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
| 
