Moore concerned over damning post office closures report

Monday, 16, Nov 2009 12:00

Borders MP Michael Moore has renewed his criticism of the Government’s Post Office Network Change Programme, after a recent report by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee issued a damning assessment of the process.

The report, published last week, is particularly critical of the consultation process, suggesting that “local concerns about the scale of the Programme were in effect ignored” because the number of closures had been pre-determined, and warned that this could bring the consultation process into “disrepute”. The Committee also branded the social and economic assessment of the impact of closures as “inadequate”.

The report also highlighted that the closure programme was the only part of the Post Office’s four part efficiency savings drive expected to make a loss between 2006-07 and 2010-11, and would make the smallest impact on future profitability. The Committee has said that in view of the modest financial benefits and the upheaval that closures cause to communities, they should be a last resort in future.

Mr Moore is a longstanding opponent of the network change programme and voted against the Government’s post office closures when they were debated in the House of Commons last year.

Commenting, Mr Moore said:

‘The findings of this report will not come as much of a shock to people living in Greenlaw, Yetholm, and other parts of the Borders which lost out when the network change programme was implemented. The Government’s post office closures have had a devastating impact on communities across the South of Scotland.

‘I am astonished that Ministers chose to press ahead with the closures in the face of strong opposition from local residents before any firm conclusions on the social and economic impact of these changes had been reached. It is now clear that the original consultation process was more about saving face than considering serious alternatives to the Government’s plans.

‘The fact that Ministers are finally listening to those of us who argued the Post Office should be given more Government business is to be welcomed, although if this step had been taken when first suggested these damaging closures may not have even been considered.’