| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Dewar : No. What I am saying is that the forms are totally misleading and totally weighted. If any reasonable people had read form B or form C, they would, in my view, have come to the conclusion that they were expected to go for automated credit transfer and that that option was being forced upon them ; of that there can be nohe view of any sensible person who, as a potential customer, had read the forms.
The Minister may be reduced to making the charge that we are scaremongering, but let me remind him that a third of the business of Post Office Counters comes from the Department of Social Security. Let us not forget that all the talk of broadening the base to replace the custom that would have been lost by post offices boils down to the suggestion that, at some future point, post offices may be allowed to sell national lottery tickets. That may be a good idea. I do not object to it. However, it would have been highly speculative compensation for the loss of business that would have resulted from the artificial restriction of choice that was invited and planned for in the forms to which I referred.
The importance of rural post offices--their place in the community as a point of contact and as an information exchange--will not be challenged in this House. I do not pretend that each of them is a place of romance and mystery that would find its place conveniently in a Hovis advertisement, but I know from personal experience and from the many people to whom I have spoken that post offices are valued and are regarded as integral and important parts of the community.
Rural communities are fragile, in some cases because of the actions of this Government. I am thinking of the way in which small pharmacies have been treated and of the way that rural bus services have been treated. There is now the potential, as a result of this strategy, to undermine local post offices.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), the Under- Secretary of State for Technology, claimed in his letter of 19 April fully to understand the importance of DSS transactions to post offices, but he went on to argue that the DSS is required to deliver its benefits as economically as possible. Of course I understand the importance of economy. As the Minister knows, in the past few months there has been a devastating series of reports--from Select Committees, the National Audit Office, and the ombudsman--pointing to the inefficiency with which his Department operates and delivers its services.
I certainly want to see increased efficiency, but wider considerations ought to be borne in mind in a policy area such as this. I do not believe that we should try to trick--I believe that is a fair way of putting it-- people into taking one option at the expense of another by excluding information when its exclusion would do so much damage to the structure of our communities.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon :) We have heard a great deal about extension of choice as the rationale for this survey, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that some people will lose choice altogether if the result of small rural post offices losing business is that they close down and people have to travel many miles to find alternative facilities? Is it not more important to ensure that that basic choice remains, and that if there is to be a loss of revenue to post offices as a result of ACT, the making up of that revenue must be guaranteed to allow post offices to stay in business?
Column 251
Mr. Dewar : I certainly agree with that. It was the reason for the anger, discontent and unease that was so evident on the Conservative Benches until the whippers-in got to work for the purposes of this afternoon's debate.
I do not believe that efficiency must equate with a demolition job on the traditional role of sub-post offices. That, I believe, was the point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The Minister set out his stall on many occasions, arguing for ACT. The Federation of Sub -Postmasters is entitled to put forward its points about the convenience and friendly services offered by post offices.
Perhaps I could be allowed the luxury of saying that it is not just a question of rural post offices. My constituency, which borders the marches of western Glasgow, is a housing scheme constituency. There is great distress there and a genuine feeling of social loss when a post office closes. If we take the classic peripheral housing schemes in my city of Glasgow--I am thinking of Drumchapel, Castlemilk and Easterhouse--in which between 70,000 and 80,000 people live, there is only one bank in each scheme and there is not a single building society in any of them. Therefore, sub-post offices have an important role. Even after the substantial closures--more than 2,500 since 1979--there are still more sub- post office outlets than are provided by the four big banks in England and Wales and the six top building societies put together.
There are many reasons why we should be careful to preserve the local post office system, including the potential for bank charges. Lord Henley, the Minister in the House of Lords for the Department of Social Security, said in a recent letter, which I have read : "The banks have not yet introduced charges and indeed some of them have recently said they do not intend to do so."
The news that some have not yet and that some may not introduce charges hardly has the ring of confidence as to what may happen if we lose our national network.
Another problem is that of weekly payments. If one believes that an electronic notebook is an essential sign of civilisation, one may not have much sympathy with the idea that people budget on a weekly basis. However, many of my constituents do not want to be paid four weeks in arrears or once in 13 weeks. They want to ensure that the ACT scheme does not go ahead.
Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dewar : I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way ; I have already spoken for longer than I intended. Conservative Members may talk about scaremongering, but when they see that the Government are in trouble or as soon as they see that a Minister is low in the water, the immediate cry is, "It is scaremongering" or, "He must be an innocent victim." However, I have never seen a less innocent victim than the Secretary of State for Social Security. He planned a little job by stealth, he has been found out, and he should pay the price.
It is not only Labour which is suggesting that the situation is serious. Hon. Members will be aware of the views of Mr. Bill Cockburn, the chief executive of the Post Office, who suggested that, if the wrong forms emerged from the test--why were they being tested if not for possible use?- -as many as 5,000 post offices could be forced to close. He said :
Column 252
"If such a thing were to happen, the entire network of post offices would be on the line."That is not an irresponsible scare story concocted by Labour. We are taking up a cause that is well documented and an anxiety that is very real.
I know that ACT is growing. My objection is that the Government should not try to encourage it artificially by withholding information. The right to choose is important. The Minister should support that idea, but he cannot if the choice is not properly explained. In the rush for economy, he has been prepared to manipulate and mislead, and that is a serious matter which the House should consider.
Are the Conservatives who are protesting today happy that £3.5 million will be spent in 1993-94 on encouraging the growth of ACT? Certainly one can buy a lot of persuasion for £3.5 million, but one should not do so in the underhand way in which this operation was mounted and launched.
The Minister tells us that there is nothing to fear. He may be right. He may favour the view of the hon. Member for Corby, who, during the spring Adjournment motion debate on 18 May, said : "Frankly, it is incredible that the Government have got themselves into this absurd position. The heads of those who were responsible for drafting the extremely maladroit letters--to put the matter mildly--should be presented on a plate. It is one of the most serious political misjudgments, and a matter that my right hon. Friends must do much more to correct at once. These things did not happen when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was responsible for the Department which seems to be at fault in this case."--[ Official Report, 18 May 1993 ; Vol. 225, c. 178.]
That is another ringing vote of confidence for the Secretary of State for Social Security! If that is the explanation--that it is bungling, maladroit, incompetent and stupid--perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to plead guilty to the underhand dealings which I suspect are the truth of the matter.
The Prime Minister is now offering assurances of his commitment to retain a national network of post offices. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South- West (Mr. Madel) is reported in The Times today as saying :
"that clear statement will dispel all anxiety".
I must tell the Secretary of State that all anxiety will not be dispelled-- [Interruption.] Let me finish my sentence. All anxiety will not be dispelled by a generalised statement of that kind--of the kind that we have so often heard. I want the anxiety to be dispelled and the fears laid to rest. It was in order to give the Government a chance to do that that we initiated the debate.
I understand that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire,
South-West--again, I have to rely on The Times for my
information--was called in by the Secretary of State to hear of his revised proposals. That implies that the Secretary of State has now, late in the day, admitted that his proposals need revision. If there are revised proposals, it is appropriate that the House should hear them now.
I want the Secretary of State unashamedly to save his skin by backing down and doing another U-turn--the Government have had plenty of practice at that. It is in the public interest that the right hon. Gentleman should now recant. I do not want another generalised statement ; I want him to tell us why he launched the test and to give an absolute commitment that he will now abandon it, and will shred and scrap any document that does not give a fair range of options to the public. I want him to say that he will ensure that in future the one guiding principle will be
Column 253
that people should be informed of their rights and the decision on what to do should be theirs alone. We want not generalised commitment but specific action to undo the damage and to lay the fears to rest. I commend the motion to the House.4.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
"endorses Her Majesty's Government's clear commitment to freedom of choice in the means by which social security benefits are paid, while reducing fraud and unnecessary costs by extending the availability of Automated Credit Transfer to all benefits and encouraging people with bank accounts to choose to have benefits paid into their accounts, to the continuation of a national network of post offices and sub-post offices and to securing the efficient and effective delivery of the vital service which the Post Office provides.".
Before responding to the extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), may I refer briefly to the two-hour paving debate on the same subject that, rather unusually, preceded the debate last Thursday? That debate was exceptional both in length and in quality. Every contribution was more balanced, less partisan, and better than the one that we have heard from the hon. Member for Garscadden.
Every hon. Member who spoke on Thursday expressed concern about the future of sub-post offices. Of course, I shall respond to that concern. But every hon. Member tried to avoid making party political points, and every hon. Member from every party tried to avoid scaremongering, unlike the hon. Member for Garscadden, whose whole approach is based on scaring the poor, the sick and the needy. Indeed, since he has been shadow social security spokesman his principal stock-in-trade has been scaremongering.
Last autumn, full of foreboding, he warned the media that I would be unable to fulfil our pledge to uprate pensions. He was wrong. Before the Budget he said that the Chancellor would introduce taxation on invalidity benefit then and there. He was wrong. Now he forecasts that we are about to close rural post offices. I have news for the hon. Gentleman, which will be no surprise to my hon. Friends. He is wrong again. I challenge him to name one scare story that he has told about my Department since he has had that job, which has come true. [Interruption.] --The hon. Gentleman's silence condemns him.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) rose--
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) rose--
Mr. Dewar rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. It might be advantageous for the debate if the House were to settle down, quieten down, and listen to the debate.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Mr. Secretary Lilley.
Mr. Lilley : It may be helpful if I set out the order in which I shall deal with the issues before us. First, I shall spell out the Government's commitment to sub-post
Column 254
offices and to choice. Secondly, I shall explain why we are encouraging payment into bank accounts and building societies. Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) rose--Thirdly, I shall explain how we are encouraging automated credit transfer, and I shall deal in particular with the trial forms. I shall largely leave the issue of privatisation to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Technology--or rather, the postmaster-general, as I imagine he is now called--who hopes to catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : The Secretary of State has explained how he intends to deal with the questions raised, but when will he deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), which applies, for example, to the post office in Dalmellington in my constituency, which is just surviving at the moment? If the Secretary of State is successful and persuades just a small number of people to take ACT, that post office will close and all the people in Dalmellington will have no choice at all. Will he answer that key question now before he gets on to the other points?
Mr. Lilley : I will answer that question in the second part of my remarks. This is the pledge that we made in our manifesto-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have already appealed for the Secretary of State to be given a fair hearing. [Interruption.] Order. I intend that that should be the case.
Mr. Lilley : The pledge in our manifesto said :
"We are committed to maintaining a nation-wide network of post offices."
The words are unambiguous--
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Lilley : Our commitment is unequivocal, and I can reaffirm it emphatically today.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you came to the Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gave way virtually every two minutes--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Lilley : No other party made such a pledge--indeed, neither the Labour party nor the Liberal party even mentioned sub-post offices in their manifestos, but now they are happy to hijack any campaign that comes along.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North) : I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, especially on his party's manifesto. While he is reading that part out, will he read out the commitments on tax and particularly on VAT?
Column 255
Mr. Lilley : There was no such pledge. [Laughter.] We made our pledge because we recognised the focal role that sub-post offices play in many communities, especially in rural areas. That role was spelt out eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last Thursday and by many other right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Does the Secretary of State accept that the problem affects not only rural communities but urban areas? Many people are concerned because they see choice being razed. The post offices will suffer a decline in their trade and go out of business if ACT is introduced. That is the core of the question and that is the fear that the right hon. Gentleman's pilot scheme has raised. Is it not worth saying that, although it may have been a useful exercise, the whole idea should now be abandoned?
Mr. Lilley : I entirely accept that sub-post offices in urban areas are also valuable and play an important role. I shall come on to that. I recognise the fears that have been aroused by the leaflet from the Sub Postmasters' Federation and I shall deal with that systematically if I am allowed to by the mob on the Opposition Benches.
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I intend that we should have an orderly debate. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to give way and if he decides not to, hon. Members should resume their seats.
Mr. Lilley : I have spelt out our manifesto commitment. However, the maintenance of a network of post offices is not only a manifesto commitment ; it is also in the direct self-interest of my Department. We need the post office network to deliver our benefits, especially--but not only--in rural areas. We will continue to need it for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lilley : The hon. Gentleman may find that what I am saying will satisfy his constituents, if not himself.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley : If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my point, I will happily give way to him if he still has a query. However successful we are in encouraging people to choose payment into bank accounts, there will still be many who prefer the present system, including millions who have no suitable account. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said--I congratulate him on securing the debate the other night--if sub-post offices did not exist, we would need to invent them.
At the end of the day, that means that we must pay to help keep in being a viable network of sub-post offices and to make it profitable for postmasters and postmistresses to remain in business and deliver our benefits. We have always accepted that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Secretary of State will know that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is sitting beside him, and I share most of the Lake district where there are many small hamlets, many of which have post offices. Will the Secretary of State
Column 256
give the Minister sitting beside him and me an assurance that the further introduction and promotion of ACT will not in any way prejudice the future of those small post offices in the Minister's constituency and in my constituency? May I have a clear assurance on that now from the Dispatch Box?Mr. Lilley : I have already given our assurance and I have reaffirmed our pledge to maintain a national network of sub-post offices and I am now explaining the mechanism by which that is achieved.
Mr. Graham : Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to explain that mechanism at greater length.
We have always accepted that we must make it profitable for postmasters to deliver our benefits. We do that via our contract with Post Office Counters Ltd and the terms are adjusted to reflect changing volumes of transactions, the switch from order books to ACT and all the other factors that affect viability.
As it so happens, the contract between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. is currently being renegotiated. It is perhaps no coincidence that blood-curdling warnings about the collapse of the branch network are circulating at this time. It is often the way when a contract is being negotiated that rather extreme statements are made.
I do not want to pursue the negotiations in public. Suffice it to say that I am confident that we will agree a sensible contract which reflects the common interest of both Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Benefits Agency in maintaining a viable network.
Mr. Dewar : I want to be clear about what the Secretary of State is saying. I took the implication of those remarks to be that he thinks that the present campaign has been deliberately promoted, as a means of putting pressure on his Department, by the Post Office in its negotiations and that it is therefore dishonest and totally self-interested. Is that the Secretary of State's position?
Mr. Lilley : I merely mentioned the common coincidence between blood -curdling warnings and negotiations.
Hon. Members have from us a triple assurance that we will maintain a viable network of post offices : we are pledged to do so, we need that network to deliver our benefits and we are prepared to pay to help sustain that network through our contract with the Post Office.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : The nub of the issue is choice. For choice to be real, Department of Social Security customers must have free and equal information about all the options available to them. Will the Secretary of State accept that as a fundamental principle which he will implement? Does he also accept that the forms that were sent out fell way short of that principle?
Mr. Lilley : As I have said, I will come to the issue of the forms in due course and deal frankly with the hon. Gentleman's point. On top of the assurances that we have given, we believe in encouraging sub-post offices to diversify into new businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was right to emphasise that point in the debate the other night. The Government have already made it clear that they are more than willing for post
Column 257
offices to be a selling point for the national lottery, should the successful contractor choose to sell tickets in that way. The possibility of allowing Post Office Counters Ltd. wider powers to take on new products and offer other services is being actively considered as part of the Post Office review.Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Will the Secretary of State remind the House of the exact nature of the assurance that he has just given? Is he assuring the House that no small post office or sub-post office will close as a result of a lack of business or loss of business caused by his campaign to switch to ACT? Is he going to arrange the contract with post offices in such a way that no small post office will close as a result of his campaign? Yes or no ?
Mr. Lilley : No Minister and no Government can guarantee that every post office will remain in operation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, each year 700 postmasters and postmistresses resign. Some are replaced, and sometimes the location is moved. But I have given an assurance that we will maintain the viability of the national network and will do that through our contract. We have shown our commitment to do so.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Lilley : Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. About six hon. Members on each side of the Chamber are attempting to intervene. The Secretary of State has indicated that he will not give way, so will hon. Members please remain in their seats?
Mr. Lilley : At the same time as supporting the post office network, we have always believed in choice. We reaffirmed that in the citizens charter, and I reaffirm it now.
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome) : Has not my right hon. Friend given the many pensioners in my constituency precisely the assurance that they need--that their sub-post office will remain open?
Mr. Lilley : Absolutely. I believe that pensioners will respond with satisfaction to the points that we have made and that they will despise Opposition Members who continue to try to keep a scare going even when the very assurances which they seek have been given. At the same time as supporting the post office network, we have always believed in choice. We have reaffirmed that in the citizens charter and I reaffirm it now. By contrast, the Labour party has never been the party of choice in this or any other matter. It opposed giving people the option of ACT, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) today failed to welcome our plans to extend that option to all benefits.
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : Before my right hon. Friend talks about new products, will he confirm that giro accounts are available for post office customers to collect their benefits and pensions from both Crown post offices and sub-post offices?
Mr. Lilley : That is absolutely right. It is one way that we could all have the best of both worlds--a cheaper, more
Column 258
effective means of delivery which none the less helps to sustain the sub-post office network, brings people into shops, and brings business with it. Although I am not allowed to advertise any private system of distribution, I hope that people in the privacy of the Chamber have heard my point and will transmit it onwards.Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lilley : May I make a little progress and then give way to my hon. Friend?
Let me refer to why we are encouraging people to choose automated credit transfer on a voluntary basis.
| Next Section
| Home Page |