| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.15 pm
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): That is modernisation.
Mr. Brady: People are beginning to understand that modernisation sometimes causes genuine problems. It damages their communities and the provision of public services. It may be an attractive buzz word for those on the Treasury Bench, but it means nothing and provides no benefits for ordinary people.
I hope that the Secretary of State will make some concrete commitments. If he stands by new clause 1 and has genuinely acted in good faith by tabling it to try to rectify some of the problems that the Government are creating for sub-post offices, we need to know how its provisions will be implemented.
What are the financial implications? We want to know not only the cost but how the subsidy will be distributed between different sub-post offices, and on what criteria. Will the subsidy go to rural, suburban or urban areas? What priority will be given to ensuring that the elderly have their post office services protected? What priority will be given to ensuring the provision of sufficient post office services in areas of deprivation, or places with large populations, which depend on benefit payments through post offices? We can have confidence in new clause 1 and the Secretary of State's good faith in trying to save post offices from Government attack only if he can provide concrete assurances and make genuine commitments this evening.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I want to explore the key word of the debate--opacity--in the context of new clause 1, and link it to a potent point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made. He pointed out that, through accident or incompetence--it does not matter which at this stage--we are in an invidious position. We have been presented with a comprehensive new clause--which, according to the Secretary of State, forms the core of the Bill--not in Committee, where it could be properly scrutinised and amended, but on Report when there is an element of time pressure. That speaks volumes for the way in which the Government go about their business. Their actions, taken in a panic and at the last minute, are ill thought out and poorly understood--and that applies to the Secretary of State's actions, let alone to those of anyone else. In the limited time available, we must attempt to discover from the Secretary of State what lies behind the new clause.
New clause 1 is shot through with incongruity and phrases that mean little if anything to me. We want to ascertain whether they mean anything to the Secretary of State. Our old friends "may" and "shall" are the subject of other amendments in the group. The new clause would provide that the Secretary of State "may", if he sees fit, implement its provisions. It contains no guarantee for the sub-post office network. We are therefore considering a discretionary matter. The provisions may or may not be effected, depending on the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. The current Secretary of State's successor may be in place more quickly than even he can imagine. Does he feel that he can commit his successors to such a provision?
The use of the word "may" is significant. I hope that the Secretary of State can reassure us and the sub-post office network that "may" will be replaced with "shall". That will at least make clear the intention of new clause 1, and show that the provision is not discretionary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that when he winds up.
Difficulties arise with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). They make an interesting distinction between
- assisting in the provision of public post offices
- assisting in the provision of services to be provided from public post offices . . .
- in the provision of public post offices . . .
We want to know about that because until now, the process has been seen as one of irreversible decline. If the Secretary of State can tell us that there may be circumstances in which a new sub-post office could be brought into being by the provision, some rural areas in particular might take encouragement from it. That needs to be clarified.
There is also doubt about who would implement the proposal as the new clause provides that that may be done either by the Secretary of State or by someone else on his behalf. That is an important distinction. Were it to be the Secretary of State and were he prepared to give undertakings to the House now, that, too, might be somewhat reassuring, but if we were told that he at least had in mind the possibility that some other person or agency would deliver the mechanisms--the new clause would allow that--we would already be at one remove from what has been said during these proceedings. Whatever reassurance he may be able to give us, how could he guarantee that his agent or agency, or any other person acting on his behalf, would have the same commitment to doing what we have been told would be done? That is always supposing that we get some commitment from him; we have had none yet.
The new clause appears to describe the scheme in detail, but it turns out that that is not the case at all. The scheme
- shall specify . . . the descriptions of payments . . .
- the descriptions of persons to whom such payments may be made . . .
- the person by whom such payments may be made . . .
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a plea in an intervention. He said that to be meaningful, the criteria should be clear, concise and well understood. One can see what he means. However, he will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury pointed out in his excellent contribution that in many ways, sub-post offices perform a social service in their community and often provide support, advice and help to their customers. How could one express that in the criteria to which the "person" would have regard in deciding whether payments had to be made? The matter seems straightforward on one level. However, on another, if the Secretary of State ever accepts that sub-post offices have a crucial social and community function to perform, how will he factor that into the criteria so that payments will be made under the scheme? These matters are not trivial; they are of the greatest importance.
If we were told that the Secretary of State had no intention of paying any regard to social matters, that would give rise to suspicion that what appears, on the face
of it, to be a comprehensive scheme was cobbled together late in the day without sufficient thought. No one--least of all, regrettably, our excellent sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses up and down the country--should imagine that the proposal is the solution to their problems. Would that it were otherwise. If we had had a proper chance to examine the new clause, we might have been able to make more progress in that regard.Subsection (5)(a) refers to "conditions as to repayment". That strikes me as an important and potentially sinister provision. For the first time, there is a reference to repayment being made, which clearly implies that it is in the Secretary of State's mind that any moneys paid to sub-post offices under the new clause may have to be repaid in some circumstances. We must know an awful lot more about what "repayment" means before we can give our approval to the new clause. It could mean any number of different things, and repayment could take many different forms. We need to know what "conditions as to repayment" could mean before we can feel reassured by the new clause.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters and he is right to smell a rat. Is not his suspicion reinforced when he reads subsection (6), about which there has been considerable commentary? It refers to the requirement for
- the consent of the Treasury.
Mr. Forth: That, of course, suggests itself not only to my hon. Friend, but to most of us who have taken even a brief moment to study the new clause. I shall come to subsection (6), but time is pressing and I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily. I simply say that we have all spotted the Treasury's grubby hand on the throat of the new clause--it cannot be concealed. We need to know what the Secretary of State thinks his relationship with the Chancellor is, what guarantees he has or has not received from the Chancellor, and whether he thinks that the payments that he envisages being made will be both adequate and guaranteed. If they will be neither, the measure is worthless.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |