She draws her pension, buys a few things and chats to the local sub-postmaster. I've tried suggesting her pension should be paid direct to her bank, but she won't hear of it. She likes visiting the post office.

Unfortunately, new Government proposals may close her local branch. Here in Kingston, Government figures suggest at least two post offices may be under threat.

Why? Because from 2003 all benefit recipients must have a bank account and have their payments paid direct.

Local post offices stand to lose huge amounts of business. Contract income from the Benefits Agency will disappear. Fewer trips to post offices will mean lost revenue. Some offices will just not be viable.

In an InterNet age, some may think postal payments old fashioned. That seems the Government view.

I happen to disagree. There’s nothing old-fashioned about communities, where the local post office plays its own special role. There's nothing old-fashioned about choice, allowing people to receive payment in cash, and not just electronically.

Elsewhere we hear Ministers talk about "joined up" Government. By that they mean different departments working together better, such as health and social services co-operating more.

Yet the local post office is "joined up" government, in practice, already. Many government services can be accessed there: car discs, TV licences, National Savings and passport applications, to name but a few.

Before the election, I was a business adviser and had a number of foreign postal services as clients. I saw how other countries develop their post offices, using new technology in the local branches. In the UK, by contrast, investment in such efficient technology has been dogged by uncertainty and delay.

The Government needs to learn some international lessons. Then we could stave off closing post offices. So senior citizens could still choose to make their weekly trip to cash their pension.

Last week’s Informer reported how only 4 out of the Borough’s 17 approved school crossings have lollipop patrols. Next April Kingston Council takes over this service from the Metropolitan Police. It is reported to want to tackle the problem.

It must. Our children’s safety is at stake. I speak from personal experience.

As a child, I was knocked over on a lollipop patrol crossing. Flung over the car’s bonnet, I was saved from serious injury because my Notts County’s bag with my swimming kit in it acted as a cushion for my head as I fell on the road. (Confession: Kingstonian is my second favourite football team!)

The accident was my fault. But if a lollipop lady had led me across the road, as she normally did, it would not have happened.

Of course, making streets safer for schoolchildren needs more than extra lollipop patrols. Road safety must be drummed into children by parents and schools alike. Drivers must be super-vigilant when schools start and finish. We must look at new ideas to make roads safer, especially near schools. Why don’t we have 20mph zones on roads outside schools?

Before the election, I was a management consultant at a Chiswick-based firm. If I wasn’t on an assignment abroad, I drove to work. During school holidays, my journey took half the time.

Many parents drive their children to school. For many reasons. One reason is our absurd education system where, because of rulings like the Greenwich Judgement, many children don’t or can’t go to the local school. But another is that parents are naturally concerned for their children’s safety. With congestion and the impatience that engenders, with speeding, with fewer lollipop patrols, is it any wonder?

A concerted effort to make it safer for children to walk to school would be one of the cheapest, most effective ways of taking cars off the road. John Prescott’s so-called integrated transport policy needs lollipop patrols.

Shed of most of its hereditary peers, the Lords had a different feel. Yet I believe the Government must introduce a second stage of reform. Both Chambers of Parliament deciding our laws should have democratic legitimacy, and not rely on birth or patronage.

But listening to the Queen’s Speech, one is always struck by the high regard in which our monarchy is held. Despite recent troubles endured by the Royal Family, the Queen’s dignity shines through. Above party politics. Resplendent in tradition. A strong link with history.

Some people ask me why I’m such a committed monarchist. Why I oppose Republicanism, as we’ve recently seen in Australia (defeated, I’m delighted to say!). I’m asked why I voted against the hereditary principle in the Lords, but am happy with it for selecting our Head of State.

Quite simply, it’s because our monarchy does a fantastic job. It serves this country well and is the envy of the world.

The House of Lords had to be reformed. Not only was there an in-built Conservative majority. It also regularly defended aristocratic privileges, irrespective of the Government of the day.

In recent years the Lords opposed even uncontroversial laws because it suited the interests of landed peers. Leasehold reform, for example. Even attempts to tackle the health threat to young children in our parks from dog fouling was blocked because some hereditaries worried about the implications for controlling packs of hunting hounds on their lands. When a Tory Government had problems with its own Commons’ backbenchers over the poll tax, hereditary peers ensured the Lords did not resist.

The Monarchy is different. Prince Charles’s occasional speeches on issues like organic food and architecture are simply interesting expressions of opinion. They don’t determine our laws. Long may he go on making them. And long may his mother reign over us.