---

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus): I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it not even worse than that? In many areas, there is no bank branch to use, because the major banks have been implementing a branch closure programme for at least 10 years. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the only way of obtaining money from a bank may be to use a "hole in the wall", and there are serious problems with a number of those machines.

Mr. Heald: That just goes to show that the system has not been thought through adequately.

The system is complex, and it was not advertised properly. Individuals are being pushed away from the Post Office card account. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head and says "No, no." Let us consider whether there might be a reason for what is happening. When he was questioned last week, the Minister admitted that Post Office card accounts cost the Department for Work and Pensions money, and that it had been funded for only 3 million of all the millions of customers. He said that if that was reduced any further, he would have to go cap in hand and

"open up discussions with our good friends in the Treasury".

There we have it. The evidence on the ground and the money that is available point in the same direction: the Department is dissuading customers from using Post Office card accounts. Is it any wonder that 800,000 of the 2.5 million who have been written to so far have failed to respond?

Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale): In fact, a great many people want their pensions to be paid through bank accounts. We must accept that things move on. I acknowledge that there have been problems in the past for people who have wanted to have Post Office cards, but a lot of work has been done to resolve those problems. In the window of my constituency office is a massive poster from the Post Office telling people that they can still collect their pensions and have a Post Office card. I have leaflets, and I have tried phoning the hotline—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot make a speech during an intervention.

Mr. Heald: Like me, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and many others, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) signed the early-day motion. We want a genuine choice, and we want it to be easy to open a Post Office card account. I hope that she will vote with us tonight, because the wording of the motion is exactly the same as that of the early-day motion that she signed.

Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: I had better make some progress. There is very little time.

11 Jun 2003 : Column 762

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): My hon. Friend said that this was cost-driven. Has he considered the social cost of the damage that will be done not just to post offices but to individuals? Those of us whose constituencies contain a large number of elderly people know that the post office is often where they meet their friends just once a week. This Government could not care less about that, and are trying to take it away.

Mr. Heald: That point has been made to me in letters from people all over the country. We are talking about a social loss. It is also wrong to impose on vulnerable people uncertainty about something that is so important to them. They rely on the money that they collect, week by week, and to impose on them a confusing system that they do not understand is just plain wrong.

Even those who can open a Post Office card account may not be able to use it all the time. Many of those who use order books get their carer to collect their pensions if they are not well. However, they may have to use more than one carer. That is fine under the current system but the Post Office card account will allow only one person to be nominated for that purpose. How will that affect the pensioner from Oldham who wrote to me? That pensioner stated:

"I have no relatives, and most of my friends have died. If I am ill . . . I may be allocated a home carer who can collect my retirement pension . . . Each time this has happened, it has been a different home carer . . . I have been told that unless I can nominate someone to act as agent for me, should I not be able to collect my pension . . . I shall simply get no money . . . No thought has been given to the plight of older people, or younger disabled people, who simply have no-one to appoint".

Another pensioner from Kent wrote:

"I understand that the carer will also be given a separate PIN . . . In my local Post Office I see home carers collect for 3 to 4 pensioners at one time . . . If they have to use PINs this means memorising several at one time, and as they do this job five days a week, they will have to know and use something like 20 PINs. Some memory needed there! Has any thought been given to this situation?"

Surely, the Government should be able to explain how those difficulties are to be surmounted. What is the answer? I hope that the Minister will address those points.

The Government need to be clearer on what is happening with the key pads that have been installed. Are they to be ripped out or modified? What is to happen to all 38,000 of them and how is it that the Minister's Department allowed those problems to arise in the first place?

The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness told the Select Committee last week that the Post Office was looking to develop new technology for secure alternatives to PIN pads. What is the timetable for its introduction? Is it separate from the exceptions service for those who are simply unable to open or use any of the direct payment options available, including Post Office card accounts? The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has pointed out that no details of an exceptions service have been released and there is no mention of it in any of the publicity. The federation states that that causes concern and uncertainty for those claimants who cannot manage on the options available.

I have raised the exceptions service on a number of occasions in the House but the answers that I have received have not shed much light on the position. At

11 Jun 2003 : Column 763

questions on Monday, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would say what criteria would qualify a person for the exceptions service. He replied:

"we shall consult closely . . . with representative groups of older people, disabled people and others to ensure that those criteria are sensible and meet people's needs".—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 390.]

With the greatest possible respect to him, that was a non-answer. Saying that the criteria will be "sensible" and that they will "meet people's needs" does not tell us what they are. Many customers simply do not know about the exceptions service because they have not been told. They do not know that they can keep their order books for up to two years while the service is being developed.

When the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North, was pressed to explain whether people are aware of that, what was his reply to the Select Committee? He said:

"I cannot, to be straight with you, guarantee that they are sufficiently aware. I think some are but I think there is still some confusion."

One would think that it was a pretty big issue and should be dealt with urgently. The question arises, what were the Government going to do to let people know? The answer given by the Under-Secretary was:

"In every local radio interview, I do stress that. I say 'Look: the advice to people at the moment is, do not panic'".

It is very Corporal Jones but we were looking for something a bit more Captain Mainwaring, not least because the Government intend to spend two years developing the exceptions service when they already know how it is going to work.

The Under-Secretary told the Select Committee last week that the exceptions service would "almost certainly" be a cheque through the post. It is hardly rocket science. It really is "Dad's Army" at the DWP. Although it knows what form the service will take, it has not even asked, consulted or told the Post Office about it yet, as the chief executive confirmed last week.

Of course, it is not even clear whom the exceptions service is going to be for. Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary told me that it would be for those who

"genuinely are unable to manage an account". —[Official Report, 3 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 50W]

However, a day later, at the Select Committee, he described the exceptions service as applying

"where people . . . feel that none of the existing accounts including the Post Office card account was suitable".

So who decides and on what basis? Will the service be available to customers who feel that none of the account-based options is suitable, or do they need to be assessed by the DWP as medically unable? It is a vital question, because the people concerned are elderly customers and those suffering from blindness, Alzheimer's disease, severe arthritis, autism and other serious conditions. They deserve answers and should not be left in the dark.

Bob Spink (Castle Point): Could we also address the question of how many the exception will apply to? We know that 40 per cent. of the people who have been

11 Jun 2003 : Column 764

asked by the Government to transfer to the new system have not yet done so. What will happen to them? Will the exception apply to 40 per cent. of the people?

---