| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for supporting the new clause. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly discerned, it was intended to stimulate debate and encourage the Government to put on record their thinking and the direction that they plan to take in modernising--to use their language--the invalid care allowance.
It has long been the view of the Liberal Democrats that the invalid care allowance should undergo a comprehensive reform, becoming a genuine carers' benefit that reflects their needs. The Minister was right to say that it is better to undertake such reforms in a comprehensive way.
Tonight we have focused on a particular concern that was raised in the royal commission report. The considerable sympathy that the Minister expressed is most welcome. However, it is important to recognise that there is a strong need to address financial issues affecting carers. Carers still want to know how long they will have to wait for the Government's definitive proposals to be enacted. That is the key. We are not talking about large sums of money for carers--it is only £39.95--but the savings for the taxpayer and the rest of society are considerable and we need to recognise that.
The new clause is a modest measure with a modest cost and it recognises the value of carers. However, in view of the Minister's generous response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Webb:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A large number of hon. Members--representing five political parties--have put their names to new clause 26. For the avoidance of doubt, although the amendment paper lists the most recently added names and those who tabled the amendment, other hon. Members, some of whom are here tonight, have also put their names to the new clause, demonstrating the broad concern around the issue.
The future of the post office network is a matter of concern to all our constituents. The depth of public concern about the threat to the post office network caused by the intended movement of benefit payments to automated credit transfer has stirred communities up and down the land. My regional newspaper, the Western Daily Press, has led the way with a petition that now has more than 2 million signatures and is growing by thousands every day. That campaign has voiced the concerns of people in the west country, but it is now spreading across the country. People are responding because of the affection in which they hold their local post offices.
The new clause would include in the regulations that apply to the payment of benefits the notion that the Government could not require people to receive benefits by means of automated credit transfer. There is a question as to whether that is the Government's intention, and the answer seems to depend on whether one listens to the Department of Social Security or the Department of Trade and Industry. In the autumn of last year the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters saying that by the end of the period 2003-05 all benefits would be paid by ACT. The letter was marked "for publication". Since then, the Government have softened their language a little, saying that there will be no compulsion, yet the Department of Social Security plans to save £400 million. The Department will not save £400 million unless pretty much everyone switches over to ACT. Regardless of whether the word "compulsion" is used, the sums involved imply the expectation that pretty much everyone will receive their money by that means.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
Does my hon. Friend accept that, to some extent, it is academic whether the Government wish to employ some compulsion? If so many post offices have ceased to be viable in rural areas, there is really no access to post offices for many people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. May I assist the House? As new clause 26 does not deal
Mr. Webb:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The connection that I am seeking to make--which I hope that you will feel is in order--is that, in the new clause, we are trying to prevent the Government from doing something that they seem to be threatening to do: require benefits to be paid by automated credit transfer. We believe that, if there were such a requirement, it would have a devastating affect on the post office network.
Miss McIntosh:
Can the hon. Gentleman assist me in explaining to the one third of my constituents who do not have bank accounts what the impact would be if the Government were to proceed with payment by ACT? Would they perhaps lose out on that payment?
Mr. Webb:
The hon. Lady highlights a very important grey area in the Government's proposals. We really do not know what will happen if ACT becomes the norm or compulsory. We do not know what the accounts will look like, or on what basis people will be able to withdraw money.
There is a critical point here. Ministers always say, "Don't worry, you'll still be able to go to a post office to get your money." However, that rather presumes that there will still be a local post office at which to get the money. The nub of the issue is that, if we move to compulsory ACT, it will so undermine the post office network that many of our communities will not have a post office to go to.
Mr. Bercow:
Although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Ministers regularly offer the assurance in the House that people will still be able to claim in person, does he agree that communications from both the Benefits Agency and the Royal Mail have given the impression that there will eventually be no alternative to ACT, and that that is the source of grave anxiety for hundreds of thousands of people across the country?
Mr. Webb:
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is grave anxiety. Very often, for benefits recipients, information on whether to choose ACT is presented in a very loaded manner. It is not really a free choice at all.
Mr. Browne:
As the hon. Gentleman is explaining the thinking behind new clause 26 and the effect that it may have on poor people, and given his very obvious expertise on social policy, will he share with the House his view on whether the one third of unbanked people--who are denied access to a whole range of services--should be encouraged in proper social policy to have bank accounts and access to the United Kingdom's financial networks?
Mr. Webb:
They should have access to financial services of an appropriate nature. My view is that those should be delivered ideally by the post office network. If the amendment is not passed and the Government go for compulsory ACT, that option may be closed, as the post office network may not be there to allow financial inclusion for just those people about whom the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned.
I have conducted a survey in my constituency, and I have the responses here--they can be independently verified, should that be required. I wrote to my sub-post offices on the subject of ACT, and asked what the implications of our failing to get the amendment through tonight would be for their businesses. I asked:
'.--In section 5(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, at the end of paragraph (i) there is inserted ", but the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to be the only manner of paying a benefit.".'.--[Mr. Webb.]
How would it would affect your business if the Government go ahead with plans to pay benefits into bank accounts?
That is an unloaded question, as one would expect. The first response I had was
It would close us down.
Others said that the post office and shop went hand in hand, and that one would not survive without the other on the basis of present turnover. Many sub-post offices depend on benefits transactions; not just the money that they get for handling benefit transactions, but the other business that that brings in. The one depends on the other.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |