matters. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree, in looking at the economies that have been effected by the Post Office over the past two years, that no one could accuse the Union of Post Office Workers or the Post Office Engineering Union of taking a basically unreasonable attitude. They have played their constructive part. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a matter that is best left to the negotiations between the Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers. I am sure that results will be produced in that context.
The inconvenience that may be caused to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents is recognised, but I think that particularly on the question of the collection of old-age pensions the Whetstone office has been flexible in its interpretation of the rules and regulations. We recognise that inconvenience may be caused. The parties which are currently discussing these matters obviously have to take account of that inconvenience.
Negotiations are going on, and I am absolutely sure that this is the right thing. I am deeply concerned, as the Post Office is, that the valuable co-operation between the Post Office management and unions should be preserved. Inevitably, as here, there will be occasional points of diffi- 782 culty, but with good sense and good judgment these can be resolved.
In the interim, the Post Office judges that it would not be a helpful step to take any action towards the reopening of the Totteridge branch office. I can reassure the right hon. Member that this is not part of a device to allow the decision to reopen it to be forgotten and to lapse with the effluxion of time.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that neither my right hon Friend nor I have the ministerial responsibility to intervene in a day-to-day management matter of the Post Office. I do not think that it would be prudent of us to charge in on a rather delicate matter such as this when negotiations are still in progress. I have confidence that the matter will be settled as quickly as possible, to the satisfaction of all the parties.
The right hon. Gentleman has represented the interests of his constituents tonight. What he said will be taken into account in the discussions. I hope that he will give his constituents some comfort and consolation from what I have said tonight, and I can assure him that the information that he has put before the House will play a part in the further consideration of this matter.