| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's Panglossian optimism is singularly misplaced when we recall that the group managing director of banking and customer services at the Post Office, Mr. Stuart Sweetman, said that he is not at all confident that income from other sources will in any way be sufficient to make up for the Post Office's loss of income from benefits as a result of the Government's stupid policy?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right, and I have visited an excellent sub-post office in his constituency.
The Government are quick to claim that they are doing something. When the Prime Minister is out and about in the country--I recall his visit to the countryside in the west country a little while back--instead of saying frankly, as we now read in missives from every Department around Whitehall, that it was not a matter for the Government, he tried to placate postmasters by saying that cash dispensers would be installed, and that the Government would sit down and talk, as he said again today. He has had a year to sit down and talk to those businesses, yet we are expected to believe that for once he will come up with something useful.
Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) rose--
Mrs. Browning: I have already given way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller); I now give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne).
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On the contributions to the discussion from Mr. Stuart Sweetman, is she aware that Mr. Sweetman attended a meeting of the all-party group on community banking convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on Monday? I hope to tell the House some of what he said, if I am called to speak. In the Committee Room, he explained in great detail the discussions with banks in which he was engaged, which could generate £200 million of income for sub-post offices--hardly a drop in the ocean.
Mrs. Browning: Of course we support any initiative. I must tell the Secretary of State that it is past five to 12, as far as sub-post offices are concerned. As they plan their
business for the coming financial year and particularly for the next two or three years, sub-postmasters need to know what other sources of income will be available to them. After a year of inactivity on the Government's part, any activity is to be welcomed. The question is whether it will be enough to save the sub-post offices that are now closing at double the rate at which they closed last year.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Before she leaves the subject of the Prime Minister, did she find it instructive that in his replies earlier this afternoon, he said that there was nothing wrong with the policy--it was just the consequences? Would it not be helpful if the policy touched base with the consequences? The consequences are that there will be no post offices by the time the new technology is available.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right. It was also noted this afternoon that the Prime Minister made a point of saying that he made no apology. Those on the Treasury Bench are well known for making no apology when they close businesses, put people out of work and create chaos and confusion among some of the most vulnerable people in society. That is the hallmark of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.
Let us consider alternatives to chaos--[Interruption.] I wrote the speech myself. Unlike the ones that come from Millbank tower, these are all home-made.
There are steps that the Government could take, and they should act quickly if they are to save the post offices. The big question is whether they want to save them. If they drag the process out long enough, the more difficult cases--those that open part time and those that are less viable--will be off the scene altogether by the time the Government produce proper suggestions to help the rest. Given the Government's track record, that seems to be the policy that they are following.
We read in the papers this week a suggestion from the Minister for Competitiveness that sub-postmasters are to become local consuls. We would welcome that, if it is recognition of the other services that postmasters provide in their local communities--the many things that they do, unpaid and unsung heroes and heroines in their communities.
However, apart from proposing that postmasters should be given a smart badge, which presumably was meant to flatter, the hon. Gentleman did not spell out whether there is to be any remuneration for them. If he has a practical business plan to put on the table that would help post offices by allowing them to provide services for which they would be remunerated, perhaps that suggestion would have some credence. This, however, is merely papering over the cracks to disguise the big problem that the Government have brought about.
As we all know, local people rely on sub-postmasters. If someone does not collect their pension one week, the sub-postmaster will notice. The sub-post office is often the calling-off point for the local doctor, who may leave a prescription there at no charge. The value that sub-post offices provide for communities is almost unquantifiable. That is why the last Conservative Government believed it was worth remunerating sub-post offices. We recognised
the value of their contribution in the heart of vulnerable communities--unlike the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who has accused sub-postmasters of telling porkies.That does not sound to me like the view of a Government who are sitting down and talking to sub-postmasters about their problems. It is certainly not the opinion of the 3 million people who signed the Western Daily Press petition. Whatever the Prime Minister and other Labour Members say, there is now such a groundswell of opinion--clearly demonstrated by the size of the petition presented to Downing street--that the Government must either rethink, or come up with alternative suggestions pretty smartly.
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already.
The Government must either rethink or come up with alternative suggestions so that these businesses can not just survive, but survive next year. It is as urgent as that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend is presenting an excellent case. What advice would she give to residents of my hill villages of Kettleshulme and Wildboarclough, which are both in the Peak park, and the village of Higher Poynton, whose sub-post offices will close in the next few weeks? Am I not right in saying that such sub-post offices are critical elements of the success and the on-going potential of rural villages? How will the villages survive if this essential facility is closed?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the rural communities that he and I represent, a fragile situation is deteriorating. He, along with other Members of Parliament, will have made his representations, because there is now a sense of urgency. All our constituencies contain dozens of sub-post offices which are now genuinely at risk, not in three years' time but this year.
Sub-post offices deserve better than the Government's action. It is no good the Prime Minister saying, as he said yet again today, that cash dispensers are the answer. People need bank accounts in order to obtain money from cash dispensers, and if a post office is to have a cash dispenser in the wall there must be a minimum number of transactions a week for it to be viable.
There is another problem, unless the Government announce today that they are to round up all state benefits into multiples of five. In my experience, it is not possible to obtain both notes and coins from a cash dispenser. Pensioners who prefer to draw all their benefit each week so that they can plan how to spend it will not be used to that, but they may now be forced to make more than one visit a week.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Mr. Davey, at my post office in Blockley, tells me that what is really threatening his viability is the fact that a circular being sent to all claimants informs them that their benefit must
be paid through a bank account. It does not tell them that, if they wish to continue to receive it in cash, they must opt out of the present system. If they do opt out and continue to have the benefit paid in cash, Mr. Davey's transaction payment will be cut from 12p to 1p. That is what is threatening his business.
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mrs. Browning: No, my hon. Friend is right. It is true. The Government have made a virtue of the fact that it costs only 1p to transfer the money from the Department of Social Security to the BACS system. Apart from that, the Government have given no explanation of where the funding is coming from. There is certainly insufficient funding to make up for the loss of £400 million, which will be lifted out of post offices' revenue. That is where the problem is. The Government have made a Treasury- initiated decision. They do not have a clue how they will fulfil many of the pledges.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |