| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.37 pm
Mr. Cotter: The atmosphere in Committee was good natured, and I congratulate the Minister, especially on accepting my amendments and introducing measures that we welcomed. [Interruption.] The unaccustomed support of my hon. Friends has somewhat put me off.
We are approaching the end of a long process to bring the Post Office into the 21st century. The previous Tory Government lost many valuable years while they hummed and hawed about whether to privatise or whether to do anything at all. In fact, they did nothing.
From 1992 to 1997 the Post Office was in limbo. In July 1992 the Tory Government announced a review of the structure and operations of the Post Office. In 1994 a consultation paper was issued. The confusion carried on, with the Tory President of the Board of Trade saying that he preferred privatisation as an option for the Post Office, but did not have parliamentary support.
In 1996 privatisation was back on the agenda, with a plan to break the Post Office up into 11 regional franchises, similar to the rail privatisation. It was reported that as part of the proposed measures, a 5p cut was possible in the rates for London postal deliveries, which would have had an impact elsewhere in the country.
The previous Government wasted much time in discussion. I recollect that in Committee, the spokesman for the Conservatives complained that we were rushing matters. However, the Government have addressed many of the issues that needed to be addressed. I am glad that they have recognised the need for a publicly owned service. The importance of the Post Office to communities is reflected by the extraordinary number of debates on it that we have had in recent months, as Ministers know. Only last week, there was a strong lobby.
We were pleased but muted in our response today when the Secretary of State introduced new clause 1 because, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, his opacity was very much to the fore. We want clarification. We want the new clause to be implemented, and we are pleased that the Government seem to have responded to pressure from the lobbies--
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): And from you.
Mr. Cotter: And from me, as my colleague says. Anyway, the Government seem to have responded to pressure with their proposal for a subsidy, but, as I have said, we await clarification.
Mr. Hancock: Does my hon. Friend agree that a cloud of doubt and uncertainty still hangs over the sub-post office network, and that, despite the promise that they gave earlier this evening, the Government have not done enough to give credibility to their claim that it is safe in their hands?
Mr. Cotter: I agree. So many issues are involved that I could wax on indefinitely--[Interruption.] I assure you that I will not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let me deal with just one of those issues.
We are concerned about sub-post offices, and about the closure of banks. We have had an assurance from the Government; when I had a meeting with a top manager just the other day, he said that he was in touch with 12 banks with the aim of getting a service operating. That is welcome, but we still have the problem of the lack of clarity. There is still the question of whether the Horizon project will work well with the software that needs to be designed. Will it be able to offer a real banking service?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) pointed out, there are many other issues to be dealt with, but I shall not deal with them at this time of night. [Hon. Members: "Keep going!"] I shall finish while I am ahead.
We are keen to see what will happen, especially to sub-post offices. We shall wait to see how words translate into action, and, in that sense, I look forward to future moves by the Government.
10.42 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): The Bill proves that, however often things seem to change, they never change. It is much the same Bill that officials brought to us in April or May 1992, when we had won a general election. We rejected that partial approach on the basis that it was muddled and half-hearted, and would not deliver the first-class postal system that the country needs and deserves.
I suppose the Government will argue that the Bill represents a sensible and non-ideological point of view. In fact, a sensible way of proceeding would be to recognise that Royal Mail is a successful, profit-making international company, at least potentially, and that, as such, it simply must be allowed to compete. It must be allowed to make acquisitions; it must be able to beat off the challenges of the technological age, and, above all, to beat off fierce competition from its German and Dutch rivals. As long as it is under state control, it will never be able to be the highly successful company that it could be.
That is Royal Mail, and that is the future of Royal Mail. That is what Royal Mail will become in the long term. If only Ministers like the Secretary of State, who believe in the vision that I have described, had had the courage of their convictions, we would not now be discussing the privatisation of Royal Mail.
Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if we took just that line, many sub-post offices would close?
Mr. Leigh: That is the point of view--the untruth, in a sense--that the Opposition always present. They try to muddle up two issues. [Hon. Members: "The Opposition?"] The opposition to what I have been saying, that is.
Two businesses are involved. There is Royal Mail, which is a competitive, profitable business that can be privatised; and there is Post Office Counters Ltd, an overall national structure which, I agree, cannot be privatised. We made that clear--[Interruption.] The national structure--Post Office Counters--is owned by the state. We made it clear when we were hoping to privatise Royal Mail that Post Office Counters would be retained in the public sector to ensure an income stream to the privatised sub-post offices. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. It is extremely unfair to the hon. Gentleman that so many conversations are taking place. The House must come to order.
Mr. Leigh: The Government constantly repeat that the Conservative party wants to privatise the Post Office, yet we intended to privatise only Royal Mail. We never intended to privatise Post Office Counters. Despite our determination to privatise Royal Mail, we would have maintained the universal tariff and universal delivery. [Hon. Members: "How?"] Through the Post Office regulator. The Bill, which we would have brought before Parliament--and we shall introduce it one day--[Interruption.] What will happen is inevitable. The Government will find that they simply cannot allow the Post Office to be a strange creature, half public, half
private, owned by the state yet allowed to compete in the private sector. That is unfair and uncompetitive, and it will not happen.Labour Back Benchers must know that the Government's secret agenda is full privatisation. That is the logical conclusion of their proposals. Why not be honest about it and privatise Royal Mail, but with the protections that I described to ensure a universal tariff and universal delivery? That could be achieved.
Post Office Counters is a different operation. Sub-post offices are already in private hands. They are run by business men and women, who want not subsidies, but an income stream. Post Office Counters must be kept in the public sector and the income stream must be guaranteed. The Bill will not achieve that. The measure gives the Government only the power to provide subsidies.
The Government's approach to the Post Office Counters network is wrong. Instead of forcing pensioners to accept their pensions through a bank account, we should mechanise sub-post offices and ensure that every sub-post office has the ability to develop modern post office and banking services. Pensioners could thus take their pensions from sub-post offices. The Government claim that they are providing for that. Their constant refrain is that a pension costs only 1p to deliver through the bank, but 48p through the Post Office. However, they do not admit that although it costs 1p to transfer the money from the bank to local distribution centres, it costs much more to pass the money over the counter.
Today we read that Lloyds bank will charge its customers 50p to use the cash machines. The Government must come clean; there is no way out. Once one forces pensioners to accept their pensions through a bank account, they will be subject to hidden charges. Nobody has explained how those costs will be paid. Banks are not charitable organisations; they will insist on their costs being met. The public purse or pensioners will ultimately have to pay. That is why the Government's approach is wrong.
The Government could have introduced a Bill that ensured that Royal Mail was competitive, profitable and independent. They could have retained Post Office Counters in the public sector and guaranteed an income stream for sub-post offices. They could have helped sub-post offices to mechanise and prepare for the future. That would have been an exciting, worthwhile and right measure. The Bill simply represents the Secretary of State putting a toe in the water. It is a pity that he cannot have the courage of his convictions and introduce a Bill that we all support.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |