I WRITE in response to your article headed "MP hits at post scare" and wish to refute some of the comments made by Dave Watts in that article.

He suggests that post offices are used far less than they were 20 years ago. Is he aware that some 28 million people visit the post office every week? They go to the post office because it is their choice.

I find it hard to believe that this government, which claims to give us freedom of choice, is really serious about wanting to refuse people the right to choose how they have their benefits and allowances paid.

He suggests that from 2003, consumers will be given the opportunity to have their benefits paid directly into banks or building societies. My understanding of the government's intention is that it will be compulsory, and not as he suggests, an "opportunity". That opportunity is available already, but the majority of "consumers" choose to collect it through an order book at the post office.

Most benefits paid at the post office are paid weekly. Little mention has been made by government that benefits paid into bank accounts are paid four weekly in arrears.

How are benefits to be paid to people who are refused the facility of opening a bank account?

The Prime Minister has stated that people will be able to draw cash from cash machines outside post offices. Who is going to teach the old and infirm to use a cash machine? Who is going to police the "muggers paradise" it will create? What do they do if they forget their PIN number? There won't be a bank or post office counter available.

The government should maintain people's freedom of choice. If they remove it, they may live to regret the decision when, in 2001 or 2002 they ask people to make a choice at the ballot box.

Brian McMahon,

Subpostmaster,

Vincent Street Post Office,

Regional Secretary of the National Federation of Subpostmasters

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.