Pursuing justice and fairness

Tweet

 

As others have pointed out, the furore over the Post Office Horizon scandal has demonstrated that government can act quickly (well, comparatively quickly – even now they’re talking of passing an act of parliament ‘by the end of the year’) when the level of outrage reaches a sufficient level. What it has also demonstrated – to rather less attention – is the converse: if the outrage does not reach a sufficient level, then the default position (regardless of the colour of the government) is to drag feet, obfuscate, and hope that the issue goes away when the campaigners get fed up or die waiting for action. Of course no two scandals are the same. They all differ in scale and impact. But Horizon is not the only long-running scandal where people have lost their financial security – closer to home, one which immediately comes to mind is the Allied Steel and Wire Pensions case, where those affected have run a persistent campaign for years, including regular letters in the columns of the Western Mail. And, no matter the nature of the differences, an injustice is an injustice.

It raises the question about what level of outrage is ‘sufficient’ to make government act. Clearly an effective drama-documentary helps a great deal, as does unfavourable coverage of politicians in the media, particularly the media usually regarded as supportive. Being in an election year is another advantage, as is the fact that those affected are spread across the UK impacting many constituencies, not just a few in what looks to London like far-away Cardiff. But one of the measures that politicians use to judge the extent of what they like to call ‘cut-through’ is the size of their postbag on an issue. It is a remarkably unsophisticated and misleading measurement, however. As an example of its use as a measure (not related to an injustice in this case), I seem to remember Mark Drakeford saying recently that whilst he received a large volume of correspondence in the immediate aftermath of introducing the 20mph speed limits, that had now dropped off, with the implicit suggestion that people were now accepting the change. Now, as it happens, I agree with the new limits (although the government could and should have done more to persuade and inform people in advance), but leaving that aside, let’s consider the proposition that reducing postbags reflect reducing concern. I may be willing to write an occasional cross letter to a minister, elected member, local authority, or even newspaper, but most people are not. Social media makes it easier to sign petitions, but it’s still, generally, a minority sport. Inevitably, the number of letters received will peak at some point, usually immediately after the proposal receives attention and/or gets implemented. But (unless the same people keep on writing, in which case they’ll get labelled as persistent complainers), once people have signed the petition, or written their cross letter, there is an inevitability about a decline in the number of complaints which is nothing to do with increased acceptance of the situation, whatever that might be.

Even more important than assessing whether the level of outrage is sufficient to provoke action is the wider question about whether action should depend on the level of outrage in the first place. An injustice doesn’t cease to be one just because the affected individual is the only one raising it. For sure, some MPs and MSs are quite good at pursuing matters on behalf of constituents, but many are not, especially if the number affected is low and there are no good photo-ops available. Or their seat is a safe one. Should we, in any event, really be dependent on individual elected members to provide such a service? After all, it isn’t really what legislators are elected for – the clue is in the word. We have a plethora of ombudspersons for various bodies and sectors, but they are not always easily accessible, and seem to work at an incredibly slow pace. There is a gap which Citizens Advice Bureaux attempt to fill, but should we really be dependent either on volunteers/charities or political figures and their staff to act as tribunes for citizens? Politicians frequently talk about ‘holding people to account’, but there should be more to that than public criticism after the event. The Post Office scandal underlines that we haven’t got it right yet. It’s still far too difficult for individuals to ensure that they are treated justly and fairly.

Organ-grinder revealed

Tweet The news that the Post Office will be allowed to retain the Post Office Card Account (POCA) is, of course, good news for what is left of the post office network in our rural areas. The government have, on this occasion, made the right decision.

That does not mean, of course, that there are no questions to be answered. I haven't a clue how much it has cost to allow the tendering process to go as far as it did before changing policy. But there has certainly been a cost to that process - and not just a financial cost. I know that many sub-postmasters have been extremely worried for their futures, and have been through a fairly stressful period – completely unnecessarily, as it now transpires.

And I do wonder whether, if this knowledge had been available before the recent round of closures, some of the outcomes might have been different. Some of the postmasters who decided not to fight the closure programme, for instance, would have done so on the basis of a calculation as to what was the risk that they might have been affected by any withdrawal of the POCA – and will have been asking themselves whether the terms of retirement might then be less favourable.

So, although the government decision is the right one, the timing has probably made the closure programme a little easier for the government than it might have been had the certainty of the POCA been assured earlier.

The decision was announced by the government. Quite rightly so, since it is the government which took the decision. But am I the only one to notice that when a popular decision is made about the post office, the government announce it and take the credit; but when it's an unpopular decision, the Post Office is left to take the brunt of the public's wrath?

There were times during the recent campaigns to keep post offices open where I actually felt quite sorry for the post office managers. They were left to defend and explain a decision taken by others. Not only did the government not give them very much support, but Labour MPs up and down the country actually joined in the criticism of the post office – attacking them, in essence, for a decision which their own government had made. It was cynical and dishonest – and taking the credit this time round serves only to make it look even more cynical and dishonest.

Post Office Disappointment

Tweet The Post Office has now confirmed its plans to close post offices at Talog, Trelech and Llanboidy, despite the efforts of local campaigners to save them. It's a huge disappointment, but I can't honestly say that it's a surprise. Given the guidelines and instructions given to the Post Office by the Government, it was always hard to see how they could both listen to local communities and obey the government's instructions.

In this case, given that they're in government, Labour must inevitably take the brunt of the responsibility; but the Tories don't come out of it at all well either, and not just because they closed thousands of post offices themselves when in government.

From the outset, Labour MPs were on something of a hiding to nothing. After all, there is no real debate about the fact that the programme has emanated from the government, rather than from the Post Office. The line taken by our local Labour MP was a very simple one. He claims that he didn't actually vote for the closure programme; what he voted for was the financial package which backs up the closure programme, and without which the closure programme couldn’t go ahead. Bit of a fine distinction to me.

And although he supported the government, and the government has told the post office to close 2,500 post offices, that didn't prevent him objecting to any and all of the closures if they were in his constituency, on the basis that the Post Office had chosen the 'wrong ones' to close. Presumably therefore, he'd be happy if they were all in someone else's constituency. And he repeatedly insisted that the Post Office was supporting 'too large a network' and had to become 'more efficient'. To me, and many other, it all sounded like support for the plans.

The Tory line suffered from a few problems as well. The Post Office has lost a lot of business because it's been put out to tender by the Government. So, claimed one Tory, it's the Post Office's fault for tendering too high. Well, er, no, not quite. The Government has told them to cut their losses, so how exactly does cutting their prices help them - especially when their competitors are able to offer 'loss leaders' in order to win business?

In case that isn't entirely clear, let me put it in these terms – the government is closing post offices because they're making a loss, because the government has taken business away from them and given it to private companies who are probably also making a loss on the same business.

Now it sounds at first as if the real crazies here are the companies who are taking on business at a loss; but there's method in their madness. The more business they take from the post office, the more the post office network shrinks; and the more the post office network shrinks, the more business there is for the private companies to win. And, when they've succeeded in closing the post office down more or less completely, they'll be able to raise their prices again, won't they?

Closing a first class network of outlets for government services in order to pass the work over to the private sector is a classic example of LabourTory short-sightedness.

Just as a PS - One of the lines peddled by our Conservative AM was that she knows from personal experience how damaging that it is to local communities when their post office is closed, since the office in her village has already been closed. One slight problem with this empathy – her post office was closed by the Conservative government. I'd be more convinced if I thought a future Tory Government would behave any differently.

More on Post Offices

Tweet Talking about post offices must be starting to look like something of an obsession, I'm sure. But with 25 down for closure across Carmarthenshire - a wholly disproportionate share of the 2,500 for the whole of the UK – and a six week consultation period, it is inevitably very high on the agenda locally.

Last night I was at a meeting in Llangathen, in the Carmarthen East constituency; this time as an interpreter to provide a simultaneous translation into English for the benefit of those not able to understand Welsh.

It didn't surprise me to find that the Labour parliamentary candidate was issuing a leaflet opposing the closure. What was a bit of a surprise, however, was to find that it used the same design and wording as those issued by the MP for Carmarthen West - only the village name and the name of the publisher was any different. I had naively assumed that it was a local campaign by Labour in one constituency; it now looks like a co-ordinated campaign across a wider area.

I thought it was bad enough in one constituency to be arguing in favour of the plan, but against every individual closure; to be doing so on a widespread basis across the country starts to look like pre-meditated dishonesty. And they wonder why people are cynical about politicians.

PS – As with any good campaign, there are always moments of comedy. My second favourite to date was Dai Trelech, the 'character' who represents the Trelech ward on the county council, referring to the outreach service as the 'out-of-reach' service. But the best has to be the report by the post office on Llansteffan post office which said that the nearest branch was only one and a half miles away – in Ferryside. That's one of those pieces of information which is perfectly true, but utterly useless (except to a crow) unless someone is proposing to reinstitute the long-gone ferry service.

Another day, another post office

Tweet On to Talog last night for another extremely well-attended meeting. Talog is another small village facing the loss of its post office. Taking the post office closure proposals as a whole locally (Llanboidy, Trelech, Talog, Blaenwaun), there's a huge sweep of the northern part of this constituency which will be left with no fixed post offices at all, just a travelling van.

We had the usual speech from the local MP about how he supports the plans and processes in principle, but the post office have got this particular one wrong. I now have a collection of three near-identical leaflets from him explaining why it's wrong to close _____ post office, and in all of them he claims that the post office is "forgetting the most important factor (...in the future of ___ Post Office...) - the wishes of local people".

Er, no, Nick. Not the post office – your government told them the criteria to use, and that wasn't one of them. The post office isn't allowed to take people's wishes into account – if it were they would never achieve the government-imposed target of around 2,500 closures, because no community 'wishes' its post office to close. Neither was the impact of the changes on the environment one of the factors involved – particularly the extra travelling that people will have to do.

Ultimately, that's why this whole consultation process is badly flawed – because the consultation isn't about the programme, or the decisions already taken on which that programme is based, or the criteria used to make those decisions. It's limited to which post offices should close, with the inherent danger that we end up pitting communities against each other instead of making common cause against a bad government decision.

From Llanboidy to Trelech

Tweet Another big turnout from the local community on Friday night, this time in Trelech, another village whose post office is earmarked for closure. The community centre was packed as people made their views known on the post office's plans. In the case of Trelech, it seems beyond doubt that, if the post office goes, so will the only shop in the village, which will become unsustainable without the post office salary.

Our local MP was there, ready to help the village oppose the closure. But hold on, isn't it his government that's behind the closures? His line is an interesting one, outlined in Llanboidy a week ago and repeated in Trelech. He fully supports the plans of the government to make the post office a viable business, and to oblige the post office to close 2,500 offices. But the post office have got it wrong by picking the wrong ones, so it's their fault, not the government's. Used for one post office in one village, it might be credible; applied to every village where there is a campaign to keep the post office open, it starts to look a bit like "I'm in favour of closing post offices, as long as they're in someone else's constituency".

The point is that we face a very simple choice. As long as politicians and governments are wedded to the idea that the post office must become a viable, profitable business as though it were in the private sector, then closures are inevitable. The debate we're having in village after village is purely about which offices will be sacrificed to achieve that. The debate we should be having is whether the post office is also providing an essential service for which we should be willing to contribute from our taxes. That would be a much more meaningful discussion.

Llanboidy United

Tweet There was a magnificent meeting in Llanboidy on Friday, where some 250-300 local people came together in an attempt to save their post office. There were a number of politicians there, of course, but what absolutely shone through was the huge effort being made by the local community themselves to save their facilities.

They had even produced a DVD which included a presentation which forensically challenged many of the post office's assertions, and a series of interviews with local people about the importance of their post office. The Post Office asked for a copy, and I hope that they will study it very carefully indeed.

This is a campaign which deserves to succeed, and if it does succeed, it will be first and foremost because of local community action. I'm sure that some politicians will attempt to claim credit for any success - but it was obvious to me, and I'm sure most of those there, who will really make the difference.

It's consultation, Jim,

Tweet …but not as we know it.

The post office closure programme has now reached Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, with a total of ten post offices across this constituency earmarked for closure or downgrading. It’s already rolled through Powys, as Glyn Davies has posted on more than one occasion. Closing the post offices is only part of the danger. Many post offices are operated as part of local shops; the post office salary often makes the difference between viability and failure; so it’s not just post offices that we could be losing.

What’s really staggering is how little real scope there is for local views to influence the process. All the key decisions have already been made, and they’ve been made not by the post office, but by the government. The government has decided how many post offices will close, the government has decided that the closures will be compulsory rather than by agreement, and the government has set the criteria for closure. (The government, of course, is the only shareholder in the Post Office.)

The Post Office have been left holding a consultation exercise in which the only real question is whether they’ve selected the right ones to close, and in which the grounds for challenging those decisions are very limited. It’s hardly a meaningful consultation exercise about an issue which will have a major impact on a large number of rural communities.

Listening to representatives of the Post Office explaining the process and their decisions to community councillors last night, I was reminded of the words of Aneurin Bevan – “There is no reason to attack the monkey when the organ-grinder is also present”. The problem is that on this occasion the organ grinder was very much absent, obviously happy to let the monkey take the flak (with no disrespect intended to the Post Office representatives).

Of course our post offices are facing some real problems as the number of people visiting them has fallen and the amount of business which they transact has reduced. Again, however, the hand of government lurks behind much of this. It isn't an accident that services such as TV licensing were removed from Post Offices; it’s a deliberate decision. Government, and its agencies, have chosen to use services such as PayPoint in preference to using post offices. And the threat of removing the Post Office Card Account from post offices is another potential blow.

It is claimed that the government are acting to reduce the £150 million subsidy which they pay to the Post Office. However, the value of services withdrawn from Post Offices by government decision was £168 million in 2006/7.

Closure isn’t an inevitable fact of life, but it is an inevitable result of government decisions, past and present. A truly meaningful consultation, and a truly meaningful commitment to protecting post offices would involve a review of those government decisions, not an assumption that they are inviolate. We need the organ grinder to listen as well.

PS I don’t know quite what to make of the Tories’ position on this issue. They are making a lot of the right noises, but how sincere are they? They did, after all, close 3,500 post offices themselves when they were in government, and they are still banging on about reducing government expenditure (such as the subsidy being paid to post offices?) and taxes. So how would they fund the network?