| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Does it not amount to the fact that the Government have to convince the House--Labour Members more than Opposition Members, perhaps--that there is a real prospect that banks will open facilities for elderly people, who will want them only to receive their pensions and make disbursements at post offices? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's experience, which spans a period far longer than 14 weeks, will he tell us whether there is any realistic prospect that banks will be prepared to do that unless compelled to do so by the Government? Does he think the Government will do that? That is the nub of the debate.
Mr. Field: I am not sure whether that is the nub of the debate, given the substance of the new clause. I am not against Governments trying to compel people but, if one takes that course, it is good to ensure that one can succeed. Two banks in Birkenhead have announced their closure. We could compel banks to provide certain services but, if they are not there, we are dealing only with theoretical circumstances.
I appeal to Opposition Members to make their voices heard as clearly as possible on the new clause. The Bill is only part of the way through its proceedings; it will go to another place. The House will shortly receive one of the more effective lobbies of this Parliament. If the other place tabled an amendment, the Government would have to accept it or make alternative proposals.
Our aim is genuinely not to score off the Government with press releases and so on but to win some advances for the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. The
best way to do that is to convince the Government that we support the move to ACT, provided that some of the considerable gains that it will bring to taxpayers will be invested in our sub-post offices so that they can offer simple banking services. In that way, we shall keep the largest possible number of our sub-post offices; and financial exclusion, which now rightly seems to concern both sides of the House, will be tackled more effectively.
I realise that to follow the course that I advocate would be to deny some of us press releases. However, we may be denied them only for a few weeks, because, when we consider the Bill on its return from another place, we may be able to issue press releases stating that we have secured real advances for our poorest constituents, rather than that the Government have failed to accept a new clause.
I appeal to hon. Members: let us make our points as effectively as possible. Let us convince the Government that many of us may go into the Lobby against them on another occasion, if we do not obtain the changes that we want. Let that significant lobby of Parliament work on those with marginal constituencies. Let us return to the measure when the Government have had a chance to introduce more constructive provisions.
Mr. Pickles:
You rightly ruled that this matter relates to automatic credit transfer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, ACT also relates to post offices and to the provision of banking services in various areas. To avoid any doubt, I declare an interest. My wife works for Barclays bank, although I suspect that my remarks will not endear her to the board.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), although I lost count of the number of times that he told us about press releases and about what the Opposition are supposed to do tonight. I have always held the old-fashioned view that such nuances of political life as whether one presses a matter to a vote are among the few things best conducted by consenting adults in private. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman chose to tell us with a megaphone what we are supposed to be doing. Believe me, we have worked out the tactics for ourselves. Whatever we, along with other hon. Members, decide to do about the Liberal Democrats' new clause, it will be in the best interests of ensuring that the Government have plenty of time to reflect on this important issue.
I am a little concerned because we are beginning to polarise into two groups. There are those who say that the matter is about post offices, and those on the sunlit upland, moving towards automatic credit transfer. The Prime Minister tells us of all the savings that are to be made.
Mr. Swayne:
Will my hon. Friend give way on the point concerning the Prime Minister?
Mr. Pickles:
I knew that I would provoke my hon. Friend by saying the words "Prime Minister".
Mr. Swayne:
This afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government had inherited the proposals from the previous Administration. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) say on the record in the House that the
Mr. Pickles:
My hon. Friend's recollection is absolutely correct. I caught only the latter part of Prime Minister's Question Time today, but it was pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman was fairly flustered. I suppose that he can be forgiven for saying such a thing. I am sure that he will be at the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity tomorrow to correct it. My hon. Friend is right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rejected the idea--I know this because I have had discussions with him--because of the problems that it would cause rural post offices.
We know that, despite the steady trudge of the 20 people a week in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) who have changed to automatic credit transfer--I hope that, before the debate is over, the Minister of State will name them, because we would like to know who they are--only one in 10 pensioners have opted for ACT and, even among new pensioners, only one in three have done so.
The rather glib statement that simple banking services will cure everything concerns me. Frankly, they will not. Simple banking services will not meet the needs of people who draw pensions or benefits. Let us look briefly at some of the problems. We know that a large number of recipients of pensions and benefits are described as the "unbanked". We know that part of the Cruickshank report, to which my hon. Friends have alluded, may contain a deal under which banks will provide services for everybody.
If that occurs, we shall need to consider several practical things. First, help in understanding the operation of a bank account, particularly the management of it and the withdrawal of cash, will need to be offered. Anybody who doubts that cannot have an accurate recollection of their constituency surgeries. I have had to deal with a relatively elderly and confused person who had never had a bank account and who was dreadfully worried about how ACT would operate and whether it would result in debt. Some serious thought must be given to offering such people assistance. The obstacle is not insurmountable, but it will remain an obstacle unless we are able to do something about it.
Quite a number of people have joint bank accounts. Will the money transferred reach the people for whom the benefit is intended? We debated earlier the problems of transfer of money from a parent with care to a child. There is a particular problem concerning accounts shared by those who are not husband and wife, which we need to address.
It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
Mr. Pickles:
Will bank charges be imposed? Will people's pensions and benefits be eroded by bank charges? Will there be an overdraft facility on the bank charges and will benefit payments merely go towards reducing people's debts to the banks? What will happen if the payments of account holders infringe their agreements with the banks? What will happen if individuals do not qualify for a bank account or choose not to have one? We have to consider such questions if automated credit transfer is to be achieved.
Offering simple banking services will not in itself solve the problems of post offices. There must be a place where not only can people receive payments, but sums can be paid in. I had a discussion with one of my local sub-postmasters who told me about ACT. He said that he had noticed a trend and that people of 65 would use ACT. However, as they got older and moved into their 80s, they reverted to being paid over the counter. That sounds bizarre. Why should they do that? The answer is that they are frailer; they no longer feel competent to drive a motor car; journeys into town are expensive; and they feel safer and more secure going to the local post office to receive payments rather than receiving them through their bank account. It is easier to receive payments over the counter.
That, at this day's sitting, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Question agreed to.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |