| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Bruce: In his speech, the Minister did not touch on the matter of universal service in respect of counter delivery. In my constituency, five or six rural post offices have been threatened with closure. On each occasion, I have reminded the Post Office of its contract with the Department of Social Security--it has to provide, wherever possible, universal service of counter delivery for the payment of benefits and pensions. The Post Office agrees with me about that universal service provision. The Labour Government are about to remove it. When they have done so, no Member of Parliament will be able to ensure that one of their rural post offices does not close.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The heart of the matter--as hon. Members have pointed out this evening, and as I did on 15 July--and the reason for the Government's change of policy is not that they have suddenly discovered that IT will be of benefit to post offices. Of course it will be. The Conservative party had already realised that post offices needed to be equipped with computers, not only for benefit transactions but so that they could increase their ticketing and banking business--a range of other opportunities that are not open to them, but which will be when they have computers. What this is all about is a £400 million smash-and-grab raid by the Treasury. Does it not sound a pretty paltry amount compared to the amount of damage that its withdrawal will cause?
As always, when the Treasury wants to claw some money from the Department of Trade and Industry, DTI Ministers and their Secretary of State roll over and play dead. They put up no defence; they do not even consider the consequences of what that withdrawal will mean. Instead, they let the Treasury have its way; they do the Treasury's bidding, and when the problems flood in they set up committee after committee and scheme after scheme to try to shore up the damage.
The DTI team, with a former Treasury Minister as Secretary of State--indeed, almost all the ministerial team are former Treasury Ministers--should have seen this matter coming. They should have realised that they are no longer Treasury Ministers and that, although of course their job is to modernise the Post Office to facilitate the improved technology, they should have considered the knock-on effect of their policies. That point is not confined to the DTI; it has become a hallmark of the Government. They announce something, spin it and spend months looking for solutions to the problems that they have created, causing indecision and uncertainty.
Mr. David Heath:
The hon. Lady makes some extremely good points, with many of which I agree. However, I find it rather difficult to reconcile her position
Mrs. Browning:
I should be delighted to reconcile Members on the Liberal Benches with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I have known my hon. Friend for many years. I am not sure how long the reconciliation will take me but, in a spirit of co-operation, I am willing to do it. However, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) misjudges my hon. Friend, who is most active in his rural constituency in supporting his rural post offices. No doubt when we all meet for drinks, a chat and a bit of counselling, we shall be able to sort things out, but I think that my hon. Friend was concerned about the fact that, although there was a good debate in Westminster Hall, which made an extremely valuable contribution to the subject, it was a pity that the debate was held there because only a limited number of Members were able to speak. Furthermore, only a limited number of people were able to attend the debate.
Mr. Steen:
As my hon. Friend is aware, my constituency is now Totnes, not South Hams. The Liberal Democrats are light years away in their backwardness on such matters. They do not realise that things move on.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with Westminster Hall is that, while we are debating there, this Chamber is empty? It is a total waste of public--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. We are not debating the merits of Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Browning:
You rightly chide my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, there was concern that when we held that important debate, which was of interest to many members of the public as well as to Members of the House, Westminster Hall was full of schoolchildren. There is nothing wrong with children coming to the House of Commons, but many other members of the public would have liked to hear the debate. I am grateful that we have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Letwin:
May I return my hon. Friend to the points she was making before that series of interventions? Does she agree that one of the most remarkable features of the scheme is that, because the Minister did not reply to the question she put a few moments ago, we do not have the slightest idea how much of the £400 million that the Treasury hopes to save will instead be spent on the banks. We do not even know whether the sum is greater than £400 million.
Mrs. Browning:
There are many unanswered questions that I shall give the Minister an opportunity to answer. In seven months, they have been repeated several times in several debates. They deserve to be answered. Who will bear the transaction costs of the collection of benefit from the post office when it goes via the clearing bank? The Minister said that it will not be the customer, so it must either be the clearing bank or the post office itself. If that is so, sub-post offices that receive remuneration for that administrative cost will have that remuneration taken
During the summer recess, it was obvious that DTI Ministers were putting a lot of pressure on the clearing banks to provide bank accounts for the socially excluded. It sounded nice, but I know from discussions that I have had with the clearing banks that they will not be able to provide bank accounts for the socially excluded and those who, by law, are prohibited from holding bank accounts. If the Minister is to find alternative ways of paying those people, he must take that into account. It would be nice to see a reconciliation sheet showing how the saving of £400 million by the Department of Social Security compares with the additional costs of the various processes that the Government are finding it necessary to cobble together because they did not think things through when the Secretary of State made his policy change decision at the end of May.
We still have an imprecise picture of how people will access their local post office within a reasonable travelling time. It is obvious that, between now and 2003, post offices will close. I do not wish to stir up unhappiness, but I know that people are already finding it difficult to dispose of post offices. Therefore, there are likely to be far fewer post offices everywhere by 2003.
The Minister said, in effect, "In that case, we shall look to provide postal services in village halls and people's front rooms." In my constituency, there is a post office in someone's front room, which is open just two half-days a week. Such innovative changes to the sub-post office network are welcome, and obviously one must be creative and flexible, but the Minister knows that the Post Office White Paper makes a very clear commitment to access. What is the likely cost, and who will fund it? Will he answer those questions tonight? Will the Government provide some additional funding for access? If so, should not it appear on the reconciliation sheet?
I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to answer these questions in terms tonight because--
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning:
I will give way as it is the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to conclude my remarks.
Mr. Hoyle:
Why is the Conservative party suddenly showing an interest in rural post offices when, for 18 years, they were allowed to close and not an eyelid was batted?
Mrs. Browning:
I do not know how many meetings the hon. Gentleman has had with sub-postmasters in his constituency--
Mrs. Browning:
That is part of the great Labour lie rearing its head again tonight. I am saying quite seriously that it is no good for the hon. Gentleman to make such allegations across the Floor of the House without having a substantive reason for doing so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |