Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
the right one and not the wrong ones.
My goodness, one can see why he was made a Minister, and perhaps why he was moved on.
The problem with the access criteria is that they are fundamentally flawed. It is simply a matter of somebody at a computer deciding, as a matter of geography, which post offices should close and which stay open. They have failed to take account of major new housing developments and, worse still, they have not paid sufficient attention to hills, public transport links or unsafe roads. It will therefore be vulnerable people, older people and people with disabilities who suffer most. They are the people who depend most on their local post offices, and who will lose out most when the changes are made.
Let us be in no doubt: this is not the Post Offices policy. This is the Governments closure programme, because they decided how many post offices should close. They decided what the funding package and access criteria should be, and they decided which rules apply to the businesses that many people may continue once their post office has closed down. The Government can, if they wish, tonight instruct the Post Office to stop the programme.
We want a Post Office fit for the challenges of the 21st century, a Post Office not stuck in the past but able to take full advantage of the business opportunities present today. We welcome change, but we have a vision for the post office network; it should be sustained by new business, freed from the restrictions that tie it down today, and increasingly become a hub for local council and government services. However, that is not what the change programme is delivering; it is dismantling an important, much-loved service. We do not object to change, but we do object to the change that the Government are proposing, the flawed access criteria, the shortened consultation process, the lack of vision for future business and the appalling restrictions on future business activity.
At the end of the day, what people say on their websites and press releases will not save a single post office. If Labour Members of Parliament genuinely want to save their post offices, they have one chance, and that is to vote with us today.
This comes down to a question of trust. If we want people to have faith in their politicians, they must believe that politicians will not say one thing in their constituency on behalf of their communities, and vote against those words in the House of Commons. Constituents will not understand how MPs told them that they were on their side, but when they had the chance to vote against closures, they failed to do so. MPs will have failed their constituents, and they will have failed to live up to the standards that people should rightly expect of their Member of Parliament. Worse still, they will have turned their back on the elderly and others who are most in need. That betrayal of the most vulnerable people in their constituency will haunt them for the rest of their career.
The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs (Mr. Pat McFadden): We have seen from the debate today the strong feelings that post office closures can arouse not only in the House, but in local communities. I understand that, as do the Government. That is why the Government support the post office network with such significant investment, and why we have done so over many years.
There is the subsidy of £150 million a year, without which thousands more post offices would be under threat. There is other support in the package of £1.7 billion up till 2011support to cover losses over and above those that the subsidy covers, support to enable new outreach services to provide post office services in new ways, and other support that adds up to significant backing for the Post Office up to 2011. That was acknowledged by some in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster).
The reason why we do that, as the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, is that we do not see the Post Office as a purely commercial concern. We appreciate its social and community role. Without the backing that the Government give to the Post Office, which was not there when the Conservatives were in power, a commercial network would consist of only about 4,000 branches. So when the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) says that it is not just a commercial service, we agree. That is why we have put so much public backing behind it.
Even with the high level of subsidy, because of the decline in custom and the level of losses, some offices are having to close. I understand that that is unpopular, but sometimes government is about taking difficult decisions.
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): The Minister visited a post office in my constituency last week which is housed by WH Smith in Kings mall, but is he aware that the other WH Smith housing a post office in my constituency was threatened with closure the very same week that it opened, owing to a planning application to demolish the building? Does he further think it is acceptable that the whole of London W14
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Just one point at a time.
Mr. McFadden: I visited the post office in WH Smith and spoke to customers there. That post office is operating well.
It is understandable that some people wish that the closures did not have to happen, but we are mindful of the amount of funding that taxpayers can put in to support a service that is facing profound change in terms of technology, how people live their lives and pay their bills, and competition.
Those issues used to matter to the Opposition, but faced with a difficult decision, what have they chosen to do? They have chosen to try to make it go away. They have chosen to say that the closure programme should stop. Thousands of post offices closed while they were in power. The sub-postmasters never got a penny in compensation. Today the Opposition have chosen to try to make the problem go away.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Will the Minister tell me how many villages in the Vale of York will be more than 3 miles away by car from the nearest post office?
Mr. McFadden: I shall come to the access criteria later.
Funding is a critical weakness of the Opposition motion. We have seen three different positions on funding in the debate. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) was not clear at all that the Conservative party was committed to matching our funding. The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said that the party was clear on that, but if the motion goes through tonight the Conservatives will have to not only match our funding, but increase it. There have been three different positions on funding in one debate; that is the critical credibility problem with the motion.
Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McFadden: I will not for the moment.
The divide is about whether we support the Governments investments or whether, like the Conservative party, we are utterly incoherent on financial support for the Post Office. The decision to close any post office is, of course, unpopular; worse, however, is the knowledge that when the Conservative party faces a problem, it simply asks for it to stop with an utterly incoherent financial position.
Anne Snelgrove: I have been listening to the debate today with great interest. Will the Minister tell me how voting for the Conservative motion would save a single sub-post office in this country?
Mr. McFadden: My hon. Friend asks a good question. Voting for the motion will not save post offices because the Conservative party has acknowledged that post offices have to close. All the motion would do is delay the decision, put sub-postmasters under further uncertainty, and then, the Conservatives have said, the closures would have to continue.
Let us consider some of the challenges that the Post Office is facing. Every day it is open for business, it loses £500,000. It has lost 4 million weekly customers in the past few years. Some of the least used post offices are subsidised at up to £17 per transaction.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The Minister says that some post offices cost £17 per transaction. Perhaps he could do what Allan Leighton could not do during a recent conversation with the sub-postmistress of Yatton Keynell in my constituency. When she asked him how many post offices made a profit, he said, I dont knowIm just waiting for my bonus when I give up my job at the end of my time. Will the Minister tell us how many post offices make a profit? Why is he closing them too?
Mr. McFadden: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the commercial network is made up of about 4,000 post offices.
Alan Duncan: In the process of deciding which post offices should close, what is the principal criterionprofitability or access?
Mr. McFadden: The thing driving the closures is, of course, the loss of custom and money. That is what is behind the need to rationalise the network.
Eight out of 10 pensioners now choose to have their benefit paid directly into the bank; among new retirees, the figure is nine out of 10.
Dr. William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McFadden: I am afraid that I want to make progress.
People have a choice about how to pay their car tax, and 1 million a month choose to renew it onlinehalf of them outside the normal office hours of 9 to 5. More people are paying bills by direct debit and there is, of course, the issue of competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) made a serious speech about competition and its challenge to the Post Office. Unlike Conservative Members, he realises that that is a big challenge when it comes to winning business such as bill and television licence payment.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McFadden: I want to make progress. [Hon. Members: Give way!] I have given way a few times, and I would like to make progress.
The Opposition say that they want to make the issue go away. The issue is not just about the profitability of the post offices, but about what the Opposition would do about how benefits are paid. Are they really saying that they will turn back the clock and pay benefits and pensions by girocheque when the vast majority of people choose to pay them directly into the bank? Doing that would add a further £200 million of costs a year. If they are not saying that, why do they not accept that the Post Office faces those major challenges?
Let me turn to some of the specifics raised in the debate.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McFadden: I am afraid that I want to make progress.
Many Members raised the issue of consultation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Brigg and Goole, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and Hastings and Rye. I acknowledge that there has been dissatisfaction and disquiet about the consultation process. Representations have been made that we should extend it from six weeks to 12, but six weeks was the period used during the last period of post office closures and is the period agreed between Postwatch and Post Office Ltd in their code of practice [ Interruption. ]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is too much noise in the House. We have had a full debate and the Minister is entitled to make a reply that can be heard.
Mr. McFadden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Many hon. Members talked about the consultation, which is about how, not whether, this is to be done. The Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform picked up on that in its most recent report, and it was right to do so. Post Office Ltd must be clearer that that is the question before the people, because that is what is producing some of the frustration in local communities. Hon. Members have expressed confusion about this. Let me quote the letter that was sent to all hon. Members back in July, before the process began. It said that the consultation
would not concern the principle of the need for change of the network, nor its broad extent and distribution...rather consultation will be seeking representations on the most effective way in which government policy can best be implemented in the area in question.
Simon Hughes: Given that the Minister will not change his policy on delaying consultation, will he at least instruct the Post Office to ensure that it gives all the information to Members of Parliament so that the individual merits of every post office can be in the public domain and we can win an argument on the basis of the facts?
Mr. McFadden: As I have said, the Post Office needs to be clearer about the consultation and about the question before people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), among others, mentioned the access criteria. Let me be clear. Those criteria represent a minimum, and Government funding is to fund the network to a much higher extent than that minimum would require. In plans so far
Mr. McFadden: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way again.
To give some sense of perspective, let me say that 99 per cent. of people will either see no change in the post office that they use or be within a mile of an alternative post office. If we followed the advice of Conservative Members by abandoning the access criteria and closing only the post offices that are least used, vast areas of rural Britain would be without post office provision at all, and those are precisely the areas that hon. Members say that they are interested in.
Some local authorities, for example in Essexnot in Swindon, unfortunately, despite the efforts of the local MPshave expressed interest in taking over post offices scheduled for closure. We have said that the Post Office should sit down and discuss that seriously with those local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the chief executive of Post Office Ltd today saying that that should happen, and if local authorities are interested they should have those discussions. The Post Office will expect to recover all costs, but that is a serious conversation that should take place.
On commercial freedom, let me quote the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, who said
why would the government want to use taxpayers money to give someone compensation for something that they are continuing to do.
They do not lose all compensation. An adjustment is made
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |