WITH just over a month to go until Royal Mail opens consultation on the proposed closure of a number of local post office branches in Edinburgh, those opposed to the move are beginning to gear themselves up for a fight.
With anything up to 20 branches in the city deemed to be at risk as part of a nationwide rationalisation programme, emotive claims are being made that thousands will be severely disadvantaged by the reduction in the network. But the reality is that f
ewer people now rely on a post office and in some parts of the country and city there is clear evidence of over-provision.
In times gone by branches provided a valuable social service. The post office was a hub for collecting benefits and state pensions, renewing car tax, obtaining a form for a passport, TV licence and even used by many as a savings bank. But times have changed and as business on the internet has boomed many prefer to do their business in other ways. Four million fewer customers visit a post office than two years ago and one million drivers a month now choose to renew their car tax online. Government business used to generate 60 per cent of all transactions but by 2020 it is forecast this will fall to below ten per cent.
As a result of this change in social trends more than 20 branches have already closed in Edinburgh since 2001. It is unrealistic to expect the Government to continue to subsidise the remainder at its current rate beyond the end of this decade, set against its diminishing reliance on the network.
The decision on which branches will close is likely to be taken on economic and geographic grounds, making it difficult for those who would oppose the closure programme to produce compelling arguments for the retention of any individual unit. And although some members of the council are no doubt well intentioned when they say they may be willing to provide an alternative service in areas where they feel people may be disadvantaged by the closure of a local branch, the reality is that such a move is misguided.
Taking the cost of accommodation and staff into account, if the Post Office and sub-postmasters with all their expertise cannot operate branches at a profit then how can the council expect to?
At a time when the council is short of money and axing vital services for the young and the elderly how could they possibly justify taking over services and running them at a loss?
After all, the council itself discourages people from paying council tax and parking fines via post offices, preferring them to pay by direct debit which it regards as a far more economical method of collection.
