APPENDIX 8
Memorandum by the National Consumer Council
The National Consumer Council welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to this inquiry. The Government has already
recognised the vital social function that the post office provides
to vulnerable consumers through its recent announcement for continued
support for the rural post office network. A recent survey[5]
revealed that elderly and lower income consumers ranked the post
office as their second top local service, only just trailing traditionally
popular local health services. Post office closures of any type
have an effect on local users, therefore the NCC is keen to see
that any closure programme is carried out in a way that is fair,
giving sufficient weight to the social impact that any reduction
in service may have on all consumers, particularly vulnerable
individuals. We consider that essential services that are so well
trusted and held in high regard by these groups should be maintained
wherever possible.
While we understand the need for the post office
to rationalise its operations to a certain extent, we are concerned
at the un-co-ordinated approach that has been taken in trying
to achieve this. We do not think that it is in the consumer's
best interests to have a Crown post office closure programme running
in isolation from the urban reinvention and rural closure programme.
This could inflict further costs and inconvenience on consumers
who have already experienced the closure of their local sub-post
office. This will hit vulnerable and low-income individuals particularly
hard.
We were unable to identify cases where consultation
responses had been successful in preventing a crown office closure,
or cases where an alternative solution to closure had been found.
This suggests that the current arrangements for consultation may
not be working effectively for consumers. Therefore we suggest
that the consultation system should be reviewed. More specifically,
in order to take account of social need independently of the post
office's economic targets, the NCC believes that there should
be an independent adjudicator appointed to make the final decision
on the future of a crown office (directly managed branch) where
the closure is disputed.
We understand that the post office is considering
franchising the operations of some Crown post offices. This course
of action does not guarantee post office services for the local
community in the long term. A number of sub-post offices have
been closed down where a major retailer has taken over a smaller
chain or local shop and not wanted to continue providing post
office services. It is possible that a similar outcome could occur
with franchised branches. It is also possible that once a franchise
comes to an end the holder might not renew it. Failure to find
someone to take on the franchise could result in a withdrawal
of post office services from the local area. We do not think that
this is an ideal solution. We would seek a commitment from the
post office to re-establish direct management of post office branches
if a franchise is not a sustainable option.
Finally, we are concerned at the wider impact
on the local economy that a Crown office closure is likely to
have. It is likely to contribute to falling revenue for local
businesses and long-term service reduction for consumers through
shop closures. This increases the barriers to accessing goods
and services for vulnerable and low-income consumers, who trust
and rely heavily on their local post office as a source of information
and social contact as well as service provision. I enclose a copy
of NCC's recent consultation pack Why do the Poor Pay more
. . . or get less? which highlights the importance of post
offices in the areas of social and financial exclusion.
We hope that the committee is able to take on
board our concerns about the latest round of post office closures.
3 November 2004
5 National Consumer Council, Halloween Omnibus Survey:
October 2004. Table 1b. Back
| 
