House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Dec 1992

Mr. Needham : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against the customer's being able to use ACT if he chooses?

Mr. Kirkwood : No, I am not. I think that savings are important, and that the DSS is right to examine the possibility of developing this system of payment. I am merely saying that the Government do not seem to be giving proper consideration to the consequences of such a policy. Of course I am in favour of extending choice--and the Minister of State's research seems to suggest that that will be the trend in future. The Government must understand, however, that they cannot make such savings

Column 219

without striking at the potential future viability of the rural sub-post office network. That is why I felt it necessary to initiate this debate.

The Government will have to examine the situation closely. They owe the House assurances about the future viability of rural post offices. We need to hear not just that the Government are committed to such post offices but how they propose to sustain them financially.

We need assurances, too, that the research to which the Minister referred in his letter to me of 11 December will be carried out and published. The research findings must be reported to the House, and if Benefits Agency staff are setting targets for signing people up to automated credit transfer, we must be told what those targets are. We also need to know whether post offices will be able to sell national lottery tickets.

The Government must make public statements on a whole series of matters to alleviate the uncertainty among the ranks of those who run sub-post offices in particular. If they do not do that, the Post Office will find it more and more difficult to replace staff who at present are working for next to nothing, whose businesses are unprofitable and who are in effect providing a local public service. The staff are committed to the work that they do, day in, day out, often being denied the public holidays that other people can expect to enjoy. The Government owe those people a statement that will make them more confident that they have a future. Many of them are committed to the service that they provide, but they are not prepared to provide it and go bust like Mr. and Mrs. Belcher in Huntingdon. The people who provide that service and who do valuable work from which we can all benefit deserve far more support and consideration from the Government than they seem to be enjoying at present. 5.31 am

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : I am delighted to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) because he and I share an enthusiasm for community village life. As the House will know, the focal point of the modern village--the epicentre of the community--is the post office. There we celebrate our triumphs and there we mourn our losses, as my hon. Friend and I are mourning a loss today.

We are concerned at the remorseless removal of the service from many rural areas. For that reason, my colleagues in Cornwall and I undertook a comprehensive survey of the sub-post offices just two years ago, in 1990. It was the first of its kind, although since then a number of authoritative surveys by the Rural Development Commission, Action with Communities in Rural England and others have taken place.

Our survey produced some remarkable results. For example, we found that 42 per cent. of the owners of sub-post offices were thinking of giving up, frequently citing the combined effects of the uniform business rate and the poll tax as their reason. Of those who had a general retail store alongside the post office, more than half--56 per cent.--were thinking of giving up.

Since then, the uniform business rate has increased--in some cases quite dramatically. Depending on whether someone was taking over an existing business or maintaining a business, those changes could be quite

Column 220

devastating to the viability of the business. Throughout the following 12 months, my colleagues and I worked with the present chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, to try to persuade Ministers that the rural sub-post office was not a conventional profit-making commercial enterprise and should therefore be given special treatment. Sir Bryan thought that he had obtained a concession or exemption for very small post offices--those which were situated in private domestic residences, those which did not have major structural changes to the buildings in which they were placed, and those which did not have a general store alongside. Sadly, after months of negotiation, the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), wrote to say that he could

"see no case for waiving the payment of rates by rural post offices".

Such was the effect of that announcement on the viability of a great number of sub-post offices that my colleagues and I decided to undertake a second survey--this time one that was more concentrated but in more depth--within my constituency of North Cornwall. In December 1991, I visited a large number of post offices. At that time, there were 72 sub-post offices in my constituency. I suspect that my hon. Friend and I have that unusually large number in common, too, as we have scattered rural communities in our constituencies. Of those, 68 were able to give me detailed information on their circumstances and four were very dependent on seasonal holiday trade or were otherwise unable to give reliable data. Two thirds--67.6 per cent.- -had a general store alongside for the hamlet, the village or the part of the town that they served. Thirty five--three quarters of those that had a general store--had the only retail facility serving the people in the area.

One must bear in mind that in that part of the country the average distance to the next retail outlet is at least two miles. Of the people served by those offices, just under 16,000 were retirement pensioners who relied on those sub-post offices to collect their pensions and a further 6,000 were obtaining various other benefits and allowances.

At that moment, the average uniform business rate was about £900. For most, it was expected to rise to £1,000. Despite the moratorium on UBR, of course, there have been rises, and since then it has increased much more. Since the original 1990 survey in that one area of Cornwall, four sub -post offices have closed, leaving their communities without that service and with considerable distances to cover. In each case, the UBR was cited as the last straw that broke the camel's back. In two other cases there have been closures for other reasons, but the majority of closures were a direct result of the totally unrealistic level of UBR.

There is also the difficult problem of community hours. The Post Office has been seeking to restrict a number of sub-post offices to community hours-- that is, a reduced service on the ground that that is all that can be justified in a certain village, hamlet or suburb. The effect of that is unfortunate because it is totally unremunerative to sub-postmasters or sub- postmistresses to run a community hours service. Of course, they are under pressure from their customers to try to maintain a wider, longer and more substantial service. If they do so, they do it, in effect, at their own risk.

Column 221

Obviously, neither survey involved precise scientific samples--they could not--but we have every reason to believe that they were nationally representative. Hon. Members will recognise the problem for being a general one.

I will give one or two specific examples to bring the figures up to date. In the past week or so, I have been in touch with several post offices. I refer to Higher Bore street, in the town of Bodmin, at the top end of the range in my constituency. More than 1,000 pensioners draw their weekly pension from that post office, which is a large one in comparison with others in rural areas. Even that post office has felt the dramatic impact of recent changes. Not only does it face a huge UBR bill, which will increase again next April, but it has suffered a reduction in business as a direct result of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred. That town happens to be home to a large number of elderly people who receive a pension from the national health service--they were employed at the large local hospital--and the health authority is currently persuading all its pensioners to transfer their pensions to bank accounts so that no pensions are paid over the counter. That gives the lie to the Minister's suggestion that it is a matter of choice. For many pensioners, there will be no choice--they will be forced to use a bank. I accept that there are banks in Bodmin, so that will not cause too many difficulties, but at the top end of my constituency the sub- postmistress at Wainhouse Corner near Bude told me that the nearest bank is 13 miles away. Who can travel such a distance without private transport? In the scattered rural community which focuses on Wainhouse Corner there are some 190 old-age pensioners.

At the lower end of my constituency, the sub-postmistress at St. Issey, Mrs. Grubb, told me that she has 87 old-age pensioners, 39 child benefit claimants, seven invalidity benefit claimants and eight people drawing unemployment benefit, which is less than the local unemployment average. I happen to know that community very well and that sub-post office offers a highly prized service. It is having to cope with difficult circumstances. The nearest town which offers a bank and other services is about six miles away. That post office also offers an additional necessary retail outlet which, if lost, would never be replaced.

What is to be done? We must try to maintain, encourage, endorse, strengthen and support the sub-post office network. The current policy of taking services away from rural post offices must be reversed. Rural services should be concentrated on such post offices and they should be properly remunerated for providing them. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has already referred to services such as social security payments and I have referred to the payment of pensions from previously nationalised services and industries--hon. Members may wish to cite other examples.

We believe that other new services should be concentrated at post offices. The licensing of vehicles is now permitted at a small number of rural sub- post offices and my hon. Friend and I know of no reason why that service should not be extended to other such post offices. Those post offices also seem the natural place for insurance services to be offered through a national network. There is no reason why the Giro system should not be used as the national back-up service for the provision of insurance advice and agency services in villages. In rural areas the

Column 222

operation of the national lottery, should it be introduced--there are differing views about that--should rest exclusively and properly with the sub-post offices.

The principal issue, and the one on which we look to the Government for leadership, is relief from the UBR. There is no logic in imposing the UBR on that part of the premises which is used exclusively for post office purposes. No one can pretend that a rural office, particularly if it only operates community hours, represents a commercial service which makes a profit. Those post offices provide an uncommercial, social service. It would be simple to isolate that part of the premises which is used for the sub-post office and to exempt it from the UBR.

Alongside that UBR, an unrealistic valuation is often made of the retail business which sits cheek by jowl with the post office. The UBR valuation system is extraordinarily anachronistic and takes little account of the commercial viability of a business. The calculation of an area is a false criterion on which to base a financial calculation. Worst of all in an area such as the south-west, no regard is paid to seasonal variations.

Anyone who lives in a village--I am not sure whether the Minister does-- must know that if a sub-post office network did not exist the Government would have to invent one to provide the facilities, services and information back-up that any sensible Government must provide for its citizens, whether there is a citizens charter or not. Although the majority of Conservative Members tend to represent cities and suburban constituencies, they must understand that rural areas deserve and need this network of services.

It is unusual for us to be working at 5.45 am, but for many people in the Post Office--in Crown offices, sorting offices, on the road or in sub-post offices--it is a normal working hour, especially in the run-up to Christmas. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that we should be debating the problems faced by this great national public service. We should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the service, which all too often we take for granted. As someone said to me outside the village post office in St. Issey, near Wadebridge and the Camel estuary in the most beautiful constituency in the country, "If we take it for granted, it will be taken away."

5.46 am

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on choosing this topic. It was a pity that we were not given the benefit of a little tour of Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I should have enjoyed a trip around the Whiteadder and Blackadder, which might have been appropriate to this hour of the morning.

The problems to which the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) drew attention are not confined to rural areas. It is worth reminding ourselves that the subject chosen for the debate was simply sub-post offices, not exclusively rural sub-post offices. Many of the problems to which they drew attention--the uniform business rate, the training, recruitment and remuneration of sub-postmasters and

sub-postmistresses and floating the so-called community post office, with its limited hours and equally limited remuneration--apply to urban areas. I take slight issue

Column 223

with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, because he should not assume that all urban post offices are large. Many are small and offer a village-style service.

We should bear it in mind that we are debating a substantial business. The sub-post office network--I exclude the Crown post offices--has some 19,000 or 20,000 outlets. It is as extensive as the entire network of banks and building societies combined. It employs some 40,000 people in addition to sub-postmasters and

sub-postmistresses. It is a substantial employer. Some 7 per cent. of the business of Post Office Counters Limited is done through the sub-post office network.

The hon. Members who have spoken have correctly pointed out that the Government have no choice about that network of services, if they are to take their pledge of a universal post office service obligation seriously. While there will always remain a proportion of benefit users who choose to receive their benefits in cash, the Government must be committed to the present network or something very much like it. It would be nice if the Minister would assure us that that is indeed the case--that we can expect a network of approximately the present size to be a permanent feature of the Post Office Counters system.

We must now explore some of the difficulties caused by the Government's policy towards the Post Office, and the limitations on the development of post office services that make the object far more difficult to achieve.

I shall refer briefly to payments of benefits--a matter which perhaps occupied too much of the two speeches that we have heard so far. Because of the limitations of technology, benefit customers are faced with the choice of receiving their payments either automatically through the bank or in cash through a post office. We should look forward to a time when people will be able to choose to have a proportion of their benefit--which they will be able to determine--paid in cash, and the rest paid through the bank. Through the introduction of smart cards--and perhaps the installation of smart card points in the Post Office Counters network--that could be achieved, and it would mean full flexibility and real freedom of choice between payment in cash and payment through the bank. That is one of the ways in which we could seek to develop the Post Office Counters network services.

The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for North Cornwall were right to refer to the fact that the internal finances of the Post Office provide for a substantial cross-subsidy to the sub-post office network-- about £25 million a year. In an article in the Financial Times last week the chief executive of the Post Office said that under a system of pure market forces there would be a substantial reduction in the Post Office Counters network, especially in the number of small sub-post offices. The internal cross-subsidy in the present financing arrangements floats the present large network of sub-post offices.

It would be of advantage if the Government would assure us that, whatever proposals they may make for the Post Office, that necessary cross-subsidy will still be available to the Post Office--or to whatever organisation is operating post office services. If the future finances of the Post Office were structured so as to make that

Column 224

cross-subsidy impossible, there would be a serious problem, leading to a collapse of the network. We would all be most concerned about that.

We should look towards a considerable development of the business potential locked up in the Post Office Counters network. With an extension of legal powers--or even without one--it would be possible to introduce a new range of services. The national lottery has been mentioned, and the sale of various tickets. It would be nice to think that if the Government are shortly to arrange the sale of a further tranche of British Telecom shares, some of them could be marketed through the network, perhaps on an experimental basis. If the Government truly believe in share-owning democracy, it would be perfectly appropriate for them to use the Post Office Counters network as a method by which to extend dealing in shares. It would also be helpful if modern telecommunication points were opened in post offices so that electronic mail systems and fax systems were widely available in rural and urban areas that might not otherwise benefit from them. Expensive services, now only available to people in their homes or through a limited commercial network, could be available universally.

The Post Office Users National Council has expressed grave concern about the future of the sub-post office network. It has referred to rumours of another 1,000 closures of post offices in addition to the previous 1,000 closures of sub-post offices which we have seen over the past four years. That would be grave news indeed.

We are all concerned about the sudden hike in the Post Office's external financing limit projected over the next three years in which, not content with having taken a profit--that may not be quite what it is, but let us call it a profit--of £750 million out of the Post Office over the past seven years, the Government now propose to take £500 million out of the Post Office over the next three years. There is no doubt that meeting such a stiff external financing limit will put many of the current financial arrangements now operated by the Post Office under considerable strain. It is important to have an assurance that, however that external financing limit is to be achieved, it will not be achieved at the price of a collapse or of a substantial reduction in the network of Post Office Counters services.

The investment programme that the Post Office proposes, in extending modern automatic cash-handling systems to about one third of the Post Office Counters network, to be achieved over three years, again would greatly increase the scope of the business that sub-post offices could undertake and would greatly add to their potential as deliverers of financial insurance services along the lines described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.

All these are matters which could be seriously put at risk by privatisation. It could lead to a disintegration of the organisation of the Post Office. It could lead to a further raising of the external financing limit through the taking of profit and it could also put at risk the cross- subsidy system inside the Post Office's financing arrangements which floats the present substantial network of sub-post offices.

All of us want not simply to retain the existing network of Post Office Counters and the 19,000 sub-post offices, but to use the network of 19,000 contact points for the community greatly to expand the range of services, both public and private, that are provided. We look forward to the Minister's reply on that point.

Column 225

5.58 am

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham) : I also congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his success in getting the topic debated. If I do not congratulate him on the time, I am sure that he will understand. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that we were undertaking work. I am not sure that all those who work in sub-post offices would agree that listening to one another is actually work.

To fill in the hon. Member for North Cornwall on my own background, I tell him that I was brought up in Budock Water, which is not far from his constituency. I moved to Broadwindsor, then to Newton Poppleford and then to Somerford Keynes, so I have some vague idea about village life, if not in the constituency of Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the very smallest post offices and the uniform business rate. As I understand it, the Inland Revenue has already agreed to exempt those post offices. I listened to the hon. Member very closely and with considerable interest--

Mr. Tyler indicated dissent.

Mr. Needham : It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head ; that is a fact. I listened to his comments about the UBR with great interest. There was no mention in the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats or of the Labour party of a commitment to a nationwide network of post offices.

The policy of the hon. Member for North Cornwall may have changed ; the Liberal Democrat change their policies fairly regularly. However, at the time of the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, their policy was for an annual revaluation. If anything is going to undermine and damage the small business sector, not including the smallest post offices, it is the concept of allowing Labour or Liberal Democrat-controlled councils to set whatever UBR they like. I can think of nothing more horrific for the consequences to local businesses than to allow the UBR to be determined by local councils.

One need only consider the wish to free up the UBR--and that was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto--to allow it to be settled by local councils to realise the effect and damage that that would have on local post offices and other small businesses.

Mr. Tyler : I have fought a case on behalf of a small post office against the UBR valuation. It is clear that the Minister's statement that exemption has been conceded by the Revenue is simply not true. It is impossible for many post offices, even for those that fall within the qualification of being in a domestic premises, without a major structural change or a general store alongside, to obtain an exemption. The security needs of a post office require that there is at least a permanent allocation of space to a post office counter. In those circumstances, the concession is totally meaningless.

Mr. Needham : The hon. Gentleman is obviously well aware of the fact that the UBR is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Nevertheless, as I understand it, the Revenue has agreed to exempt the very smallest part-time post offices ; I can write to the hon. Gentleman about that. However, that does not alter the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not responded to my

Column 226

point about his policy on the UBR as a whole, the annual revaluation and the effect of allowing local authorities to determine the UBR.

Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall responds to that point, he had better be careful about this. He and I know that there would be a substantial increase in the UBR. It would not be uniform ; instead, it would be a business rate to small business people. That is where the charge would lie for the spending plans which the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his colleagues, as they constantly remind us, would like to increase.

Mr. Tyler : The Minister is very gracious to give way a second time and I am grateful to him. If he has read our manifesto--as he obviously has --and our detailed policy documents, he will have read that we support the complete exemption of sub-post offices from UBR as a social service to the community. From his careful reading of our policy papers, the Minister will also recognise that we are in favour of more generous central Government support to enable the UBR to be paid at a lower level.

Mr. Needham : The hon. Gentleman is in favour of an even higher public sector borrowing requirement than the Labour party. Furthermore, if the hon. Gentleman wants to find exemptions for sub-post offices, the money will have to come from other business premises. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the shop in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--which, by the way, is not a post office--would have made the position even more difficult. However, at this hour of the morning, I do not want to antagonise or provoke anyone. Nothing could be further from my mind.

There are many areas of agreement on the matter and I will try to reassure hon. Members because we all accept the need for as much of a nationwide network of urban and rural post offices as we can achieve. Sub-post offices are the backbone of the counters network and the 19, 000 to 20,000 offices serve a large majority of the 28 million customers who use counters every week. As I said, we made a commitment in our manifesto to the nationwide network. Such a commitment was not so clearly stated in the manifestos of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party.

Whatever solution we adopt for the Post Office and its constituent parts, whether in the public or private sector, we will ensure that the nationwide network is secure. That does not mean that we can guarantee that every post office will stay open for ever. Much as I should prefer that to be the case, for personal reasons and reasons of upbringing, the precise number and location of offices change with the shift in population and the changes in the requirements of clients and customers. We have accepted that the question of choice and what people are entitled to is important. But our commitment, as stated in the Post Office legislation, is to maintain a readily accessible network which fully satisfies the social, industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom.

The main concern of the hon. Member for North Cornwall--I accept that his concern is genuine--is in the future of the rural sub-post office. There are more than 8,000 rural sub-post offices. As the hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out, the sub-post offices in far-flung rural areas--and, I am glad to say, the one which I represent--still maintain a vital role not only in paying benefits but

Column 227

as a point of local contact. Rural sub-post offices are also crucial places to which people can go to shop when they do not have transport. Many sub-postmasters provide an essential part of the economic infrastructure of local business communities. As we all agree, many of them run the only shop in the village.

The Post Office fully accepts its responsibility to those communities. Changes in rural life, transport patterns and so on have, inevitably, made a number of village shops uneconomic. The shop in my own village became uneconomic. The economic viability of some village shops depends to some extent on how far the village is from the nearest town. Regrettably, some sub-post offices have closed as a result.

Hon. Members have said that the Post Office, together with the Rural Development Commission and other such bodies, is giving advice on display and lay-out and how to diversify in imaginative ways to make sub-post offices more viable. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned fax machines. Fax machines as well as estate agencies, dry cleaning facilities, tourist information offices or whatever is appropriate are being installed in sub-post offices. Recently, Post Office Counters Ltd, together with the Rural Development Commission, ran a series of training seminars to serve as an induction package for new village sub- postmasters and sub-postmistresses. The hon. Gentleman raised some interesting ideas. At a time when the matter is under review, I am sure that his ideas will be considered.

Recently, Post Office Counters have been inventive in finding ways to keep facilities running in areas in which the sub-postmaster has retired and we have not been able to find a replacement. In the past four years, the Post Office has opened 1,600 community offices which operate limited hours. There is such an office in the Swan with Two Necks which is in Pendleton in Lancashire, in a Portakabin in Whitson in the constituency of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and in various annexes to village halls. When the village post office in Croglin, Cumbria closed, it was difficult to find a replacement. Eventually, a community office was placed in the local toy manufacturer. Croglin Toys agreed to operate a community post office from the front of the factory for two days a week.

That spirit of innovation is necessary if we are to keep the services going. We all agree that the services are highly valued by local communities, but their viability is marginal unless they are combined with other local facilities. If the Post Office, local authorities and other providers of public services continue to act in that spirit, I am sure that this valuable part of our rural heritage will be saved. I make the point again and again that we are committed to a nation wide network. The cross- subsidy from the larger post offices to the smaller units will and should continue. Of course, that is right.

The point about automated credit transfer is an important element in the debate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has expressed his anxiety about it and continues to do so whatever letters or replies he receives. I am sure that he will continue to express his anxiety about it long after I have sat down. As he says, ACT has been available for the payment of pension and child benefit--the majority of all benefit transactions--for many years. There is nothing new in that. It has recently

Column 228

been made available for other benefits such as family credit and disability living allowance. We were right in the citizens charter to commit ourselves to extending that method of payment to recipients of other benefits, if they wish.

There is nothing new about encouraging recipients to use ACT. We do not expect to see any sudden decline in the use of sub-post offices for the collection of benefits. The hon. Gentleman quoted the letter of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to him. My right hon. Friend said that the Post Office had said that it did not expect any decline either. The hon. Gentleman also quoted the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. However, we have been told by the Post Office that no decline in the use of sub-post offices for the collection of benefits is expected. The number of people who ask to be paid by automated credit transfer has risen slowly and steadily over the years. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He sets the fox off ; then he shoots the fox ; then he sets the fox running again. I think that I am right in saying that the number of new beneficiaries who come into the pensions system each year is some 15 per cent. The hon. Gentleman reported from my right hon. Friend's letter that 70 per cent. already have a bank account. So clearly the upward trend will continue and people will want to make use of the ACT facility.

I could not be clear from what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said whether he was against people being allowed to use the facility, against encouraging them to use it, or did not want the Post Office to encourage them to use it. We are simply making more widely available an option which is secure for the client, cost efficient and, as the hon. Gentleman fairly admitted, involves a saving for the public purse. But we are not forcing people to use bank accounts if they do not wish to do so. We are not giving them a financial incentive to switch from one method to the other. As the hon. Gentleman said, people may opt for ACT. He went on correctly to point out that bank branches are closing. If bank branches are closing everywhere, there will surely be more business about for the rural or urban sub-post offices. The giro may be a more effective way of doing things. I do not know whether my wife would be particularly pleased to have her personal dealings with the Post Office divulged in the House of Commons at 13 minutes past six in the morning, but her view is clear. She does not want to cash her child benefit through the bank. She certainly does not want to put it through any joint bank account with me. How right she is in that respect.

So there will always be people who, for good and sound personal reasons, will want to continue to use the system as it is. But, equally, there will be others who will want to switch to ACT. We must then consider the total volume of business at post offices. I also accept that many people value highly their regular visits to the post office to collect their pension or child benefit. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire rightly said, in rural communities the nearest bank may be many miles away. So I have no doubt that for those reasons alone people will continue to prefer the rural post office to the bank. I repeat that we are not taking that option away.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked what forms of encouragement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security intends to use to increase the uptake of ACT. I understand that he will

Column 229

simply improve information to benefit recipients about the availability and the advantages of ACT, and he will make it easier for new and existing customers to use that method for all types of benefit in due course, but no pensioner is being forced to accept it.

The issue needs to be put into perspective. The number of people--mainly pensioners--claiming benefit has increased at a greater rate in the past few years than the rate of take-up of automated payment mechanisms. During the past few years the Post Office has performed an increasing number of transactions on behalf of the Department of Social Security, in spite of the gradual increase in automated payments. By 1994-95, after the encouragement that the DSS will give to claimants to have their payments made by ACT, the DSS expects that the volume of payments made through post offices will be about the same as it is today.

I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but he is considering the matter purely on the basis of those who decide to move to ACT, without taking into account the increasing number of new claimants. The evidence shows that even if more people move gradually to ACT, with a 15 per cent. addition each year, the DSS does not expect the volume of payments to decrease. That is why the Post Office made that point. That is the essence of this debate and it allows the hon. Gentleman to have his cake and eat it, which is what he has been asking for.

Mr. Kirkwood : I have listened carefully to the Minister and I understand his argument. However, demographic changes come and go. If research started to show that the financial viability of post offices would be affected substantially, would the Government accept that it was a part of their responsibility to make good that loss?

Mr. Needham : I do not accept the premise. The hon. Gentleman is again setting out his fox to shoot it when--judging by the evidence that the Government have--what is running is not a runner. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central mentioned new business. However we look at the issue in the long term, those of us who live in country areas have to accept that the rural sub-post office network has declined. That is why we have been discussing the 1,600 new community post offices, which have arrived because it has been impossible to keep village shops open.

In time, we shall have to consider what to do. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, new facilities are coming in, including the smart card. In many areas of Europe all

Column 230

benefits are paid automatically, but we do not have that system ; we do not want it and we will not have it. I suspect that demography will not eat away at the problem, but improvements in information technology, greater mobility and greater wealth will. We therefore come to the key issue of new business, which will offer the way forward.

The Post Office has had to face numerous apparently grave threats to its business, and we have mentioned the increased use of direct debits, and the wider availability of stamps in non-post office premises. Post Office Counters' turnover has grown steadily despite the predictions. During the past five years, automated credit transfer for benefit payments has taken root, but Post Office Counters' turnover has increased every year and is one third higher than it was five years ago. That is the most important point. It has happened partly because the Post Office has taken up new business and entered new markets. The Crown offices, for example, have successfully expanded into retailing a wide range of stationery and greeting cards, imaginatively building on their core business. We have also recently announced that the Post Office will be granted powers to bid for work on the national lottery. That could become a valuable new source of earnings for the Post Office, and particularly useful to sub-offices as a way of getting customers through the door.

I hope that I have dealt with the main points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked about the external financing limit. In recent years, the Post Office has been successful in increasing its turnover, service levels and returns. The contribution that it makes to the Government must take account of a range of factors, including the interests of customers and taxpayers. There is great pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement and a return of less than 4 per cent. of turnover is not over-exacting, given the enormous size and importance of the business.

To sum up, I wish to make two things clear. First, the Government and the Post Office value highly the service given by sub-postmasters throughout the country, in both urban and rural areas. That includes rural, small community and larger urban offices, all of which have a vital role to play. Secondly, we are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of offices, whether or not the Post Office remains in public ownership.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for giving me an opportunity to put the record straight and for a debate which, even at this hour of the morning, I hope sub-postmasters throughout the country will have found useful and reassuring.

Column 231

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

6.21 am

Sir Keith Speed (Ashford) : I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the debate. It will be a somewhat Kentish debate, judging by my hon. Friends in the Chamber. I am sure that the Minister will accept some of the criticisms that we shall make in the spirit in which they are made.

Over the past few years, history has shown us that a number of motor transport projects have lacked the political will to carry them through or suffered delays, ineptitude or incompetence. One thinks of the Maplin airport plan, the Heathrow rail link, crossrail and the Jubilee line, which is still being discussed. I submit, however, that the granddaddy of them all is the channel tunnel rail link. When the new channel tunnel was announced a few years ago, it was decided that a link was not necessary. Then it was decided that it was necessary. Indeed, many of us who live in Kent and see the problems of Network SouthEast realise that to run a viable and complete international channel tunnel service of trains from London and other parts of the United Kingdom through to the continent on the existing Network SouthEast would, in a few years' time, soon lead to disaster.

First, it was said that we needed only one London terminal for the channel tunnel rail link. We then did an about-turn and said that we needed two : King's Cross and Waterloo. It now appears to be one again, because I am not sure about the status of King's Cross. That gives none of us grounds for confidence that people will arrive where they thought they had set out for.

Five years ago, it was clear that if Network SouthEast was to grow at 4 to 5 per cent., which was the incremental growth rate per year until the recent recession, the link was essential ; many senior people in British Rail were saying that it would be essential to have it by the turn of the century. It was realised that, as well as being necessary to cope with the capacity problems on Network SouthEast, the line would be of considerable benefit to Kent commuters, which would obviously have a bearing on the way that it was financed. Since then, the history of the project has bordered on high farce. Unfortunately, that high farce has caused major problems and uncertainty, not only for my constituents but for many others in Kent and south-east London. In 1988, there were four route options through different parts of Kent that joined just north of Folkestone. Some of the options went through housing estates which, apparently, were not on the maps that British Rail was using. I suspect that they were not on the maps used by the Department of Transport either--some of my hon. Friends know of that only too well.

There was much aggravation, consultation and discussion. I, and, I am sure, others of my hon. Friends representing Kent, had a difficult time. I experienced the worst time that I have known in my 24 years in Parliament. I personally received more than 3,000 letters. We were attending public meetings of 400 and 500 people and none of us--British Rail, the Department of Transport and the

Government--appeared in a good light.

Eventually, after all that aggravation, we arrived on a likely route--the southerly approach into London. It was to pass up the existing line from Folkestone, through Ashford and my constituency, branching out along the

Column 232

M20, through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), up through north Kent, to Waterloo and across the river, in through Essex, Stratford and the two terminals at King's Cross. Meanwhile, there was an abortive attempt to involve the private sector.

The consultants--the Ove Arup group--had been drawing up their own solution to the problem, as had a consortium called Rail Europe, based on the original Talis route. The Rail Europe proposal was for a line further to the east of the existing routes, approaching through Stratford into King's Cross through east London and Essex. I believe that that option was never properly evaluated. I know that both the Department and British Rail said that it was, but there was a strong feeling in my part of the world, and, I think in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, that it was not properly evaluated. Whatever the Minister, I or anybody else says, many of my constituents will take that view with them to their grave. That solution could have been a good one. It would certainly have been people-friendly.

We thought that we had found the final solution. My constituents, if not learning to love it, were learning to live with it. My 3,000 letters dropped to just a few letters every month, and I thought that all was in order. However, in October last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who was then the Secretary of State for Transport, announced in Blackpool at the Conservative party conference that the Ove Arup route through Stratford was to be selected, and the southern route, worked out by British Rail, was to be abandoned.

I believed then, and said so--I have heard nothing to change my mind--that the choice had more to do with the regeneration of the Thames corridor than international transport considerations. My right hon. and learned Friend told his audience in Blackpool, and I heard him--as did the world, because he was widely quoted :

"We are ending the blight and the uncertainty."

At the beginning of this year, Union Railways, a new subsidiary formed by British Rail, was set up to redefine and bring forward the project. I believe--my hon. Friend the Minister can correct me if I am wrong--that the remit from the Department of Transport made it clear that cost savings were to be the main name of the game. It was put about that the Ove Arup route was only a concept, not a detailed line, although it had apparently been a fairly definitive route in October last year.

So it was back to the drawing board. Contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend had said, fresh blight and uncertainty had been created. Cost-cutting had a lot to do with it, I suspect. People in my part of the world say that the cost-cutting was in preparation for privatisation. I hope that that is untrue. I have reservations about privatisation. I should like to see a partnership between the Government, British Rail and the private sector--a partnership producing high-quality environmental protection.

Matters went from bad to worse. In July this year there were rumours of a new possible route through Kent. They remained rumours, because no consultation had been carried out with Members of Parliament, local councillors, the local business community or anyone else. There were some murky confidential meetings between the chief officers of one or two local councils and one or two council leaders, but there was no "consultation" in the sense that my hon. Friends and I understand that word.

Next Section

Home Page