---

Post Office Restructuring

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on an excellent and timely report that is of vital interest to all in the House. It is not new for the House to examine the subject. Indeed, not that long ago, I found myself in the same position that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) now finds himself in, expecting to find a way to reflect the deep anxiety that the Government now face because of the serious local consequences that result from their decisions. We are in the thick of it in Cheshire, as we speak. The outreach proposals were quickly taken up by our local newspapers. They are not particularly partisan, and christened them the outrage proposals. There is deep anxiety. People have a fantastic respect for the services that local post offices currently provide in our local communities. When one represents both a mixture of rural and urban areas, including towns, one is conscious of the great adaptability of post offices; the way in which they offer their services is the apex of what it means today to have a community centre. For that reason, post offices have been doing their best to increase their footfall and to be commercial and entrepreneurial. When one looks at the maps sent to us all when such great processes descend upon us, it is interesting to note how flawed and somewhat self-serving the data appear to be. From what has been said already—not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), when he spoke of the fear factor that has crept in, which was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—there is a real sense of divide and rule, with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses having to set themselves up against people who they had thought of as colleagues working to produce a service across the country. I am therefore pleased that, in our campaign in Cheshire, we have been able to defeat those divide-and-rule tactics, and I pay respect to my colleagues. Edward Timpson is working in Crewe and Nantwich, where we are fighting two potential closures in each town; Graham Evans is in Weaver Vale, where we are fighting a closure near Frodsham; and in Chester, Stephen Mosley is fighting six potential closures at Aldford, Brook lane, Brook street, Christleton, Handbridge and Watergate street. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden for visiting Chester recently to support that active campaign. It is important to recognise that it is not only those post offices proposed for closure that are profitable. Those currently proposed for outreach are also profitable, but the arrangements are such that it could tip them into loss. The grave danger is that the outreach programme could be a self-fulfilling prophesy—from postponement through outreach of what was originally meant to be a closure, to potential closure because the economic base of those post offices is being undermined. In my constituency, Hargrave and Meadow Bank post offices are proposed for closure. Unfortunately, it seems that closure will now proceed. However, we have six post offices on the outreach programme: Cholmondeley post office, in the fantastic award-winning farm complex of which the post office is the absolute driver and which was hugely supported two years ago by the Post Office; Delamere; Little Budworth; Threapwood; and Tilston. I visited three of them last Friday. They are all profitable. Indeed, picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown), the owner at Threapwood has trained her assistant so that the post office can be open all the time. If it is to be restricted to a maximum of four hours a week, it will not justify the extra job, yet it could be kept open the whole time on the same basis as the post office in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. At the moment, we have an inflexibility in the discussions and consultations, which is not proving productive and is causing distrust. I am deeply concerned about the flawed nature of the data that we have been given to help us make rational decisions when trying to meet some of the arguments being put out by the Post Office. My constituency has borders with Wales, now regarded by those doing the Government's bidding as a completely different country, and by a different region because my southern border is the regional border with the west midlands. As a result, I have no data about a post office that is only 200 ft away from the post office in my constituency that is being considered for closure. It is a short distance across a roman bridge across the river Dee to get to into Wales and the business would therefore go to the other post office, yet we do not know whether it is being proposed for closure. We do not know what will happen in Shropshire; looking at the dates, it seems that we will have finished our programme by the time Shropshire is scheduled to start. It is clearly a dysfunctional process. The grave danger from the point of view of those affected—the local communities, customers and people in general—is that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. We have described over many debates the sense of community and belonging that post offices provide and the access to services that they give to people. We fear that the consultation is designed by the end rather than as a means for the Government genuinely to listen within the democratic process. That matters, because when we talk about the community, we are dealing with the democratic process. It should not be a crude, blunt commercial decision. Post offices belong to the sense of community, as has often been highlighted. I believe that the fear factor, with the appalling confidentiality constraints placed upon sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, has led to the belief that the intention is to bring to an end any kind of objection. We could have many arguments about the evidence base, but my real concern is what the Post Office has to say. For instance, it wrote in November to the estate manager at Cholmondeley post office:"““London Mayoral elections, and Local Authority Elections in England Wales, will be held in May 2008. As you will be aware, the closure of any Post Office can be highly sensitive and can potentially become a local political issue.””" That is dead right, Minister. It continued:"““For that reason, we have been asked by Government to introduce a freeze on some elements on the Network Change Programme during the run up to these elections. Specifically, we shall not be running any public consultations, nor making any final closure decisions, in the period immediately prior to elections from April 7th to May 2nd next year.””" It is too late. I can tell the Minister that a big political issue is already going on. For those who already despise the Government that is no change, but the Government are adding to the list of people who despise them for forcing upon them a decision with no evidence base for a programme of 2,500 closures. They will put that at the Government's door. The Minister, waiting to answer the debate on a Select Committee report, owes it not only to all those Members who are deeply concerned and who are campaigning on behalf of their constituents, but to the people, as part of the democratic process, to identify where the 2,500—a perfect number—came from, what was the evidence base and why it should be a major benefit to local people, rather than a further diminution of their sense of what is owed to them as members of the local community. I urge the Minister—it is within his gift—to recognise that the best thing to do is to withdraw the 2,500 demand and say that we need to think again. It is a political issue, not a commercial one. The Minister cannot wash his hands of the matter, hiding behind the Post Office or setting up a citizens jury, saying, ““It's not me, guv, it's someone else's problem.”” It is to do with the people that he is required to represent through the Executive. The Executive have made the demand; it is the Executive who have caused the difficulties. We call upon the Minister to withdraw the 2,500 closure programme, so that we can think again. We could then be more rational and sensible of what is valuable to our communities.