| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Byers: I am not going to give way, because Opposition Members have had their chance. I have been generous in giving way, but they have sought to mislead so much in their interventions--inadvertently, I am sure.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): There are 3,000 sub-postmasters out there who want answers.
Mr. Byers: They will not get an answer from the hon. Gentleman, but they will get one from my speech.
The reality is that all benefit recipients who wish to do so will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash at a post office, both before and after the change to an ACT-based system. I repeat that we shall put in place a mechanism so that both before and after 2003 all benefit recipients and state pensioners who want to will be able to access the exact amount of their benefits in cash across the counter at the post office, without incurring a charge for doing so.
The Opposition may wish to compel people to have their benefits paid through post offices, but we do not accept that. People must have a genuine choice and that is what we intend to offer.
Mrs. Browning: I heard the proposals that the Secretary of State outlined for recipients, but how much will that be worth in income for sub-postmasters?
Mr. Byers: As the hon. Lady knows, no figure has been agreed and the contract remains to be negotiated. It is a commercial transaction and the figure will be reached in the normal course of negotiations. [Interruption.] They are businesses and the negotiations concern a commercial arrangement. I shall not take part in the negotiations. Does she not understand that? The Government intend to ensure that the benefit recipient has a choice. She needs to be aware of that. We are having useful discussions with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters about our broad approach to ACT and the new services that can be offered. The Post Office will discuss with the federation the detail of the agreements that are entered into. Contractual negotiations will take place, and there are many months between now and 2003 during which they can be concluded.
Mrs. Browning: If it is a commercial transaction that is a matter for business and not government, how is it that the Prime Minister takes credit for the installation of 3,000 cash dispensers?
Mr. Byers: I cannot see what relevance that has to the issue that has been raised. The hon. Lady made an important point when she talked about the amount per transaction that a sub-postmaster is to receive as a result of the changed circumstances. I am saying that that is a subject for commercial negotiations between the Post Office and the sub-postmaster. No doubt she will try to explain what that has to do with cash points. We are talking about different issues.
There are new opportunities for people to go to a post office and use its services. As I have said, benefit recipients will still be entitled to have their cash paid over in full in pounds and pence. People such as me will be attracted to post offices to get money from cash machines. I may spend some of that money in the shop, which is often linked to the cash machine and the post office. That is what should happen.
Mr. Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Heath I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making progress on this issue now. We look forward to his comments on subsidy later in his speech. The key issue is whether the Government will underwrite the integrity of the post office network. If, on the basis that it is purely a commercial matter, they are not prepared to do that, we shall lose the network. Will he underwrite it?
Mr. Byers: We intend to address the issue through access criteria, which the performance and innovation unit report will disclose some time after Easter. That is how we can address people's need for local post office counter
services. Access criteria can then be considered by the Post Office regulator when that person is in post. That is the appropriate way to consider the matter. It is all about access to the services that can be offered through the post office network.
Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw): In my constituency, 80 per cent. of post offices depend for more than 50 per cent. of their business on the Benefits Agency. Any opportunity to increase their business will be most helpful. As for Link cash machines, will they not provide more business opportunities for sub-post offices? Those people who do not use post offices now will be able to when they are installed. They will then be able to spend the money that has been dispensed in the post office.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the development of cash machines in post offices has been widely welcomed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It is a good example of the post office network taking a more commercial view of the new streams of income that can come into the network. It is important that we consider new ways of encouraging people to go into a post office and using the services there provided as well as those provided by the shop, which often runs alongside it. As a result, the sub-postmaster and the shop owner--often one and the same person--will have the dual benefits.
Mr. Duncan: We seem at last to be concentrating on the kernel of the issue. As a result of his policy, the Secretary of State will replace a certain, guaranteed, Government-sourced income for post offices with an uncertain, commercially negotiated one on which he cannot at present put a figure. Yet he says that their income will remain reasonable. Those two points do not stack up.
Secondly, if the commercially negotiated income is insufficient, the post office network will collapse. What will constitute a reasonable income, and by how much does the existing income of sub-post offices need to fall for the Secretary of State to deem it to be unreasonable?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman did extremely well to deliver that question without breaking into a smile. His views on the Post Office are well known. He wants to go down the route of privatisation. We know that the post office network receives financial support from the Post Office. That is the reality: if Opposition Members think otherwise, they are fundamentally wrong and do not understand how the system works. He is on record as saying that he wants to break up the Post Office and then privatise it. That view is shared by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who has always argued for that option, as have many other Conservative Members.
We have to ensure that, where appropriate, the post office network has proper support. Our proposals in the Postal Services Bill will give the Post Office greater commercial freedom.
Mr. Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: I will let the hon. Gentleman into the debate in a moment. I know his views, which he has stated clearly. He is a man of principle on these matters and it
will be useful for the House to hear his views. They may be quite helpful to me, too, so I shall be more than happy to give way in a moment.The Postal Services Bill gives the Post Office greater commercial freedom. The real question is whether the Post Office will want to support the social role that the post office network can play. That is a real issue, and the Government intend to address it. In a moment, I shall inform the House about how we might do that, but I am sure that hon. Members will want to hear from the hon. Member for Gainsborough first.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he must be fair about this. When I worked at the Department of Trade and Industry with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the proposal was to privatise the Royal Mail. We recognised that sub-postmasters had always been private operators. There was never a proposal to privatise Post Office Counters. We always recognised that we had to maintain a national network of sub-post offices.
The Secretary of State must stop repeating that the Conservative party wants to privatise the whole set-up and that everything will go to wrack and ruin. That has never been our proposal.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman probably makes my point for me. He wanted to take Royal Mail and parcel delivery away from the Post Office. That would have broken the link with the post office network and put nothing in its place. That would have had a detrimental effect on the post office network, and it is one of the reasons why the network was so worried about the Conservative proposals. The then Prime Minister would not go down that route because he was worried about its political implications.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West): On my constituency office wall, I have a letter from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister. He was replying to a member of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which vigorously opposed Conservative plans to privatise Royal Mail. In the letter, the right hon. Gentleman stated quite simply that he believed that the post office network should be privatised.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |