§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
1.43 am§ Mr. David Amess (Basildon)On the face of it, my debate would appear to be a straightforward Adjournment debate in which I could complain about the closure of Pitsea post office and its transfer to a Tesco superstore, but it is not—it is Basildon's Watergate. I was greatly looking forward to the summer recess, which was to provide me with an opportunity to spend more time with my wife and family. I had no idea of the political furore there was to be throughout the months of August and September. In the time that we have to debate the matter, I shall be revealing correspondence that I have had with the Post Office and Tesco of a most unsatisfactory nature.
Most Members of Parliament are conscientious about their duties and they want to know what is going on in the area that they represent. One can imagine my outrage when I first learned from an article in a newspaper that Pitsea Crown post office was to close. I had had no notification from Post Office Counters Ltd., and I raised the matter first on the occasion of the summer Adjournment debate.
I referred to Basildon's Watergate. When the chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd. and his staff came to see me in my office in the House of Commons, he brought to my notice a letter which purported to have come from me supporting the closure of Pitsea post office. It was clear that the signature on the letter was not mine and never on any occasion had I authorised the letter sanctioning any enthusiasm for the closure of Pitsea post office.
To get to the heart of the matter, however, I have no quarrel with the Government. I support all current Post Office initiatives whereby different retail outlets for post offices have been selected. But in my constituency I am always mindful of the overall trading position. Far too many people are coming to the town of Basildon, which I represent, and opening an ever-increasing number of larger stores. At this moment, the constituency is over-trading —I have no doubt about that. By 1 January, I will be the only Member of Parliament to have three Tesco superstores. Tesco thought that I would welcome it having its first post office in its store in my constituency.
The three-week consultation period was an absolute fiasco. The Conservative-controlled district council, the Conservative Member of Parliament when he learned about the closure, my constituents at public meetings and the excellent chairman of Post Office consultative committee all opposed the closure of Pitsea post office. But as events revealed, the Post Office had made up its mind. It clearly was working closely with Tesco from the outset. The change would not have inconvenienced a great many of my constituents, but I was concerned about the senior citizens in my constituency and it was to them that I listened. They saw the post office as a social place at which to meet and chat with the excellent people serving behind the counter.
The crazy thing is that the Tesco superstore is a quarter of a mile away from Pitsea post office. The senior citizens, some of whom are disabled and find great difficulty in getting about, did not want to travel the extra quarter of a mile to the Tesco superstore. Those are the people to whom I was listening. At the old site of the post office is a Sainsbury store. However, at this moment Sainsbury does 318 not want post offices in its stores. It was not interested in the measure. At no point during the three-week consultation period did anyone from the Post Office come forward, meet my constituents' objections and say that they would, at the very least, consider one of the newsagents within the precinct having a post office facility.
After the meeting in my office at which the chairman of Post Office Counters mentioned my letter, the chairman understood perfectly well that I had no intention of authorising the letter, and that was the last we ever heard of it.
Unfortunately, on the day on which the Post Office announced that it was minded to go ahead with transferring to Tesco superstores, all the main protagonists bar me were unavailable. They were either on holiday or just not available. So I, the person who had opposed the proposal and supported my constituents from the start, was left to face the flack. I was so angry that I got in my car and drove to see the chairman of the Post Office at 148 Old street. Of course, he was not there. There was no one in a senior position to see me.
I also tried to make contact with Tesco. Again, there was no one available to see me. The chairman of Tesco wrote a letter to me on 9 August, in which he said:
I acknowledge your letter of the 3rd August and I have spoken this morning to my colleague David Wild who I know has been in contact with you personally, and also your office. Mr. Wild informs me that he will be in further discussions with you this week, and I sincerely hope that we can resolve this situation to our mutual benefit.All along, Tesco understood that I wanted to meet its representatives before the decision was announced. The decision was announced on the Monday and was leaked to the media the Friday before. That was a great discourtesy to my constituents. The supposed meeting with Tesco was on the following Thursday. So to date there has been no meeting between myself and Tesco.On the day of the announcement that Post Office Counters intended to go ahead with moving Pitsea post office to Tesco superstores, my letter was mysteriously leaked to the media. It found its way on to television and was on the front page of my evening paper. That action was unforgivable.
The chairman of the Post Office said:
Having returned from leave I was somewhat horrified to read of the developments that have taken place over the last few weeks in relation to the Pitsea Post Office situation. I have satisfied myself that the consultation process has been followed carefully and that the final decision is the correct one … It has been clear to us for some weeks that you passionately oppose the move of the Pitsea Post Office to the Tesco site and you have done your very best to influence the course of events.We have tried to discover how a copy of the letter came into the hands of the Press and we have failed. Certainly it did not come from any person in authority in the Post Office but further than that we cannot say. However I feel strongly that the decision to subsequently make the letter available to the TV station, whether under pressure or not, was unprofessional, very unhelpful and I unreservedly apologise that this should have happened.Fine. I accept the apology of the chairman of the Post Office. However, a lot of damage was done to me locally by the leak. It is not good enough for the Post Office to say that it cannot find out who the person or individuals are who leaked the letter.So I wrote again, asking the chairman of the Post Office if he had any success in finding out who had leaked the letter. It could clearly be sorted out by a conversation between the editor of the Evening Echo and the chairman 319 of the Post Office. After all, the editor of the Evening Echo knows the source of the leaked letter. But that has never happened.
I am further annoyed by the last letter that I received from the chairman of the Post Office. As the consultation period developed, I asked a number of questions. Where was the support for the closure of Pitsea post office and its removal to the Tesco superstore? I wanted to know how many letters, what were the organisations supporting the move and what surveys had been conducted. I have had no answer on any of those points. All along, I was concerned that the requirements of the senior citizens who did not want to collect their pensions from the new post office were satisfied.
The chairman of the Post Office told me in his last letter that only six people have decided not to transfer their pensions. I have been in contact with the Department of Social Security, which told me that 24 people decided to change their method of collection, and will be getting their pensions from Rectory road in Pitsea, but more than 600 people in the constituency are collecting their pensions through the banks and direct debit. I make no criticism of that, but all along the contention from the Post Office was that the change would make no difference.
It is appalling that those senior citizens who enjoyed going to the Pitsea post office and talking to the counter assistants, who helped with all their queries, have been completely forgotten. All that I get from Tesco is the ridiculous argument that it finds that, whenever it takes over a post office, there is always an outcry, petitions are signed, all sorts of people oppose the move, but after a few weeks things settle down and people have no objections, and that it has asked its customers about the move.
What a silly proposition that is. Of course the customers of Tesco will be delighted to have a post office facility so that they can get their car tax disk and purchase their stamps and television licences. That was never the argument. If one asks a silly question, one gets a silly answer. Of course they will say that they are happy. I am concerned about the people who do not go there. How will their reaction be monitored? It seems as though they have been forgotten, and nobody could care less: we had a bit of a row, now we have got our way, and they are forgotten.
I am not going to forget those people and the way that the consultation was held. As was known full well, the House was about to adjourn for the summer recess and I would not have an opportunity, such as I am delighted to have this morning, to debate the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for such matters. The way the consultation was carried out meant that the decision was a fair accompli from the start.
Will my hon. Friend reflect on my points? I draw to his attention my feeling that it was cruel for the Post Office to go ahead with the proposal without allowing my senior citizens an opportunity to continue to collect their pensions from their local post office. Although many of us would say that it is best to collect them direct from a bank or savings deposit, that is not what they want. It was also greedy to give it all to one outlet.
It would not have taken much to have come to an arrangement. I understand that Martin The Newsagent in 320 Pitsea centre would have been happy to have a post office there. That is the least that the post office should have done —and it should do so now.
It is rumoured that Laindon post office may transfer to the third Tesco superstore, which is to open in Basildon on 1 January. We are told in one breath that we cannot have a post office within less than a mile; yet the post office in the Tesco superstore is less than a mile away from a post office in Vange. If it moved from its present site, it would be about two and half miles away, so will my hon. Friend the Minister look into that matter, too?
What was appalling about Tesco's behaviour was that it kept stonewalling and saying that it was a matter for the post office. That was nonsense; Tesco wanted the business. The very next week, Tesco's manager had the nerve to write to me about Sunday trading and said that I should listen to my constituents on that matter. I have it on good authority that my reply was stuck on the notice board. That is unprofessional. If a manager intends to put a Member of Parliament's letter on the notice board, he should give due warning.
I am not prepared to forget the conduct of the post office and Tesco over that matter, nor the importance of the post office within that shopping centre. I shall not simply put up my hand and support all big stores. As a Conservative, I am worried about the viability of small and medium-sized traders, whom we should not abandon. Neither am I prepared to forget the senior citizens who did not wish to transfer their pensions to Tesco superstore.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on Basildon's Watergate—this whole unhappy, unsatisfactory dialogue between myself and the post office—and I hope that he will ensure, through his good endeavours, that it never happens to any hon. Member again.
§ 2.3 am
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is renowned as a champion for the rights of his constituents and ensuring that they get a full hearing both through his representations to various people and in the House.
The future of Pitsea post office has generated much interest and concern among my hon. Friend's constituents. However, it is important that we consider it in a wider context.
I fully recognise and share my hon. Friend's concern about the leaking of a letter to the local newspaper. As he said, he has received a reply from the chairman of the post office, who has expressed his regret that that should have occurred and his unreserved apologies for the aggravation caused. The post office has investigated thoroughly how the letter came into the media's hands, but has been unable to reach a sound conclusion. If it could be proved that a post office employee had been responsible for such an unauthorised action, it would be regarded as serious professional misconduct and acted on accordingly.
My hon. Friend mentioned Tesco and Sunday trading. He will forgive me if I do not go down that avenue, as I am led to believe that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that matter later.
Post Office Counters Ltd. operates Europe's largest retail network, serving some 28 million customers each week through almost 20,000 outlets. Currently, those comprise 881 main or Crown post offices and some 19,000 321 agency offices, ranging from large franchise offices in supermarkets, open for six full days a week, to community offices in rural areas that are open for just a few hours a week.
The sheer size and diversity of the Post Office network means that decisions about the location and organisation of individual post offices must be an operational matter for the Post Office management and not for the Government. The Government have, of course, an interest in the broad framework of the provision of post offices, in line with our clear manifesto commitment to maintain a nationwide network of post offices. However, if that network is to continue to be viable, it is essential that the Post Office Counters business is run as effectively as possible and in the interests of all its consumers.
It is in that context that Post Office Counters' programme to convert Crown post offices to agency offices must be considered. Within the nationwide network, a large number of rural post offices are run at a loss to Post Office Counters Ltd. To continue to maintain those offices as well as to fund extensive modernisation and customer service improvements, the Post Office must find ways of increasing the efficiency of its operators.
As a commercial concern with nation-wide responsibilities, the Post Office is not, and cannot be, immune to a wide range of economic changes and pressures. Its decisions must be taken against the key objectives of service and cost. Conversion of Crown offices to agency-operated outlets provides an opportunity significantly to reduce the cost of running an individual office through, for example, shared overheads. Frequently, it also means that the accommodation and facilities can be upgrade and longer opening hours can be provided on a cost-efficient basis.
Under the Crown con version programme, since 1988 more than 600 Crown post offices have been converted to agency offices, and 90 of those conversions have been to franchise offices in partnership with supermarket chains and other retailers. In every case, the agency office has continued to offer the full range of services which had been provided at the Crown offices that it replaced. There has been no downgrading of the service, and agency office staff are fully trained by Post Office Counters to the same standard as its own staff.
In view of the cost savings that the conversion of Crown post offices to agency status is delivering, Post Office Counters plans to continue with the programme as suitable opportunities arise. Where such an opportunity is identified, the Post Office will always consult publicly on individual proposals in accordance with a code of practice agreed with the Post Office Users National Council.
The code provides that whenever plans to convert a Crown office to an agency operation are being formulated, the district manager advises the local Member of Parliament and a range of representative bodies of the proposals. At local level, these include the district council, the county or regional council, the parish and rural community council, and where appropriate, the local Post Office advisory committee and the local chamber of commerce.
The Post Office Users National Council is also advised, but, rightly, the emphasis is on seeking local views and comments within a stipulated period. The period is generally one month, but understand that it is frequently extended by a further week or two when extra time is needed to obtain and submit local comments.
322 It has to be recognised, however, that the Post Office looks to the public consultation process to identify any special local circumstances which may have been overlooked in formulating its conversion proposal. If this is the case, plans are modified accordingly. However, it is not putting its proposal to a local vote, as is sometimes presumed. In general, in the Post Office's experience, there tends to be a natural and understandable opposition to any change in what is widely regarded as a traditional institution.
There is a curiously common pattern with these conversions. Proposals which are initially seen as unwelcome and detrimental to service levels and convenience are, once the change has been made, quickly seen to have positive benefits. Independent research has been undertaken into customer reaction to 21 conversions that have taken place in the past two years. That research is conducted on seven criteria—convenience, accessibility, waiting time, speed of handling transactions, staff attitude, staff welcome and convenience of opening hours. For the first six of those criteria, the research showed that for each customer who considers that service has deteriorated, five consider that it has improved and a further five perceive no change.
On opening hours, 67 per cent. of the customers questioned consider them to be better than before, 32 per cent. consider them to be about the same and a mere 1 per cent. consider them worse. That is a consistent pattern which provides a convincing endorsement of the conversion programme and the high levels of service provided by our franchise post offices.
My hon. Friend has forcefully made his views clear about the consultation process in the case of the Pitsea post office. His view results largely from widespread misinterpretation of the essential nature of the consultation process. As I said earlier, it is not intended to be a popular vote, but a means of identifying any factors and concerns which the Post Office has not fully appreciated in drawing up its plans.
In the case of Pitsea, I understand that specific concerns raised during the consultation process relating to better lighting, clearance of overgrown shrubbery on the pathway approach and the provision of more disabled parking spaces have been jointly addresssed by the Post Office and Tesco in the final arrangements for the franchise operation with the opening of the new facility on 11 October. Post office services are now offered for 79 hours a week, compared with 46 hours a week under previous arrangements—a facility which I hope will provide an increased service to a number of my hon. Friend's constituents.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the case of Laindon Crown post office. He has reported to me the speculation about the future of this post office in wake of the changes at Pitsea. Post Office Counters has confirmed that, contrary to reports of a relocation to a new Tesco store at Dunton, the post office facility in Laindon will remain on the present site for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, I repeat that the decision to convert individual Crown post offices to agency status are the operational responsibility of Post Office Counters. The Government, however, fully support the Crown conversion programme for the important contribution that it makes towards reducing the business overheads in the interests of taxpayers and the Post Office's clients and customers.
323 Franchise offices and sub-post offices are generally more efficient than the directly run Crown post offices, but the financial benefits are not being achieved at the expense of quality to the public. Service provisions and standards remain the same or better and, after some initial reluctance of customers to face the change, within a short period the new arrangements are almost universally accepted as providing a worthwhile and positive benefit. I see no reason why that should not be the case at Pitsea.
324 I believe that residents can confidently look forward to continuing provision of excellent post office facilities in the town. However, I would be wholly wrong to say to my hon. Friend that I do not recognise the serious strength of feeling that he has expressed here tonight in the Chamber and I will certainly draw it to the attention of both the chief executive and the chairman of the Post Office in the hope that my hon. Friend will receive a better response to any future dealings he may have on the matter than he has in the past.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Two o'clock.