§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
§ 12.2 am
§ Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley, Central)I was disturbed and sorry to note in the press a few days ago a report about the future of town sub-post offices such as the Union Court sub-post office in Barnsley, which we are debating tonight.
The report said that more than 1,600 post offices may face closure as a result of an internal review undertaken by the Post Office. The review was to examine the profitability of town sub-post offices and main post offices. Internal minutes of the September meeting of the Postal Business Joint Council reveal that the study concluded that 1,609 of the 9,533 town sub-post offices should be closed if the Post Office insisted that they made a profit. Of course we all know that the review was forced on the Post Office as a result of the tough financial targets set for the service. It is now specially looking for loss makers. It is the profit test. Profit, not need, is the theme.
I never thought, as a former Postmaster General, that I would see the day when the profit motive would be determining the existence and future of our sub-post offices. However, it can never be the test of country or rural sub-post offices, nor should it be the test where a case of need exists and is seen to exist in a town sub-post office. This is a cruel streak, emanating from the Government's monetarist policy, which is already causing distress to many thousands of people who are sorely in need of help, yet by the post office closure decisions are being denied it.
I wish to present the case for the survival of the Union Court sub-post office in Barnsley. Mrs. Joyce Brookes, the postmistress, who is now 62 years old, is about to retire. The postmaster and the chairman of the Post Office are —to use their words—"seizing this chance" to close it. That is almost the language of the profiteer; it is not the caring Post Office that I knew.
On 7 September, Mr. Wilcock, the head postmaster in Barnsley, informed interested parties that, because Mrs. Brookes had tendered her resignation, he had formed the view that Union Court could close, and that the needs of its customers could adequately be met elsewhere —naming Agnes road sub-post office, the head post office in the town, and Doncaster road sub-post office. On 18 October the mayor and councillors met the head postmaster. They pointed out to him the harshness of the decision, and said that the alternatives of Agnes road, the head post office and Doncaster road were inadequate. To go to Agnes road would mean a walk along hilly terrain for about 1,000 yards, with no bus service in the region. To go to the head post office would mean a long walk and the negotiation of traffic, or catching a bus and then walking. To go to Doncaster road would require the negotiation of traffic on a busy road, with no buses available.
The councillors explained the difficulties in winter months of the walk to the general post office—of the persistent queues in that post office, and a counter service that leaves much to be desired now, let alone if Union Court closes. Councillor Fred Lunn, leader of the council, explained that there is apparent chaos on his every visit to the general post office. Councillor Jack Hood explained 1289 that the elderly and infirm must stand for 20 minutes or more. The head postmaster apparently accepts that, because he said that staffing changes were proposed to counteract those problems. Even before the Union Court closure, he cannot provide a good service. Councillor Roy Fisher informed the head postmaster that the social circumstances would be disastrous for the aged people if the Union Court facilities were taken away, especially with a further influx of elderly people into the area. The mayor, Councillor Keith Borrett, on behalf of the entire council, expressed his deep and sincere concern about the head postmaster's proposal.
Why all this fuss? Why did the whole town council express opposition to this closure? There was a petition with 1,800 signatures in opposition, a demonstration of opposition by old-age pensioners outside the general post office, and a major intervention by Age Concern in Barnsley and district. Union Court sub-post office is right in the centre of a housing development incorporating high-rise flats—Britannia, Albion and Buckley houses—that were built mainly for pensioners and that are all within 100 yards of the post office. Around the post office are maisonettes and flats for the elderly and disabled; 138 pensioners from the tower blocks use the post office, and eight out of 10 of the disabled and elderly people who live there depend on it.
I visited Union Court last weekend and met the postmistress. Naturally, she is pleased that her customers will be served over Christmas and the New Year—the few weeks' reprieve that we have managed to get from the chairman of the Post Office. This post office was built with local authority assistance. It made an appraisal, the post office was custom-built because of the circumstances, and it was opened in 1969. There was a special need then, and the need is greater today. There has been more building in the area, and the local authority plans to build another 28 dwellings to house 58 aged and handicapped people in the immediate vicinity. The local authority believed 14 years ago that the post office would be an absolute necessity—it would be handy and convenient—because of the preponderance of old people in the area. It was a sensible, caring decision — caring based on needs —which is why we have had 50 years of unbroken Labour local authority rule in Barnsley. Our local authority cares.
If this post office closes, hundreds will be adversely affected. Even the textile factory of S. R. Gent nearby will miss it because of the lunchtime traffic that it provides. It will be a terrible upheaval for lonely old folk. They can safely leave this sub-post office, as it is within the area of their people. There is no trouble, and there are no muggings, and Mrs. Brookes tells me that since the post office opened in 1969, the area has been trouble-free, and there has been not one irate customer. Imagine all these old people having to go to the town centre post office—many would be afraid to do so. Not enough thought has been given to the problems of this closure and the needs of the elderly and infirm.
Postmaster Mr. Wilcock concedes:
I would readily accept that closure would result in some residents being inconvenienced. This must inevitably occur when a long established facility is withdrawn.Mrs. Tricia Hicks, the care co-ordinator for Age Concern in the area spelt it out when she said:Obviously, checks have been made into the distance between Union Court and the alternative office, but, geography has not been taken into account. Yes, Agnes Road sub office is about half a mile distance as the crow flies, but, after an initial climb 1290 uphill there is a very steep drop down to Agnes Road. On the way back from this office it would be impossible for the elderly to climb this hill. Barnsley Head Office in Pitt Street is also impossible to reach by public transport and if the elerly are able to reach it there is then a queue of anything from 63 (I have checked this) to 100 people waiting on two counter clerks. Elderly and handicapped people cannot possibly wait (standing) in this queue. Doncaster Sub Office and Worsbrough Common Sub Office both entail hills in either direction and extremely busy roads to cross and no public transport on that route to use.The Mayor, Councillor Keith Borrett, made a public statement, in which he said:It is an inhuman decision taken with callous disregard for the needs of the elderly and disabled pople living in the area.It will sentence pensioners and disabled people to either queuing in pig pens in Pitt Street Post Officethat is the head post office—or cross country climbs to other post offices.The housing director intervened, and let the Post Office know what he thought about the matter. He said:I cannot agree with the comment that the Head Post Master makes that the viability of 4 alternative offices will adequately meet the community needs. The location of the other 4 Sub Post Offices are inconvenient and difficult to reach by elderly persons and I would think that very few are in a position to appoint a friend or relative to collect pensions on their behalf. I think it is a matter of some importance that when the previous privately owned Post Office in Sheffield Road was demolished, as a result of slum clearance, the present building was specifically provided, in conjunction with the Post Office, for this purpose and indeed special structural design features were incorporated to meet the post office needs. Because of its location, so near to main shops in the town centre, it is considered that the post office shop would be unviable for business purposes without the sub post office facility. It seems very unreasonable to me, the Council having gone to such considerable capital expense. that the Post Office should unilaterally withddraw this facility. I would point out similarly that the Council have again spent additional substantial monies in providing post office facilities in a very much smaller area at High Hoyland and I would not like to think that this could be closed at a mere whim of the Post Office leaving the Council with another white elephant on its hands.These are all storms of genuine protest, from all sections of the community. Everybody except the head postmaster believes this proposed closure of the Union Court post office to be an outrage. The image of the caring, compassionate post office service has been blighted and Mr. Wilcock has made a mistake. However, there is still time to rectify the closure decision. There are three weeks to go. I ask the Minister to recognise the needs of so many who need Union Court. The postmaster could advertise for a replacement for Mrs. Brookes, which would relieve the anxieties and worries of all these old and disabled people. He should recognise the increasing need because of the planned influx of more pensioners in that area, and in the changed circumstances since his letter of 7 September, announce that the Union Court sub-post office will remain open.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) and the Minister to intervene in the debate?
§ Mr. McKayI thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) for allowing me a few 1291 minutes of his Adjournment debate to take up the case of my constituents in the area. I also congratulate him on having obtained this debate.
The Union Court post office is in my right hon. Friend's constituency, but it borders my constituency. As a result, many of my constituents use the post office, and many of them will be affected by the proposed closure. The effect on them will be severe, as a majority of the people concerned are elderly and have various degrees of infirmity.
The problem was recognised by the local authority when it was asked by the postal authorities to provide a post office in the area. The council spent money in making that provision, and that is why the council is so much concerned. The mayor and the leader of the council have taken an active part in protesting against the closure of the post office, as have the senior councillors, who know the details of the case and the problems that it causes for many of my constituents.
Why, after all this time, and when the post office was provided in the area for a specific purpose, is the post office to close? As my right hon. Friend said, the easy option has been taken, purely and simply because the postmistress is to retire. I might ask, "Would the post office have closed had not the postmistress been retiring?" I think that the answer to that would be no, because there was no prior indication of the post office closing. One can reasonably say that the proposed closure is purely and simply because of the lady's retirement. So the decision was taken as the easy option and for the convenience of the postal authorities, but it means inconvenience and the bad option for my constituents.
The number of people living in the area around the post office has increased. Moreover, it is an area of high demand, I was vice-chairman of the council for a considerable time, as well as chairman of the building development committee, and even at that time the area was being considered for further development.
As my hon. Friend said, there are long queues at the central post office. People who work at a nearby factory, S. R. Gent, use the Union Court post office more and more, simply because the time that they waste queueing at the central post office is more than offset by the extra distance that they have to go to the Union Court post office. The alternatives that are suggested are inconvenient for the elderly and infirm, as the report from the housing director said. In fact, the housing committee works in close liaison with the social services committee and is in a better position than anyone else to know about the problems of the old and infirm in the area.
I therefore support my right hon. Friend and ask the Minister, even at this late stage—it is not too late—to take into account the hardship that will be caused to many people in the area. If he bears in mind the furore that has been caused by the proposed closure, he will realise the depth of feeling that exists among the people who will be affected.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier)I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate. As the Minister with special 1292 responsibility for small firms, I welcome especially the opportunity to acknowledge that the Government are conscious of the importance of small businesses.
I fully understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). The future of sub-post offices is of concern to the Government. Ministers have frequently referred to the important role which sub-post offices play as providers of important services and often as community meeting places that fulfil a social need. That is why the Government have consistently pledged to ensure the maintenance of an adequate sub-post office network. I welcome the opportunity to repeat that commitment.
I think that it would be helpful if I were to set out the statutory position, which has changed substantially since the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was so personally involved. The Post Office was a Government department until 1969, when the Post Office Act established it as a public corporation. In common with other nationalised industries, the Post Office was given considerable autonomy in that Act for the management of its day-to-day business. It has been accepted by successive Governments that it is for the Post Office board to run the business with Government involvement limited to discussion of broad policy matters and, of course, the setting of financial and performance targets.
I stress that this is not a party political point. This has been the policy of successive Labour and Conservative Governments since 1969. Thus, the Government have said that they are committed to the maintenance of an adequate sub-post office network. It is for for the Post Office to say whether the provision is adequate in a particular location.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central has sought to portray the closure of Union Court sub-post office as being somehow symptomatic of what he describes as the cruel streak in the Government's monetarist policy. I had hoped to avoid political points because I recognise that this is a matter of genuine concern to local residents and worthy of more serious debate but, as the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, I shall mention in passing that during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government net closures of sub-post offices averaged more than 200 per annum. This compares with 157 net closures in the year ending March 1980, 162 in 1981, dropping to only 62 up to March 1982 and 98 in 1983.
The Post Office accepts that it has a duty to provide counter services through its network of main and sub-post offices as efficiently as possible and in a manner consistent with meeting the efficiency targets which have been set both by this Government and by the previous Labour Administration. But the Post Office also accepts that in providing these services it must have regard to the commercial and social needs of the community. It is this balance between sensible and desirable cost benefits and social needs in particular which leads to difficult choices. It would be wholly exceptional if any sub-post office closure were to be achieved with no one even slightly inconvenienced. But the balance has to be struck.
When a sub-postmaster resigns or retires, the Post Office always carry out a full survey of the area to determine whether it is still appropriate to have an office at that location. As the sub-postmaster may have held that position for a long time, during which population movements could have taken place, the circumstances in 1293 which the original sub-post office was justified may have changed significantly. The Post Office will be guided by its experience that has led to the broad criterion that the right balance can normally be maintained by siting Post Offices at not less than one mile apart in town areas. But experience has shown also that this is not the sole criterion. It takes into account also the ability of nearby offices to absorb the business and the ease with which people can reach them. This will involve consideration of the age profile of those using the sub-office—and any physical disabilities--the terrain of the area and the availability of public transport.
The Post Office is also guided by a procedural arrangement agreed with the Post Office Users National Council, which involves consultation with the local authority, with local Members, with representatives of local residents and other interested parties.
I accept that in some cases, the eventual decision to close a particular office may seem harsh. Indeed, as I have said, some protest is inevitable in every case. But I do know that the Post Office takes a great deal of care when making decisions about closing sub-post offices. The examinations are carried out most thoroughly and conscientiously. Indeed it would be foolish of the Post Office to act in any other way and to risk unreasonably alienating the very people whom it is in business to serve.
It should not be forgotten that in a number of cases an office has to be closed because no suitable applicant for the sub-postmastership can be found. I have said that the Government do not have the power to intervene in individual sub-post office closures. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone raised this question with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He passed the papers to the chairman of the Post Office, who has now replied to the right hon. Gentleman.
Against the criterion that town offices should generally be sited about a mile apart, central Barnsley does very well indeed. The Union Court office is within half a mile of four other post offices—Barnsley Road head post office, Agnes Road, Doncaster road and Oakwell sub-offices. Worsbrough common sub-post office is only about 1,000 yards away. In considering these alternatives, the Post Office ruled out Oakwell and Worsbrough common sub-post offices on the grounds that the journey would be too arduous. That still left three alternatives which the Post Office felt could cope with the extra customers and which could be used conveniently by those who currently use Union Court.
I am told that Agnes road provides a number of other retail outlets besides a post office, and at about 700 yards 1294 is a reasonably covenient alternative. Although the terrain is rather hilly, I understand that Agnes road is accessible to the majority of Union Court residents. Doncaster road sub-post office could attract residents of the eastern side of Sheffield road, and bus services are available to assist the journey.
I believe that shopping facilities around Union Court are limited and that the very close proximity of the town centre, with its extensive market and regular bus services, provides reason for regular visits by most residents. Access to the head post office from the town centre is not difficult and, indeed, a number of the residents of the Union Court area already use it.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the report from the Post Office on the considerations which led to the conclusion that the Union Court sub-post office should not be re-opened. It is clear to me that the Post Office has considered this case most thoroughly and at the highest level. I am satisfied that procedures have been followed and that local views have been sought and taken into account. The decision to keep the office open over the Christmas and New Year period is witness to the Post Office's responsiveness to local views.
I am naturally sorry that a decision to close Union Court sub-post office will cause disappointment and some inconvenience to some of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. I do not have the powers to intervene in this case. I believe, in common with all Ministers of both major parties who have beer responsible for these matters in the past, that it is right to leave detailed decisions such as this to members of the Post Office management. That is what they are paid to do and I believe that they do it in a way which is responsible and which reflects their tradition of an awareness of their social responsibilities.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman have brought forward information this evening about the possible building of accommodation for up to 56 elderly people in the Union Court area. I appreciate that this information has not yet been made available to the chairman of the Post Office. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman could usefully draw it to the chairman's attention—and, of course, the chairman will read this debate. I must, however, make it clear that this is not a matter on which I can seek to influence his decision.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.