Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mr A Fry and Ms P Agar.
The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Ms C M Stalker who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.
Those in favour of the Motion made the following points:
· This motion was concerned with the provision of Royal Mail and Post Office services in the county and how those services could be improved by working together. The difficulties experienced at Mount Pleasant in Redditch and Tenbury Wells showed how the absence (albeit temporary) of post office services impacted on the lives of local people, for example people needing to travelling long distances to return parcels
· There was an issue countywide where post boxes were not always situated in the most appropriate place
· The post office in the Dines Green area of Worcester had been closed without any alternative provision for local residents. The Council could liaise with the Post Office to find alternative solutions and a scrutiny exercise could help to facilitate this
· The closure of the Post Office in Ronkswood area of Worcester had severely impacted the ability of pensioners to access their pensions
· Since the last bout of post office closures some time ago, the main problem had been not so much the closure of post offices but rather the way that post offices were funded
· Any arrangements that would encourage the Post Office to improve its services would be welcomed
· The Chairman of the OSPB commented that the motion merely asked the OSPB to consider undertaking a scrutiny exercise. With its heavy workload, he would not expect the scrutiny exercise to be undertaken immediately and would recommend that OSPB defer any consideration until the next review of the future work programme
· Although there was a role for the local member to provide support for local post office services, there were occasions where the additional gravitas of the Council’s involvement would be necessary.
Those against the Motion made the following points:
· The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented on behalf of the Conservative Group that there was a role for the local councillor to champion local post offices. It was not appropriate for Council to make a request that the OSPB to change its work programme (which had been agreed by Council in September 2019)
· There were examples in the county where post office services had improved, with opening hours extended and banking services provided. The extent of post offices services provision was a commercial matter for the Post Office and not relevant to scrutiny
· Although scrutiny was not the appropriate route for this issue, the Council should continue to make representations to the Post Office, particularly concerning the provision of services in hard-to-reach areas
· This issue had already been raised at OSPB and had been rejected due to its heavy work-load
· In light of the Chairman of the OSPB’s comments, the motion seemed unnecessary as he had accepted that the issue could be added to the work programme at a later date.
On being put to the vote, the Motion was lost,