Agenda item

Representatives of Post Office Ltd and Postwatch (the consumer watchdog), Mr R W Gough, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence; and Mr A Wilkinson, Managing Director, Environment and Regeneration, have been invited to attend the meeting at 10.10 am to discuss this item.

(1)       Representatives of Post Office Ltd (Mr Gary Herbert, Network Development Manager; Ms Martine Munby, Senior External Relations Manager; and Mr Craig Tuthill, Regional Development Manager) and of Postwatch (Mr Andy Burrows, National Policy Group; Ms Marie Casey, South East Network Adviser; and Mr Ray Holdstock, South East Vice-Chair); Mr R W Gough, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence; Mr S Gibbons, Head of Rural Regeneration; and Mrs E Haswell, Economic Development Officer, Environment and Regeneration Directorate, attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       In answer to questions and comments from Members of the Committee, the representatives of Post Office Ltd (POL) provided the following information:-

·              POL would be sending a consultation pack containing full details of the closures proposed for Kent to all interested parties, including the County Council, the Federation of Small Businesses and Chambers of Commerce, to arrive on 2 October.  The County Council’s pack would be addressed to the Chief Executive.  The contents of the consultation pack would also be published on POL’s website on 2 October.

·              POL would not be consulting on the principle of closing Post Office branches (because that had already been decided) but, given that a certain number of branches would have to close, and there was very little flexibility about this number, POL were keen to obtain the County Council’s views on achieving the best network for Kent, post-closures.

·              To this end, in addition to the material already provided by the County Council, POL would welcome information about the location of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs); home-based businesses; proposals for major infrastructure and proposals for major development.

·              As part of the consultation pack POL would provide ‘customer transaction data’ for each branch, but would not be able to provide financial information because this was related to the business of the individual sub-postmaster and was therefore confidential to him or her.

·              Representatives of POL were willing to attend a further meeting after 2     October to brief County Councillors on POL’s detailed proposals for Kent.

·              Although the consultation period was only six weeks, sub-postmasters and others who wished to make proposals for the continued operation of branches or outreach options would be allowed a longer period to finalise their proposals.

·              In considering proposals for closure, POL would use the published criteria, weighting each according to a complex scoring system.  Members could be briefed on this if a further meeting was arranged between representatives of POL and KCC.

·              POL would also take account of the accessibility requirements set by Government, and of specific issues relating to individual branches and the communities they served (such as availability of ATMs, etc).

·              The same criteria would apply to both urban and rural branches, and in cases where there were two branches serving the same community.

·              The information about each branch and the community it served would be validated by visits from POL staff.

·              The ‘financial impact’ criterion did not mean that all loss-making branches would have to close.  POL would continue to receive a Government subsidy of £150m pa to keep open loss-making branches whose closure would breach the accessibility requirements.

·              POL confirmed that two of the outreach models were unlikely to be proposed for Kent.  Home service would only be used in tiny, very remote communities.  Mobile Post Offices would only be used where there were a number of isolated communities in a very rural area.  If there were remote communities in Kent which already had a Post Office branch then these were unlikely to meet the criteria for closure.

·              The £1.7bn investment by Government in the network change programme was intended essentially to compensate sub-postmasters whose branches closed.

·              POL used to have a national target for Crown Post Offices that 95% of customers should be served within 5 minutes.  This was still used as a rule of thumb when considering the capacity of any branch.

·              POL would continue to seek to develop new businesses for Post Office branches.  The move into financial services in recent years was a good example of this and the bureau de change business had been particularly successful.

·              POL had not been instrumental in the recent closure of the Post Office at Saltwood.  Changes in the network such as this occurred all the time for all sorts of reasons unconnected with the network change programme.

(3)       The representatives of Postwatch provided the following information:-

·              Postwatch would themselves examine POL’s proposals for network change in Kent (and elsewhere), review the evidence submitted in response to the consultation, and then submit their own comments.

·              In Postwatch’s experience, petitions would not have any effect.  Factual evidence was required in response to POL’s consultation and KCC was in a good position not only to provide this itself, but also to prompt others within local communities to respond to the consultation with factual evidence.

·              Postwatch constantly encouraged POL to innovate on new business opportunities for the branch network and to compete for contracts for the provision of services through the branch network.

·              Postwatch encouraged people to support their local Post Office branch by using the services it provided, and encouraged central and local Government to include POL in their procurement exercises wherever appropriate.

·              Postwatch had formally expressed disappointment that POL had lost the contract from the BBC for issuing TV licences.

(4)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)       the representatives of Post Office Ltd and Postwatch, and Mr Gough, Mr Gibbons and Mrs Haswell, be thanked for attending the meeting to brief the Committee and to answer Members’ questions;

(b)       the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence be requested to share the Post Office consultation information with all Members of the Council as soon as possible after its arrival on 2 October;

(c)        the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence be requested to make arrangements to pass the Post Office consultation information onto all Parish and Town Councils in Kent as soon as possible after its arrival on 2 October;

(d)       in addition to the material already provided by the County Council, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence be recommended to supply to Post Office Ltd information held by KCC about the location of SMEs; home-based businesses; major infrastructure proposals and major development proposals, as requested by the representatives of Post Office Ltd at the meeting;

(e)       the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence be recommended to accept Post Office Ltd’s offer and arrange a meeting as soon as possible after 2 October for their representatives to brief all Members of the Council on their detailed proposals relating to Kent, including the scoring system used to inform the decisions about each individual branch;

(f)         the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence and the Environment and Regeneration Policy Overview Committee be recommended to set up a mechanism involving Members from all parties for examining the Post Office’s proposals and contributing to KCC’s response to them;

(g)       in drafting KCC’s response, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence and relevant officers be recommended to:-

(i)         take account of the views of the Postwatch representatives at the meeting that petitions were unlikely to carry any weight, and that it was factual evidence that was required; and

(ii)        ensure that urban and rural areas were treated equally.