Memorandum submitted by South Hams District
Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Post Office Network Closure Programme
has generated a highly emotive, negative response from the residents
of the South Hams. It is seen as a big blow to the heart of many
rural communities whose access to services is already limited.
In those frequent cases where a post office outlet listed for
closure has been linked to a sole village shop, the overall viability
of that critical retail service is severely threatened to the
point of failure and closure as a result. In such cases, a double-blow
threatens the sustainability and viability of the affected communities
themselves.
2. There is a sense that the Post Office
has been decimated by the withdrawal of important products over
the years and that vulnerable (the elderly, immobile, and generally
disadvantaged) consumers in the deprived rural areas have consequently
suffered. The network clearly needs to offer a wider range of
core services, not to have them systematically removed. It is
self-fulfilling that footfall and revenues have fallen under these
circumstances.
3. To secure the future of a viable Post
Office Network requires the long-term establishment of a range
of core services and the reintroduction of many that have been
lost in the past. Its much trusted brand needs reinforcement to
ensure its customers are aware of the extent of such services.
The unrivalled network is well-placed to deliver opportunities
to transact with local authorities and other public sector agencies.
The PO Card Account contract must be maintained and a giro bank
equivalent reinstated. This requires central government commitment
over the longer term.
SUBMITTER'S
INTRODUCTION
4. Michael Cozens (South Hams District Council's
Economic Development Officer)—lead officer on Post Office
Network Change Programme and member of Devon & Torbay Post
Office Task Force.
FACTUAL INFORMATION—ABOUT
THE SOUTH
HAMS
5. South Hams comprises 350 square
miles with a population of 82,000 people, two-thirds of whom
live outside the larger towns of Dartmouth, Ivybridge, Kingsbridge,
and Totnes. The population is expected to grow to nearly 90,000 by
2010 with particular pressure in the western part of the
district (including a new sustainable community at Sherford).
6. Perceptions of South Hams as an area
of social and economic advantage disguise deep rooted problems
for local communities—low wages, decline in traditional
industries, social isolation, and difficulty in accessing services,
information, and transport. The sparsely populated nature of the
district results in services being more costly to provide, leading
to an over-reliance on private transport. Deprivation also exists
within many small villages that lack facilities such as schools,
shops, and post offices, resulting in significant rural isolation.
7. The age structure of the district is
heavily weighted towards older people, a trend that is predicted
to increase. This has significant implications for the future
delivery of health, social and rural services generally.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION—RESPONSE
FROM SOUTH
HAMS DISTRICT
COUNCIL
1. What Services should the Post Officer
offer:
from government?
Universal re-introduction of lost or curtailed
services—DVLA, pension receipts, utility bill payments,
sale of TV licenses, driving licenses, passport applications (all
without discrimination over technological alternatives)
from local authorities?
Introduce facility for payment of—benefit
receipts, council tax payments, rents/mortgages, fines, passes,
and other public service bills
from other sources, including services in competition
with Royal Mail Group?
Royal Mail Group restrictions on trade appear
anti-competitive; POL/SPM contracts must be far more flexible
to allow post offices opportunities to compete in the marketplace.
For example, only certain high street bank cards are accepted.
Furthermore, there is a clear market opportunity to re-establish
the equivalent of a national giro bank, a Postbank (as in mainland
Europe) that could be founded upon the most-trusted Post Office
brand at a time when consumer confidence in private financial
institutions is particularly low. Such services, alongside the
existing financial services, should be better promoted.
2. How much account should be taken of:
(a) costs to the taxpayer in providing
services through the Post Office rather than through cheaper channels?
Cost and value are very distinct and separate
entities. We believe that government and POL have seriously under-estimated
the community/social value of network as a multi-faceted hub for
individuals and businesses. Given the freedom to compete and the
introduction/re-instatement of services, the current level of
government subsidy stands to become increasingly less necessary;
moreover, that current level of subsidy pales close to insignificance
in the light of recent government intervention in the UK's banking
system.
(b) consumer preference for alternative
channels?
At present and is some instances, the removal
of a range of previously offered post office services has resulted
not necessarily in consumers indicating a "preference"
but rather consumers exercising choice from a range of diminishing
options. Furthermore, government should not under-estimate the
requirements of those individuals for whom "alternative channels"
are not an option—the vulnerable, the elderly, the immobile,
and those who are generally disadvantaged.
3. To what extent would the desire for the
presence of a Post Office or post office services translate into
actual use of those services?
More and extended services (as above) provide
more reasons for patrons to visit the local outlet. The Post Office
is a much-trusted brand; current loss of confidence in private
financial institutions present government and POL with an excellent
opportunity to react positively to unsteady market conditions.
4. What are the impacts of the availability
of post office facilities for businesses and local residents and,
in particular, how significant is the network in aiding social
and financial inclusion?
The Post Office is a trusted national institution
with greater coverage than any other single financial operator,
despite the most recent closure programme. The impacts of availability
are entirely positive, not least in the rural areas, as part of
the social fabric of our communities, as provider of essential
services often alongside a single, critical, convenience retail
outlet. Diminution of coverage is entirely negative, requiring
individuals and businesses to travel further to access comparable
services; this runs contrary to current government thinking on
the need for sustainable communities.
5. What level of subsidy (if any) per Post
Office would be reasonable in the long term—for example,
should it be £20,000 or £200,000?
If the suggestions above, not least the incentive
to allow free competition, are adopted—then the need for
subsidy is likely to diminish. Similarly, extended services offered
universally would provide an improved opportunity for sub-postmasters
to generate more sustainable businesses. However, POL should adopt
a policy of enabling that transition with greater contract flexibility
and more equitable remuneration arrangements. If subsidies at
some level remain necessary, sufficient justification should be
found in the broader socio-economic function provided by post
offices in generating genuinely sustainable communities. Should
all post offices automatically receive full business rate relief?
In the light of the above comments, we would
urge government not to permit any further post office closure
programmes.
It may also be the case that POL and Royal Mail
should be re-amalgamated and that the conclusions in the Hooper
report rejected. There appears to be independent support, albeit
indirectly, in the very current Matthew Taylor report that is
based upon the concepts of sustainability and social cohesion
of which the post office is an undeniable contributor.
February 2009
| 
