| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): This is an unusual occasion. Every year there are literally thousands of early-day motions. Many of us feel that many of them are worthless but in each early-day motion many hon. Members call for a motion to be debated "at an early day". How pleased the nearly 400 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion on the Post Office card account must be today.
Mr. Kidney: If the hon. Gentleman would like to maintain the massive cross- party support for the early-day motion, will he announce that there will be no Division at the end of the debate?
Mr. Robathan: Of course not. We want hon. Members to put their money where their mouth is. It is a genuine cross-party motion and genuine cross-party points have been made on both sides of the Chamber. The motion has united the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionists and the Social Democratic and Labour party, which the Belfast agreement has failed to do. It has the highest number of signatures of any early-day motion this Session—385. That is one of the highest ever. Only one other this Session has attracted more than half the signatures of hon. Members in the House of Commons: that congratulating the excellent Laurie Kaye of the Table Office on his retirement.
Vernon Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
We therefore know that the motion is bound to pass, with so much support.
The debate has revealed that Government policy on the Post Office is in complete tatters; it is in chaos. The Department of Trade and Industry wants to keep the post offices open, yet it is closing three out of eight urban post offices. There is no proper plan. The Select Committee heard that last week.
The Department was meant to close post offices that were not in retail hotspots. It was meant to identify retail hotspots and to close the rather less good post offices, but it is just closing post offices where the postmaster has volunteered to take the redundancy package, or where managers may obtain bonuses by meeting their targets. There is no logic there. There is no more logic in Labour Members voting on 15 October for the urban network reinvention programme to close three post offices out of eight in urban areas and then campaigning in their constituencies to keep them open. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my neighbour, whom I have warned of this, is campaigning to keep open Humberstone post office, as he campaigned to keep open Scraptoff Lane post office. In fact, his photograph appeared twice in the Leicester Mercury last week under the headline, "MP campaigns against post office closure". It should have said, "'I voted to close three out of eight post offices in my constituency', says MP".
There is £450 million over three years for rural post offices. That takes us to the beginning of 2006, when the general election will be well out of the way. What is the future after that subsidy? We hear no answer. There should be a good future for the Post Office but I do not intend to dwell on that now. The PIU report offered hope. For example, it offered e-government, "Your Guide", which was binned after some £20 million was spent on it, universal banking and the Post Office card account, but we discover that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury have to pay for that, that they do not want to—I understand why—and that they are not committed to keeping open many much loved post offices. The DWP has won out over the DTI.
The Minister talked about choice. Indeed, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned Henry Ford's dictum. It is true. People can get their benefits paid in any way they like as long as it is by ACT. That is the choice that is being offered by the Government.
The reality of the situation is spelled out by Mr. Tony Kuczys—the Under-Secretary will know him—who is in the universal banking policy division at The Adelphi. He wrote to Ministers on 18 April last year about letters to benefits claimants, and discussions with the British Bankers Association and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. He said:
- "we should be clear that neither body will much like what they see"
- "The emphasis of the letters is very much on encouraging people to use existing accounts where possible—in line with Ministers' decision to go for 'actively managed choice'."
Mr. Robathan: I am sorry—I do not have the time. The letter continues:
- "Both the banks and the subpostmasters would really like a completely free choice. We will have to make it clear that this is not on offer . . . In discussion with the BBA and the NFSP we might want to concede giving a bit more prominence to the Card Account at Post Offices, once it is available."
- "the Card Account will not initially be included in the leaflet",
We also have the "Customer Journey", which I am told is so simple. According to the document entitled "Post Office card account—Customer Journey", if a customer who wants to use his bank account supplies his bank account details, no further customer action is required. However, if he chooses not to do so, there are 20 further steps to be taken.
The Deputy Prime Minister made the concession that every leaflet would have on it the Post Office card account alternative. Of course, those who ask for that alternative are immediately referred back to the start of the customer journey, and they have to telephone the call centre. Somebody who should know described the call centre as "a horror story". Indeed, pensioners in their 80s are being harassed by call centres to go for automated credit transfer.
A sub-postmaster from the west country whom I was speaking to this morning said that he had never seen a Post Office card account being used. Last week, he finally managed for the first time to get an assurance that a completed, successful application for a Post Office card account would go in, but he has not yet seen it and the customer is still waiting for the card. I am told that other initial applications are being stockpiled, for whatever reason. Perhaps the Minister might like to tell us whether that is true.
I have in my hand such a card. I shall hold it up for the House's benefit, because I suspect that many Members will not have seen what they look like—just as many sub-postmasters have never seen them used in anger, some 10 weeks after the system started.
Universal banking will mean an average loss of perhaps 40 per cent. of a branch's income. How will that be replaced? When discussing payment to postmasters for benefit transactions, the Post Office threatened to impose a settlement. It has now agreed one: 14p per £100 of benefit paid out. Currently, postmasters get 13p for a benefit transaction. However, as we have heard, pensioners might easily choose to take out their benefit in slugs of, say, £20. So three, four or five time-consuming transactions could be involved in order to earn 14p. Of course, the real truth is that far fewer people will use Post Office card accounts, the footfall will fall and income for postmasters will crash. We do not want that to happen.
What is the Government's assessment of the impact on sub-postmaster income, and of the future income stream for the post offices? We heard about internet banking, which is very sensible. Let us hear more about what post offices can do, and be encouraged to do, in terms of receipt and collection of e-banking. How much do the Government expect to save through the policy of universal banking? Altogether, some £430 million is
paid in terms of benefit transactions. How much do the Government expect to save by undermining the post office network?On 15 October last year, I suggested that the Post Office was insolvent—or would have been if it were a private company. The Minister contradicted me, so perhaps he can tell me whether what the chairman, Allan Leighton, and the chief executive, David Mills, told the NFSP conference last autumn was right: that Allan Leighton has threatened the Government that he would declare the Post Office insolvent.
So what is the future for the post office network, which is so important for communities throughout the land, as we have heard? I do not wish to dwell on the speeches—heavily curtailed—that were made by Back Benchers, but I should point out that they were making cross-party points. We should appreciate that. The hon. Members for Angus, for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) all made cross-party points with which few hon. Members would disagree.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised the complaints of ordinary people: pensioners, the disabled and others who are being brow-beaten, harassed and intimidated into not having a Post Office card account. I briefly quoted the National Consumer Council earlier and I shall do so again. Recommendation 3 of the document, "Everyday Essentials", is that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office should ensure that all benefit recipients, including those with current accounts, have easy access to the card account. We know that they do not, so what happened to joined-up government and the holistic approach to the financially excluded and the vulnerable?
All we want to see is the customers of the Post Office, the general public, getting a decent choice and a fair deal. We believe that the Government should suspend the universal banking roll-out until a genuine choice is on offer so that customers can get Post Office card accounts and post offices can be kept open.
We support the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and the nearly 400 Members of Parliament who have signed the motion. We support the request of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that there should be no administrative obstacles to opening a Post Office card account, and we call on the Government to ensure a level playing field in marketing, promotion and the advance of banking options.
Anyone who signs a motion should be prepared to vote for it. I wish to quote:
- "For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |