| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Norman Lamb: Have the Government carried out a recent assessment of the extent to which a domestic industry for bioethanol will be in place when the duty reduction is introduced next January? I understand that no domestic production is anticipated with a 20p reduction in duty.
Mr. Morley: An assessment has been made of the potential for jobs and the economy in relation to biofuels generally, and I will come to that point in a moment.
We recognise that bioethanol and biodiesel from virgin crops can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about half when compared with conventional fuels. In the case of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil, the life cycle benefits can be even higher. Achieving 5.75 per cent. substitution of biofuels for fossil fuels would save 2 million tonnes of carbon per annum in relation to the indicative targets that have been set by the EU. Environmental considerations are not the only issue, however. There is also the issue of new markets.
The question is: how can the Government support this process? I am glad to be joined in the Chamber by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), which demonstrates the interest of the Treasury in these issues. Members are aware of the existing 20p per litre cut in duty, and it was announced in Budget 2003 that duty on bioethanol would be reduced by a similar amount from January 2005. Those measures have encouraged the production of 2 million litres of biodiesel per month, so it is not right to say that there has been no effect. There is a potential for 115 million litres per year from waste oils, and I am pleased to see the development of new plants such as Argent, which is producing biodiesels from tallow and waste oil, which in turn will make a big contribution. The pre-Budget report in December gave a commitment to a rolling three-year period of certainty for the reduction in the duty rate, which is important.
Duty incentives, however, are only one way. Support grants exist for capital investment, which is important in relation to new development and new plants, and those are available through regional development agencies. Under last year's common agricultural policy reform agreement, crops for biofuels continue to be grown on set-aside land and will receive payments under the new single farm payment scheme, which is a form of inducement. From 1 January 2004, energy crops grown on non set-aside land can receive an additional Euro45 per hectare energy crops payment, which is another contribution. We also want to see the development of bioethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks such as straw
and wood, as those are expected to reduce the cost of delivering the environmental benefits, which we are committed to support.Several Departments have an interest in promoting biofuels, and we work closely together to ensure a co-ordinated approach. A number of Cabinet Sub-Committees deal with energy policy and consider the issue of biofuels and the implementation of the energy White Paper, including this issue. As to support, I have outlined exactly the kind of approach that we have taken. We recognise that the biofuels directive can have an effect, although the targets are indicative—it should not be assumed that they are currently the Government's targets. Consultation will take place; it will be available soon.
The biofuels obligation is one of the most important proposals. I want to make it clear that the case was persuasive, and although we could not support the form of the amendment tabled in the other place, the Government are not opposed in principle to some form of biofuels obligation for road transport. We will therefore have to consider the issue in more detail, and weigh the merits of the obligation against those of other possible options. We will consider that as part of the process of consulting on the implementation of the biofuels directive. When that consultation is made public, therefore, it will include the issue of an obligation, which will be welcomed by many Members. We will explore how we can take that forward. DEFRA is also doing other work on the impact of biofuels on biodiversity, conservation and farming; the central science laboratory work on estimates of jobs that could be created and sustained by the biofuels industry, including ethanol; and work on setting out how the various—
It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted the proceedings and the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings was deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) (Consideration of estimates).
Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(5)(Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on supplementary estimates, 2003–04.
ESTIMATESDEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
- That further resources, not exceeding £1,377,992,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £41,854,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Transport.
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
- That further resources, not exceeding £1,251,750,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £613,478,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (NAVY) VOTE A
- That, during the year ending on 31st March 2005, a number not exceeding 45,325 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 283 of this Session.
ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (ARMY) VOTE A
- That, during the year ending on 31st March 2005, a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 283 of this Session.
ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (AIR) VOTE A
- That, during the year ending on 31st March 2005, a number not exceeding 57,415 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 283 of this Session.
ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2002–03
- That resources, not exceeding £15,975,062.02, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,188.38, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2003, as set out in HC 351.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2003–04
- That further resources, not exceeding £24,448,658,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £10,013,491,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, as set out in HC 349 and 350.
- That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: and that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES
- That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:—
(1) In Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), line 18, leave out from 'committees' to 'which' in line 20 and insert 'to which that paragraph applies'.
(2) In Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), line 10, leave out from 'under' to ', or' in line 13 and insert 'the Standing Orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order).'—[Mr. Ainger.]
Post Office Closures
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
6.3 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD): I am grateful that the Speaker has once again come to my aid in allowing me to raise a matter of concern for communities in my area and across the country. The subject is the role of Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch in taking decisions on post office closures. I believe that it is important to hear whether the Minister feels that he can take action against the injustice and misinformation that abounds around the euphemistically named "network reinvention", which is closing community post office facilities with only passing reference to community needs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for their presence. We are all affected by post office closures, and I hope that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will take part in the debate.
As far Cheadle is concerned, the process was flawed from the start. The information sheets supplied by Post Office Ltd. were riddled with errors, and Members of Parliament were not consulted in advance. Indeed, Postwatch told me on 4 December that Post Office Ltd. would not start consultation just before Christmas. However, it did just that, on 17 December. I applied for additional time, and was refused. Other areas were given extra time because the effects crossed constituency boundaries, but that was also true of my area. Postwatch appeared to have no powers over the process.
For more than a year, I have disputed the categorisation of Woodford post office as an urban facility. The 2000 performance and innovation unit report defines an urban settlement as one with more than 10,000 people. Yet Woodford is separated by carefully protected green belt from the urban sprawl to which Post Office Ltd. persists in referring, and it has just over 1,000 inhabitants.
The map used by Post Office Ltd. is wrong in detail and misleading in its entirety. A glance at the unitary development plan map, or even at an A to Z, would show the errors. The Greenway road post office in Heald Green serves an older and elderly population, and is located in one of the recognised pockets of deprivation in our area. Fortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Saleem, who run the nearby Long lane post office at the junction of Merwood avenue and Wilmslow road, are determined to carry on, even though Post Office Ltd. did not use it as a receiving branch.
Turves road post office is closing because the sub-postmistress has decided to go. I know that, because she told me that she would be going, whether or not Post Office Ltd. agreed to closure. We do not have an official date for that, although a handwritten notice in the post office states that it will happen on 22 March. Turves road post office was a receiving branch for another closure at Cheadle road. That office closed only six weeks before the present consultation process began.
The setting for the Turves road branch is such that it could be used as a model for a modernised post office at the centre of its community. It has a large surrounding
population and is located in a run of shops as active as any in the area, now that the superstores have taken the weekly shoppers away. Of those responding to our campaign, 80 per cent. are over 55, some 40 per cent. have mobility problems and up to 20 per cent. lack cars. Many people chose to live in the area so that they could remain independent for as long as possible.Other shops will suffer after the post office closes. The main receiving branch is up a steep hill, with no public transport and a car park that is full at all times. The post office in Jacksons lane, together with the Macclesfield road and Norbury offices in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, serves a very large population. Most of the customers are older people, but there are a good number of young people and their parents.
Saving at the post office is still regarded as an important part of a child's upbringing. The post office to which people will have to go is in a shop and already has queues that take 20 minutes to clear. It is difficult to reach and does not make good provision for disabled people.
None of that seems to matter to Post Office Ltd. It is driven by the Government to become profitable. Although that is not in itself a bad aim, what is the human and social cost? What will be the cost to other small businesses that are supported by customers paying bills, collecting money and doing their shopping? What will be the cost to the Post Office's customer base? People must be close to avoiding using post office branches. By what process will Post Office Ltd. make itself profitable?
My office received around 4,000 responses from individuals in the form of petitions and reply slips. Around 350 people came to public meetings. My office put together a 15-page report for Post Office Ltd., which was delivered on 27 January. It is difficult to see how we could have done more to alert Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch to the concerns of local communities. Representatives of Postwatch attended our meetings, and I was grateful for that, but they were dismissive. I was told that they were "not afraid" of me any more, that they were "not impressed", and that they had heard "nothing new". I am sure that there was a reason for saying all that. We have seen little evidence of any concern for the consumers whom Postwatch is supposed to protect.
The basic message from Post Office Ltd. in its correspondence with me was that the closures had to be carried out, that Post Office Ltd. was sorry that people were upset, that it was a shame about the inconvenience to customers, and that the closures were going ahead anyway. In my family, we call a response like that "sending out the cockroach letter". That is based on a joke, which we have long since forgotten, about a travel company writing to unhappy customers. Meanwhile, Postwatch sits on the sidelines, like a reluctant referee, giving information only when directly asked. The computer-generated letters come thick and fast, and occasionally someone personalises them with an extra paragraph; the process is a joke.
I want the Minister to tell us that he will act on the way in which our communities are being treated. He must know that the Post Office ensures that post offices close by offering sub-postmasters and sub-
postmistresses deals that they cannot refuse. An average of £55,000 for each sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress was paid out in the quarter to December 2003, and more than £38 million was paid out in total. That money could have been spent on expanding and diversifying the service in line with the performance and innovation unit report of 2000.The Minister will be familiar with early-day motion 725, which calls on the Department of Trade and Industry to halt forthwith the network reinvention programme of post office closures while an investigation is carried out into flaws in the notification, consultation and decision-making process. I have written to the Clerk and Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee asking them to investigate that. I am disappointed that no concessions have been made on the process, which proceeds with unseemly haste in spite of admissions from Post Office Ltd. that changes will be made to future constituency reinventions. That is no comfort to my constituents.
I am disappointed by the Minister's response to my letter pointing out how Members of Parliament and Stockport metropolitan borough council were misled into thinking that Eddie Herbert from the north-west was working on our consultation responses, when a decision was in fact made the same day in Skipton to close one of the post offices. The Minister's letter states:
- "When Eddie Herbert wrote to you on 16 February that feedback was still being considered, neither he nor his POL colleagues would have known whether all the outstanding issues would be resolved at the first stage meeting that was taking place that day."
- "I am still considering the feedback received in relation to the closure of Jackson's Lane and Turves Road".
Meanwhile, Judith Donovan of Postwatch, who was present at the meeting of 16 February, wrote on 23 February to say that
- "an escalation meeting . . . will be arranged".
The primary role of Members of Parliament must be to stand up for their constituents. I call on the Minister to do as my early-day motion asks, to halt the flawed process forthwith and to apply the principles of fairness with a dash of imagination, which our democracy depends on. I challenge him to halt the process and to allow all the key players—Post Office Ltd., Postwatch, Stockport metropolitan borough council and the public—to produce the business case and the energy to get behind our local post offices, allowing our community the chance to find imaginative ways to make our post offices thrive. At least some post offices can be
made into profitable assets, both socially and in business terms. Post Office Ltd. will destroy its customer base if it carries on in this vein.Post Office Ltd. should be required to transmit a clear, strategic, coherent vision of the future of the post offices at the heart of local communities, and Postwatch should have powers to ensure that public money is spent in the interests of the public and more wisely than has occurred so far.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |