---

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): May I begin on a consensual note and endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)? It is a tribute to the nature of this place that even in the middle of a robust election campaign Members can come to the House and raise constituency matters. A few hon. Members were tempted to cross the threshold and made unfair criticism of the Government and their success—none of them, I add, on our side. The link between the electorate and the single Member constituency, however, was shown to be very important indeed.

We had early contributions about the reconnection of the public with Parliament. This debate is a good example of that. I endorse, too, the thanks to all the staff of the House for the important work that they do. Last Wednesday, when the incident took place, it struck me that we take it for granted that the Doorkeepers and police will eject such people. In doing so they are putting
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1799
 
their lives in danger. For all they know they could be subject to an attack of the worst kind. That bravery should be recognised.

I shall try to respond to all of the points made. Where I cannot I will indicate what I intend to do. Post offices came up at the last recess Adjournment debate. Five or six Members mentioned post offices today and two themes have come through. First, Members have legitimate worries about the process of consultation and their ability to get information. That is of concern. The second issue is whether the Government's overall policy is correct. It falls to me to put the other side of the argument which constituency Members are often unwilling to put forward or perhaps disagree with.

Post offices have been closing for many decades. It is not a new political phenomenon; it is a response to changes in how business is done. I well remember campaigning on rural bank branches and being told that their closure programme would destroy the fabric of Britain—that the sky would fall in. In fact, where banks stayed open in unviable economic circumstances, the public stopped going into them. Instead of being centres of community activity, they became dinosaurs. The new technology of cash machines mean that more often than not people do not go into their local bank. Small businesses need banks for services, but on the whole some of the nice wine bars and bistros that have opened in old bank buildings do more to serve the community than an empty bank would. That is also the case with post offices.

We can talk about whether the movement over to banking services provides adequate provision for the post office network to compete with the clearing banks, but if we had an absolutely level playing field of the Post Office subsidised and owned by the Government in competition with the high street banks, Members, particularly those on Opposition Benches, would be crying foul about unfair competition against the banks.

We are trying to provide a strategy that ensures that we have a post office network. Perhaps hon. Members need to remember that most post offices are small independent businesses that franchise with the Post Office. If they decide in the best interests of their family and future well-being to change the nature of their business or close it, their contractual arrangements with the Post Office become very complicated. Surely it is better to have a strategy to maintain our post office network on a viable basis. People are increasingly drawing the benefits to which they are entitled electronically. We have to live with that fact.

Three or four Members on both sides of the House made the proper point about concern for the elderly.

Elderly people who have been going to their local post office, urban or rural, for years and feel secure there may be fearful of change being forced upon them. Of course we understand that. I would urge, as I am sure would my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, that that be given greater significance in the consultations than may have been the case in some of the examples put before the House.

I come to some of the themes raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I was grateful to him for his thanks. I try to follow up the points that hon. Members make. Perhaps we can stray over the line into party politics for a moment. The House may find it
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1800
 
useful to know that in the past year the Conservatives received a grant of £3.5 million in Short money, trebling the amount to which they were entitled in 1997.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman want to scrap the grant? He might need it soon.

Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, demonstrates the triumph of optimism over reality. We shall see what the British people decide.

The Liberal Democrats received a grant of £1.2   million, which is about a third of what the Conservative party achieved. In proportion to the numbers in the House, that seems a pretty fair allocation of Short money. Right hon. and hon. Members will ask on what the money has been spent. The idea is to improve policies and thus politics in this country. If I were Her Majesty looking at her loyal Opposition and the other Opposition party, I would ask myself whether the quality of the Opposition gave best value, which is the criterion we use for public expenditure, and whether the performance targets that are set for Short money were met. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might like to consider introducing targets for the spending of Short money. That might lead to some exposure.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall spoke about the rise of the third party. It reminded me of the 1981 speech telling party members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government. The hon. Gentleman came up with a wonderful quote, which he should have saved for his party conference, when there would have been applause rather than incredulity, as there was in the House. He said that in 1997 the Liberal Democrats had buried the two-party system and danced on its grave in 2001—a remarkably lovely quote and, like most Liberal virtual reality sloganising, I think we should put it down as the subject of an Adjournment debate in 20 years, like the David Steel speech from 1981.

To be fair, the hon. Gentleman made some serious points about the changing nature of politics. The sands are shifting. The public are less tribal than in the past, and whatever our political ideologies and philosophies, it behoves all of us to show the value of politics to the public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made a thoughtful and intelligent speech and managed to weave a serious consensual point into some valid remarks about the successes of Labour politics and his point of view. We should all thank him for that speech.

The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is a regular attender at these debates. On this occasion he raised seven issues. Last time it was nine. On the last occasion he mentioned his local paper three times. Today, he did not mention it once—[Interruption.] I apologise. I must not have been paying full attention. I shall respond briefly to his points.

He raised the case of TOAST, a support group, and its funding problems, which I noted. I do not know whether police stations are closing or whether he is worried that they might close, but I am told that no plans exist to close any police stations in the Southend area. If that is not the case, I am sure that he will write to the Minister concerned.
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1801
 

The hon. Gentleman raised general points about phone masts, which I shall try to cover. He also asked a specific question on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Frank Waters, about the Osteopaths Act 1993, which I will, of course, pass on to the Minister concerned and try to get a reply. He made some points about the implementation of the law on abortion in this country—he has his point of view, which he holds strongly. As he has done before, he raised the case of his constituent, Mr. Nawaz. I have been told that the information on that case must not be put into the public domain, but I will ensure that he receives it, because the matter is important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a comprehensive and intelligent speech showing his knowledge of the broadcasting industry and his commitment to public service broadcasting, which is a strength for this country. He is a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and I know that the broadcasting organisations, which he listed, will note his remarks. It strikes me that if the Spanish situation had occurred here, Alistair Campbell would not have needed to write to Andrew Gilligan, because he could have picked up the phone and got him sacked. [Interruption.] He certainly did not try to do that.

In the short time available, I shall try to cover as many of the other points as possible. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) again raised the issue of hospices. On that issue, he may know that each primary care trust receives an average of some £42 million. There are examples of extra money going into hospices, but his general point, which he made on behalf of Little Havens children's hospice, is well made. He discussed a number of issues, some of which were consensual and some of which were constituency points. On his particular point about c2c, I understand that changes have been made following discussions between the three railway companies operating in those regions. Again, I will make the Minister concerned aware of his points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) regularly attends these debates, and he made a number of important points about the impact of steel prices and insurance premiums on his constituency, and also welcomed the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. He discussed his concerns about St. George's hospital, and put it on the record that the situation is unacceptable to him and his constituents, and Department of Health Ministers must take that point into account, which is something that they will want to do.

In general, the changes to hospitals discussed in this debate are the problems of success. The changes are the consequences of an expanding hospital programme—10 or 20 years ago, there was a hospital closure programme. [Interruption.] The changes have occurred because new hospitals are being built and older hospitals on different sites have become redundant, so we are discussing the organisation of improvement. [Interruption.] Those are facts, which are stubborn things.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made a number of points about fishing policy and raised his concern about the proposed work at height legislation in relation to mountaineers. His remarks are common sense, and I shall pass them on to the Minister concerned.
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1802
 

I cannot answer every point, but I shall pick up on those that I have not covered. I wish every hon. Member and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a successful Whitsun recess.

---