| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Postal Services Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 1
Subsidy for public post offices
'.--(1) The Secretary of State may by order make a scheme for the making of payments for the purpose of--
(a) assisting in the provision of public post offices or public post offices of a particular description, or
(b) assisting in the provision of services to be provided from public post offices or public post offices of a particular description.
(2) A scheme under this section which provides for the making of payments for a purpose falling within subsection (1)(b) shall ensure that no such payments may be made unless the person deciding whether to make the payments considers that the provision of the services concerned from public post offices or public post offices of a particular description would assist in the provision of public post offices or (as the case may be) public post offices of that description.
(3) Payments under a scheme under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State or by another person out of money provided by the Secretary of State.
(4) A scheme under this section shall specify--
(a) the descriptions of payments which may be made under the scheme,
(b) the descriptions of persons to whom such payments may be made,
(c) the person by whom such payments may be made,
(d) criteria to which that person is to have regard in deciding whether to make such payments, and
(e) the amounts of such payments or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated.
(5) A scheme under this section may, in particular, provide for--
(a) payments under the scheme to be made subject to conditions specified in or determined under the scheme (including conditions as to repayment),
(b) the delegation of functions exercisable by virtue of the scheme (including the delegation of any discretion conferred by virtue of the scheme),
(c) the modification of the functions of a body established by an enactment, or the functions of the holder of an office created by an enactment, for the purpose of enabling the person concerned to exercise any functions conferred on that person by virtue of the scheme,
(d) the payment by the Secretary of State of fees to any person in respect of functions exercised by that person by virtue of the scheme.
(6) The power to make a scheme under this section shall not be exercised without the consent of the Treasury.'.--[Mr. Byers.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.54 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in line 35, at end add--
'(7) The Secretary of State shall make an order under this section within three months of the commencement of this Act'.
Amendment No. 71, in clause 41, page 27, line 14, at end insert--
'and--
(c) their financial viability'.
Government amendments Nos. 34, 42, 44 and 46.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was right to say that on Second Reading I said that we wished to introduce a clause to provide the opportunity for a subsidy to be made available to the post office network. I said that I hoped that we would be able to do that in Committee, but we did not table a new clause in Committee, and I apologise to the House for the fact that we did not have an opportunity to do so.
I took the decision--some hon. Members may criticise me for it--that a new clause providing a subsidy would be so significant that it would be better for it to be debated on Report by the whole House. More hon. Members will be able to debate the matter on Report than would have been able to debate it in Committee. I was trying to provide as many opportunities to participate in the debate to as many hon. Members as possible. That is why the new clause is being debated on Report.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being so open and honest with the House in saying that this debate should be an opportunity for the whole House to discuss the provision. However, as the matter was so well thought out and so much in the Department's mind, will he just remind the House when the Government tabled the new clause, so that we could consider it properly? Was it tabled in good time to allow us to consider it, or not until after last week's Opposition day debate, which put more pressure on him?
Mr. Byers: Considerable pressure was, of course, caused by last week's half-day Opposition debate, but that pressure was perhaps not so great as that caused by the 3 million signature petition organised by the sub-postmasters, or the very effective lobby of Parliament that they conducted last Wednesday. That probably brought far more pressure to bear on the Government than did a three-hour debate on these important issues.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, new clause 1 was tabled with all the other Government new clauses and amendments. It was prepared earlier, but, as is often the custom, the Government tabled all the new clauses and amendments in one batch. We have consistently dealt with this matter in that manner.
I shall now deal with the substance of new clause 1.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he did not table new clause 1 before Parliament debated the matter because he thinks that parliamentary debates are so irrelevant and ineffective that Parliament should be ill informed and not consider the relevant clauses when it considers the matter--as it did last week, both in Westminster Hall and in this place?
Mr. Byers: No. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps deliberately, misunderstands the point that I am trying to make. I felt that it was more appropriate that the whole House should have the opportunity of debating a subsidy
for the post office network on Report, rather than my reserving the debate for hon. Members who happened to serve on the Standing Committee. Many hon. Members who are now in the Chamber did not serve on that Committee, but may wish to participate in the debate. I feel that they should have the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): The Secretary of State is saying that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate this important issue. Although he may rely on that reason, he made a commitment on Second Reading. He may have decided just after Second Reading that the matter was too important for the Committee alone to deal with, but he has had plenty of time since then to table the new clause. Why did he not, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said, table the new clause before last Wednesday, when the House had the opportunity to debate the matter both in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House? The House could have fully debated the issue twice--both in last week's debates and, today, on Report--thereby having two bites at the cherry.
Mr. Byers: The record will show that my comment on Second Reading came in reply to a very specific question from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who asked whether the Bill would provide for a subsidy. I answered as truthfully as I could. I said that we had hoped that we would be able to table a new clause to that effect.
I think that the hon. Member for West Dorset would agree that last week's debates in Westminster Hall and in the House were on the broad principles of the support that should be given to the post office network, not on the detail that we are now considering on new clause 1. I think that it would be far better for the House if we were now to consider the detail of the new clause, rather than wondering whether it would have been better to deal with that detail in Committee, in Westminster Hall or in last week's Opposition day debate.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: Not on that point, as I should like to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair in this important debate.
4 pm
New clause 1 is significant. As I said in the House on 12 April:
- The power is a safeguard, intended to keep open the option of financial assistance.--[Official Report, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 385.]
Secondly, there is concern among sub-postmasters and mistresses in rural communities and inner-city areas about the effect of moving to a system of automated credit transfer between 2003 and 2005. The Government acknowledge the concerns that exist following the adoption of that policy. It may be that, at some future date, it would be appropriate to establish such a scheme, and that is what new clause 1 seeks to do.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |