Post offices - securing their future - Business and Enterprise Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by Peter Horne

  Having had in this Carrington district of Nottingham the experience in 2008 of closure of our local post office, despite a vigorous and on-going campaign, and despite numerous letters and representations during the so-called consultation process, it is clear that closure of a successful urban post office has very deleterious effects on the local community and local businesses (which have lost trade in the absence of a nearby post office). This particular closure appears to have followed a hidden agenda based on an incomplete analysis and various factual inaccuracies; and it is appalling and discriminatory that Post Office Limited (according to a spokesman) adamantly refuses to reopen a single closed urban post office anywhere.

  Therefore, I submit:

  1.  That it is very important to make every effort in these difficult times to keep post offices and local postal services open and available, using a more imaginative approach than has been the case hitherto, with government and the BERR Department taking a more active role rather than allowing Post Office Limited to be judge and jury in its own case. Provision of postal and related services is an essential component holding together the fabric of society.

  Post offices should continue to provide a range of government services, such as payment of pensions and benefits, renewal of DVLA tax discs, and so on. If such services are removed from post offices it is hardly surprising that their income declines and post offices become less profitable or unprofitable. But nevertheless the profit motive should not be the deciding factor, because post offices are and should be a service to society at large; not everyone uses them regularly these days, but for those who do use them regularly post offices are a vital part of their life. They are vital also for large numbers of small businesses.

  It is desirable that local authorities be encouraged to support local post offices and provide a range of local services in them through computer terminals and other means (such as, over-the-counter, and hotlines to council departments), especially as in some districts it would be wrong to assume that every household or individual has access to a functioning computer with internet connection.

  Because of the social importance of post offices nationwide it is imperative that government and/or local authorities find ways of subsidising local post offices. The level of subsidy would have to be determined after an independent survey of income and profitability across all post offices or a wide cross-section of them.

  If Post Office Limited continues to be intransigent about closing and not reopening popular and profitable post offices (and it is apparent that across the country numbers of profitable post offices have been closed for unstated reasons, or reasons of supposed commercial competition with other post offices, which is ridiculous), then I suggest that an association of semi-independent "Community Post Shops" should be set up. On behalf of these post shops the Community Post Shop Association could run an efficient and economical administrative centre on their behalf, buying in for them at competitive rates such things as stamps, franking and weighing equipment, time-locked safes, Royal Mail collections, and computer terminals connected to a central server. These post shops would also provide access to government and local services, with other retail functions according to the inclinations of each post shop owner/manager. As an alternative to postal orders, which are controlled by Post Office Limited, some sort of cash-on-demand vouchers or cashable cheques might be introduced, which could additionally be cashed at selected supermarkets—being used in particular for internet and mail-order purchases. Also financial services of various kinds could be available through post shops, backed by government guarantee.

  2.  When post offices close there are hidden costs to the taxpayer, not only the costs of the £multi-million closure programme (equivalent incidentally to many years of subsidy) but also the invisible costs in the on-going decline of local communities and a deteriorating quality of life after closure, as we are experiencing here in Nottingham. Therefore, I submit that it is legitimate to inject an element of taxpayer funding into the provision of local post offices and other post office related services. We do not pay taxes in order to obtain deterioration of services, and post offices are an essential public service even though at present Post Office Limited is run on mainly business-orientated and commercial lines.

  3.  If there is expansion rather than contraction of the services available through post offices, it can reasonably be expected that local people and businesses will use them more, and in our locality it is certain that residents and retailers will come back as returning customers if the post office is reopened.

  4.  Locally we know from impact statements taken in 2008 from retailers near our closed post office that closure has had a severely adverse effect on their businesses. Additionally, from more than 100 written statements and numerous conversations with local residents in the course of undertaking a customer survey and in the course of collecting over 4,000 signatures prior to closure and over 2,000 signatures in favour of reopening after closure (the difference in numbers being indicative of the loss of custom), we know that the overwhelming majority of local people resent bitterly the loss of their local post office and the inconvenience they are now caused. In particular there is a high proportion of disabled and older people in the area who are severely disadvantaged by the absence of a nearby post office, and who are not adequately provided for by more distant and not easily reached or accessible post offices, not to mention the significant extra time it takes to make a visit and complete a transaction. This is also true of mothers with young children. The corollary of this is that if this picture is repeated nationally the presence of local post offices or community post shops is an important factor in promoting social inclusion.

  Post offices or community post shops could and should also be developed (in these times of financial crisis and increasing personal financial hardship) as a secure and trusted haven for savings, banking and financial transactions, given imaginative promotion and government safeguards.

  5.  The level of subsidy for each post office could only be determined after a survey, independent of Post Office Limited as indicated in [1] above, with access to their books, and the level of subsidy (where subsidy was required) ought to be flexible on an annual basis and specific to each post office or post shop.

  As a final point, I should like to say that the Post Office Limited criterion of a minimum separation of one mile between post offices in urban built-up and residential areas is too inflexible and results in unacceptable closures.

January 2009






 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 7 July 2009