HearFromYourMP

Previous message | Messages for this constituency | Next message

Post Office consultation

Posted by Lynne Featherstone, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, at 12:31, Wed 2 April 2008:

I thought you'd like to see what I wrote in my submission to the Post Office on their disgraceful plans to close 5 local Post Offices. If you still want to respond in person youself then you have one last chance. Email consultation@postoffice.co.uk by midnight tonight.

Here is my response:

As Member of Parliament for Hornsey & Wood Green I would like to submit the following response to the consultation on the proposed closures of sub-post offices in Alexandra Park (N10), Salisbury Road (N22), Weston Park (N8), Ferme Park Road (N4) and Highgate High Street (N6) - this last being in Hampstead & Highgate constituency but one side of the main high street - which equally affects my constituents.

I enclose responses of those constituents who have sent in their views to me by email and by post.

All the proposed closures will adversely affect my constituents in terms of access, hardship, impact on local economy, impact on neighbouring shops, home workers and so on. The local network was already pared down to a minimum in the last round of 'voluntary' closures and these further proposals will, in varying degrees, lead to a diminution (possibly death) of a locally sustainable community hub. One key issue will be the sustainability of local/micro shopping centres that rely heavily on the footfall generated by Post Offices. If they go then other shops on these parades will become more marginal and less able to survive in a retail environment where they are more and more under fire from the big out of town supermarkets. We risk empty shop units which in turn lead to vandalism etc.

The proposed closures will also deliver a devastating impact on small businesses and home workers who rely on having a local Post Office in order to carry out their commercial activities. This was acknowledged in the Post Office’s own Counter Revolutions report which stated that nine out of ten small local businesses rely on such a facility.

On the broader issues, much is made of alternative services at other offices when deciding which branches to close. But little account is taken of the contribution made to social cohesion by the PO network. How can this be reconciled in a Borough that calls down and spends £10m's each year on regeneration projects to tackle these issues? This is not joined up thinking.

Whist the Government has considered the 'financial loss' sustained by the current level of 14,000 Post Offices across the country, it does not appear to have done (or the Post Office as its implementation arm) any work on the individual costs to people in the extra time that will be spent in accessing the proposed alternative or the extra time incurred with longer wait times at those alternatives for those already customers at the proposed alternative locations. I would suggest that work should be carried out so that the public who are affected by these proposals can see the cost / benefits properly. As it stands the benefit is to the Post Office and the cost is to local people. Quantifying that cost would be instructive and shed more light on the real cost of the suggested closures.

The accuracy of the information on the 'branch access report' is variable which must cast doubt on the basis on which decisions are being made. Moreover, the suggestions in terms of alternatives in some cases are laughable - demonstrating a lack of accurate assessment or knowledge of the alternative branches, their capacity and their suitability.

In my response I address the criteria as laid down by the Post Office consultation team in relationship to each of the proposed closures that affect my constituents. The Consultation Team will receive a huge response to their consultation for each of the proposed closures affecting my constituents. I trust that the individual stories that people will tell of the personal affect of the proposed closure on them will have a positive outcome in the final decision.

I assume that the responses will be analysed and that they will be available to public scrutiny and that decisions taken post-consultation will be demonstrated to have taken count of the responses.

I understand that petitions will be counted as one submission. If the Royal Mail Chief Executive received a letter signed by 300 staff in HQ, would they dismiss it as "just one letter"? If that is the case, I would argue strongly that is unacceptable as these petitions are gathered locally by users of each Post Office and not everyone is able to respond to a written consultation with their personal story. I met many such people on my visits to my local Post Offices and would suggest that petitions be given a proper weighting to take count of them and not any diminution of their strength of feeling. Many older people, often the most affected by the proposals, will not write an individual letter but will sign a petition. Freedom of Information will be used to hold the Post Office to account for the decisions it makes.

I then made a series of detailed points regarding each of the 5 Post Offices marked for closure specficaly.

Thank you to all of you who responded to our petitions and consultations. My fingers are crossed!

Kind regards Lynne