| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree): I am pleased to be called in what is our second debate within a week on this important matter. Without seeking to graduate in sycophancy, may I say that I am increasingly reassured by the replies of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness? I wonder whether I might mention again his renowned quotation. He said it first, I think, in Westminster Hall:
- "I emphasise again that there will be no change before 2003 to existing methods of benefit payments. All benefit recipients and state pensioners who want to will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash, across the counter at the post office, both before and after the changeover."--[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 69WH.]
If I understand the position correctly, one of the main concerns of all right hon. and hon. Members' constituents is that they will not be able to receive cash payments. That view has been expressed widely and caused much concern, particularly among elderly people, who believe that the process is in train already. The Minister was able to reassure me in Westminster Hall last week that the somewhat misleading letter on child benefit payments that was issued by the Benefits Agency had been withdrawn. I hope that further letters or statements that give the impression that there is no choice, even though there is, will cease to be issued, and that cash payment will continue to be an option. If we can resolve the cash question, that will be of great benefit to those who do not want, or cannot have, a bank account.
The second concern involves the profit margin and whether businesses can survive if a certain amount of their business goes because of direct payment, even if some of it remains via cash payment. I suspect that most of us know that village post offices are not gold mines where vast profits are made daily. People there work long hours, often in difficult circumstances--in many cases, I suspect, for quite low margins of profit. Therefore, two things need to go hand in hand; I was hoping that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) would mention them when he talked about two stages.
Two stages need to be in harness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) eloquently mentioned, other business has to come in at the same pace as the cash-payment system declines. If that equation can be achieved, there will be a positive future for rural, suburban and inner-city post offices. Again, I am reassured--I hope that I am not over-reassured--by the Minister for Competitiveness, who indicated the
Government's commitment to negotiate arrangements with the major clearing banks, so that sub-post offices become their agents.
Mr. Page:
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not accept how worrying it is for old people when the Government announce just one part and hope--I hope that I am wrong and that what they say will happen does happen--that the second part will follow in one, two or three years' time?
Mr. Hurst:
I fully accept that there is concern. That was the reason why, in the earlier debate, I mentioned--I say it again today--that all of us have a duty to reassure our constituents in a loud and clear voice that the cash payment option will remain and that steps are being taken to reinvigorate local post services. Fear must not strangle the very businesses that we seek to save.
I will not go through the position again. We are fully aware that the post office is a crucial part of each village, suburban and inner-city community: in many cases, if the post office goes away, there will be not social exclusion but a social desert. There will be nowhere for the interchange of ideas among people because all the places for such an interchange will have gone: the pub, school, church, chapel, shop and, finally, post office.
Mr. Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare):
Earlier in the debate, hon. Members made the point that sub-post offices are very important to local areas. Specifically, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ)--who is about to leave the Chamber--made various points on the issue with which I shall deal shortly.
In a very real sense, the post office is the centre of the community. However, the Government's White Paper on post offices states:
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean made various good points--which I shall not of course, repeat--and tried to draw attention to various ways in which sub-post offices might use their position to benefit communities. She also mentioned a national advertising campaign--which is a very good idea--as a means of achieving that goal. However, as I recently told the Minister in a
Westminster Hall debate, in view of the grave confusion caused by the letter sent to benefits users, post offices should display a notice clearly stating, "You can still get your benefits here." Although I think there should be a national advertising campaign, as the hon. Lady suggested, a statement of available services should also be clearly displayed in post offices.
The Government should acknowledge their commitment to small businesses. The fact is that 90 per cent. of the sub-post office network is managed by small business people. Moreover, a recent report stated that 90 per cent. of small businesses with fewer than nine employees use sub-post offices for their banking and deposit facilities. Ministers therefore have a neat link available between establishing their commitment to small businesses and addressing the issues affecting sub-post offices.
Hon. Members have already mentioned our grave concerns for those who have decided to run sub-post offices. The Minister said that small business people had invested about £1 billion of their own money in sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters and mistresses will feel very let down in that investment, as they decided on it based on volumes of business currently being done by the post office, much of which involved benefits payments. The Government have therefore misled those who were deciding whether to take on a sub-post office about the basic business, which is now at risk.
The Minister said that the £1 billion was for an attractive investment. Sub-postmasters and mistresses clearly no longer feel that it was an attractive investment. I am sure that they have told other hon. Members that they are desperately worried that they will not get a return on their investment and will not be able to retire on a decent income. They feel let down.
That is one reason why the debate keeps recurring. It is not just because the Liberal Democrats decided to raise the subject again. Even after the debate last week, which I participated in, people are still looking for the answers. I have a great deal of time for the Minister. It has been said that he has a great struggle with the Treasury. I am sure that he is doing his best, but we want to reinforce to him what is being said about sub-post offices. The Treasury must come up with something more than the various ideas mentioned by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, which I support.
We had a fiasco and great delays with passports recently. Sub-post offices could play a key role. With electronic communications, it should be possible to make an application at the local post office and have it near enough issued by the sub-postmaster. Photographs and forms can be transmitted electronically and it should be possible to get a passport within two or three days.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston):
I refer the hon. Gentleman to a letter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary placed in the Library last week in response to a question that I asked. He made it clear that the Government intend to look at the possibility of increasing facilities for passport and similar applications that are the responsibility of the Home Office.
Mr. Cotter:
That is welcome, but there is a grave concern that there will not be many sub-post offices left when the reforms are introduced.
"The sub-post office plays a valuable role in local communities, particularly for the less mobile. But the Post Office cannot sustain a network if it is not sufficiently well used, and nor can Government."
Those are worrying words indeed. If there is not sufficient support for post offices, they will be at risk; indeed, in the White Paper, it is acknowledged that they are at risk. The implication of the statement is that the Government will not support sub-post offices if they are not attracting sufficient turnover. We should remember, however, the relation between the issues of benefit payment methods and possible declines in the numbers of those who use post offices.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |