Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): This has been a good debate and we all, even reactionaries like me, are desperate to have more women in Parliament.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 508

I am. I think women MPs are much more interesting in so many ways. Do we want legions of more young, grey, ambitious men in suits? No, we want more women. We are all united. But let me say a word of caution. We must move with society. We cannot impose structures and while we should worry about the lack of Conservative women MPs, we should have confidence in our own beliefs and in the way that society matures to ensure that we have more women MPs. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to all-women shortlists.

Ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, there is no point in a constituency denying a strong local working-class man being the Member of Parliament by insisting that in that particular constituency, where perhaps he has worked for years, there must be an all-women shortlist. No, the way forward is to recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that society is changing. It is a mystery why Conservative associations, which have always been dominated by women, have selected so few women. There was some feeling perhaps in the past of “Where I cannot go, why should I send somebody else?” There was perhaps a feeling of jealousy. All that is changing, so we do not need to impose our centralising tendencies on our local associations; we need to have confidence that they will themselves want to select more women and the best candidates. One of the ways forward is through the open primary system. That is highly democratic. It takes power back to the local people. It takes it away from the Whips Office—dare I say?—because people will be more reliant on what people are saying locally, so the open primary is the way.

I do not think that IPSA has helped at all. For instance, would a successful woman doctor working in the north of England want to give up a successful practice to come and live under our present expenses system, to be stuck in a rented one-bedroom flat, and not just for the occasional business trip, but for half her working life? It is difficult. The problem is not so much that we have created structures that discourage women, but that women themselves do not want to come forward. I think that IPSA could help with that.

Lastly, we must not think that we will encourage more women by making Parliament more anaemic, for instance by sitting from nine to five. The fundamental job of Parliament—it might be boring and take a long time—is to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise the Government. That means that we must sit here for long hours, because that is our job.

Under the present system, some of our greatest Prime Ministers have come from modest backgrounds, as have many leaders of the Conservative party, including Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, Michael Howard and John Major. They were all committed parliamentarians. Many of our best parliamentarians, such as Ann Widdecombe and Margaret Thatcher, were women, and we should have confidence that we can go on throwing into the mix some wonderful women parliamentarians.

4.41 pm

Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): I will keep my comments brief, Mr Speaker, as you have asked us to. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing the debate and on the motion. I also congratulate all 14 Members who spoke and all those who intervened. I think that this is the first debate

27 Feb 2014 : Column 509

in which I agreed with almost every word said by all Members on both sides of the Chamber. However, I think that it would be complacent to get involved in mutual backslapping, saying how fantastic things are as a consequence of the Speaker’s Conference. Progress has been made, but there is still a huge amount to do.

The most senior woman member of the Government, the Home Secretary, when asked about this, said:

“The first responsibility for ensuring diversity of representation rests with political parties, and with political parties taking action to ensure we have a greater diversity of candidates”.—[Official Report, 17 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 1017.]

All three party leaders have signed up to the principles of making Parliament more diverse: justice, effectiveness and legitimacy. It is really important that responsibility should start and end with political parties.

It is important that we take a look at how the three political parties are doing when it comes to representation. Of the 55 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, only seven are women—a Liberal Democrat Whip was just in the Chamber for a short period, but she has now gone—and none of them are black or Asian minority ethnic. For the European Parliament elections on 22 May, only a third of the party’s candidates are women. I think that is a problem.

The Labour party has made some progress, but a lot more is needed—I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, suggesting that we are perfect. I remember being inspired when I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) elected in 1987, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), Bernie Grant and Paul Boateng. Fourteen members, or 44%, of the shadow Cabinet are women, as are 55 of our 138 shadow Ministers, or 40%. Two members of the shadow Cabinet are BAME, as are five of our shadow Ministers, and 54% of our candidates in target seats are women, and 40% of them in London are BAME.

Had there been more people like me sitting around the Cabinet table when there was a discussion about whether to have a van with the words “Go home” on it driving around the most diverse parts of London, I genuinely believe that someone would have said, “Hold on a second. I remember the National Front in the 1970s and 1980s. They used the same phrase.” Others would have said, “I have neighbours and friends who remember the National Front in the 1970s and 1980s, and that is not a sensible thing to do.”

Had there been more disabled people sitting around the Cabinet table when cutting and cancelling impact assessments was being discussed, I think that someone would have said, “Hold on a second. If we stop having impact assessments, we will not be aware whether a consequence of a policy might be poorer and disabled people being left out.” Had there been more women around the Cabinet table when it came to talking about anonymity for victims of rape, they would have said, “Hold on a second. There are very good reasons why victims of rape are kept anonymous.”

The Prime Minister said, as you will remember, Mr Speaker, that he wants a third of his Front Benchers to be women by the end of this Parliament, so how are the Conservatives doing? In the 2010 general election, Labour secured its second-worst result in history. Notwithstanding that, the percentage of our women MPs

27 Feb 2014 : Column 510

went up from 28% to 31%, and the number of black and minority ethnic MPs more than doubled from 2.2% to 6.2%. The Tories did very well in the 2010 election—although perhaps not as well as they should have done—and increased their number of MPs by 97 in numerical terms. The percentage of women MPs did not go up by as much as male MPs. They still have half the number of women MPs that Labour have—48 out of their 306 MPs, or 15%—and still only 11 of their MPs are BAME. Although progress was made and credit should be given, it was not enough progress.

Let us look at how the Government have conducted themselves under this Prime Minister. Of the various Departments, four are run by women—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Department for International Development. Those Departments have a combined budget of £33.79 billion—9.2% of the total budgets that the Government spend. Of the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, the Scotland Office, the Wales Office, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, and the Office of the Leader of the House of Lords, none has a woman in at all. Those Departments’ combined spending is £55.6 billion—almost double that of the four Departments that women run. There is still a huge problem in relation to whether this Government understand the importance of having women in positions of power and influence.

What about other appointments made by the Prime Minister? Of 114 Privy Counsellors appointed since 2010, 17 are women, with zero being BAME. Fourteen per cent. of the seats on influential Cabinet Committees are held by women, but how many of them are BAME? Zero. Of the 85 policy tsars appointed since 2010, 13 are women. How many are BAME? Zero. Of the 19 Select Committees chaired by a Conservative MP, how many are chaired by a woman? One. Who is she? The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and we know how that movie ended. How many—[Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from the Government Benches. I am happy for the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) to intervene if she wants to. No? Fine. Out of those 19 Conservative Chairs of Select Committees, I said that one is a woman. How many are BAME? Zero.

Lots of progress has been made and we can talk in platitudes about the importance of making further progress. All the Conservative Members who spoke made excellent speeches; I particularly enjoyed those by the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who I commend for his plug for Women2Win. However, although the Prime Minister signed the commitments to the three principles at the Speaker’s Conference and progress has been made in relation to the number of additional seats won by women, the evidence thus far on this Conservative-led coalition is that progress has not been made, not only for women in politics but for women voters. Research by the Library shows that those who have been affected disproportionately by this Government’s policies are women, the disabled and those who are BAME.

I am afraid that in the next general election it will once again be left to the Labour party to make further progress in this important area. However, we want competition. We want the Conservative party and the

27 Feb 2014 : Column 511

Liberal Democrat party to be doing far more, because the more they do, the more our game is raised, and the more our game is raised, the better it is for British society.

4.48 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this important debate. She has been a tireless and passionate advocate of the Speaker’s Conference, and she is quite a role model in her own right. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have made excellent contributions in thoughtful speeches and interventions.

Our democratic institutions make the best decisions when they have a mix of people with different skills, backgrounds and experiences from different parts of the country. As things stand, Parliament, especially as seen on television, presents as a predominantly white, middle-aged, male institution, which is not good for anyone’s faith in democracy—a point that was made in very strong terms at the Speaker’s Conference.

The House is an institution designed by men and for men hundreds and hundreds of years ago, it seems, and it often shows. The hours are long and often we do not leave until well after 10 pm, and for those with families, as we have heard, finding a balance can be difficult. There have been recent improvements through the introduction of an in-house nursery and more family-friendly sitting hours. I thank the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who worked hard and effectively to bring about that very important change. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ongoing commitment to and determination on the issue of representation and the work you have done on so many fronts. Long may it continue.

Progress is welcome, but it has been very slow indeed and we cannot be complacent. We need women and diversity to be part of the system in order to change it. I am very proud to be a woman and from an ethnic minority background in this Government, who are committed to help instigate change.

The Government are committed to supporting parties that want to increase their talent pool and ensure that they better represent the electorate. In that respect, we have implemented the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, which enable political parties to use positive action in candidate selection, should they wish to do so. We have also extended the ability for parties to use women-only shortlists to 2030, and to reserve seats on electoral shortlists for those with particular under-represented characteristics. We have also secured commitments from the three main parties to provide greater transparency of candidate selection through the collection and publication of diversity data. I am very pleased that the main parties are acting on their agreement to publish the data ahead of the 2015 general election as an alternative to implementing section 106 of the Equality Act.

There has been real progress in getting more women into politics, and this is the most gender diverse Parliament ever. Currently 22.6% of MPs are women, up from 19.5% in 2010. Following the 2010 general election, there are now six Asian women MPs, whereas previously there were none. Five women attend Cabinet, with some 24 women in Government overall in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In the

27 Feb 2014 : Column 512

September 2012 reshuffle, 12 of the new intake from the 2010 general election were promoted, six of whom were men and six of whom were women.

Despite this progress, we know that we still have a long way to go to achieve gender quality. That is why I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), who chairs the all-party group on women in Parliament, has launched a very important inquiry into how to attract women into Parliament and public life and, just as importantly, how to retain them. I hope that everybody who cares about this issue will support the inquiry as much as they can.

In 2010, the number of ethnic minority MPs nearly doubled—it went up from 14 to 27—with 10 being women. That is Westminster’s biggest ever percentage increase and I want to ensure that that upward trend continues.

We also need to do as much as we can to attract people from different socio-economic backgrounds to enter politics—a point that was made very well indeed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). It is worth noting that Mr Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, which is run through the Social Mobility Foundation, is specifically aimed at people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am delighted that the Government have been able to support it. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who initiated the scheme with Mr Speaker. I am also pleased that it is being used as a model for a similar scheme in the Scottish Parliament.

In July 2012, we launched the access to elected office for disabled people strategy, which gives support to disabled people who want to get elected. As part of the strategy, the Government have delivered the access to elected office fund, which enables disabled candidates to meet the additional costs they face and thus compete with others on a level playing field. The fund has now been extended to cover the 2015 general election and local authority elections, as well as parish and town council elections, with an increased application limit of £40,000. That has been widely welcomed by disability charities up and down the country.

This has been a very well-managed, well-mannered and mature debate. It is a bit of a shame that the shadow Minister let the side down at the final hurdle in seeking to score fairly cheap, if I say it myself, political points on issues about which we all care. These are not Conservative, Labour or Liberal issues; they are issues for Parliament. We must not use them as party political footballs, but work together to get the situation right and continue to make improvements.

Fiona Mactaggart rose

Sadiq Khan: rose

Mrs Grant: I have little time left, so I will finish my remarks.

Today’s debate has reflected a wide range of opinions on how Parliament, Government and the parties can work to increase diversity of representation in Parliament and public life, while respecting parties’ cultures and philosophies. A strong democracy is inclusive. It is clear that such diversity is not something that is just nice to have, but is an absolute essential.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 513

Many steps have been taken since 1918, when women first got the vote. Even then, the prospect of women standing at this Dispatch Box, let alone becoming Prime Minister, was absolutely inconceivable. We now have more women in the House than ever before. The Speaker’s Conference has thrown down a challenge to us all, whatever hat we wear—as a parliamentarian, a party activist or a Minister—and this Government are of course absolutely committed to playing their part fully. The Government support the motion.

4.56 pm

Dame Anne Begg: With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, which has shown this Parliament at its best, with an ability to agree and to disagree, to be lively, funny and amusing, and most of all—surprisingly—to agree across the Chamber that the House needs to be more diverse.

We have shown that we already have diversity in the House. We have had a speaker from the LGBT community and several from BAME communities; a couple of us happen to be disabled; a few of us are women; and, indeed, some people have been willing to self-declare as working-class. Of course, we also heard from that very put-upon minority, the white middle-class man. All of life was here.

I was very struck by the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who said that we all have a belief in politics. The fundamental basis of this place is that we believe in it. We believe that we can change things and make the world a better place from this Chamber. We all believe that this is the place to be in order to make life better for our constituents. If this place is undermined, that will affect our ability to do that job and our very worthwhile work. We do not do it for individual glory, despite what many people outside Parliament think, but because we think it is right. That is why we are here, why we should come from different communities and why we must

27 Feb 2014 : Column 514

represent different views from across our country. Under your tutelage, Mr Speaker, I hope that that is what this House of Commons will become in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.


That this House welcomes the fact that there are now more women hon. Members and hon. Members from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the UK Parliament than at any time in history; notes that, in spite of progress, Parliament is not yet fully representative of the diversity of UK society; recognises that increased diversity of representation is a matter of justice and would enhance debate and decision-making and help to rebuild public faith in Parliament; is concerned that the progress made in 2010 may not be sustained unless concerted efforts are made to support individuals from under-represented communities to stand for election in 2015; and calls on the Government and political parties to fulfil commitments made in response to the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) in 2010, including commitments in respect of candidate selection and support for candidates.

Julian Smith: On a point of order. Is it in order that in the closing stages of a cross-party debate about a parliamentary report, the shadow Minister—

Sadiq Khan: Shadow Secretary of State.

Julian Smith: I apologise. The shadow Secretary of State sought to over-politicise the debate and was quite aggressive in debating issues that are important for the House.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. I do not say this in any disobliging sense, but his attempted point of order has much in common with the vast majority of attempted points of order—namely, that it was an attempted point of order, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Nothing disorderly has taken place, but the hon. Gentleman with his usual eloquence and alacrity has registered his point, and it is on the record.

I call Tessa Munt to present a petition. Not here.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 515

Post Office Museum and Post Office Railway

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

5 pm

Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab): I requested this debate to help secure the heritage of the British postal museum and archive. It was closed in the mid-1990s and, if the plans go well, a new museum will, at long last, open its doors and the public will once more have access to not just stamps, but the history of communication and the social history that will be on display.

When I first thought about the possibility of having a stamp museum just outside my constituency, I did not think that it would necessarily set the world alight. However, as has been explained to me, it is about communication and, particularly, how we communicated throughout the 20th century. The way in which we communicate with one another is, in the end, what makes us different from the animals.

I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that I will discuss Royal Mail without delivering a tirade about the outrageous proposal to develop the Mount Pleasant site above ground. The Minister will know that Mount Pleasant is one of the largest development sites in London, yet, of the 650 homes that are proposed for the site, only 12% will be affordable housing. That is frankly scandalous, particularly given that the viability report shows that it could support more than 50% of proper affordable housing and still make a profit. However, I will not talk about that today.

I want to make it clear that there is a difference between the development overground and the development underground. The development underground is the railway and to the side of that is the new postal museum. There is a distinct difference. It is important to underline that difference because the new postal museum and archive and the underground railway will apply to the council for planning permission on 10 March and, on the same day, the council will not be asked to discuss the plans for Mount Pleasant above ground because the developers have decided to bypass local opposition and go straight to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. They hope that they will get a better hearing from him than they would get locally, where we are all against the development. We are not against the British postal museum and archive.

As the Minister will know, the museum and archive has strong historical links to the Royal Mail Group. It is an independent charity in its own right and is the caretaker of a remarkable history, some of which I will share with the House. Currently, the archive is based at Freeling House. Freeling was the secretary to the Post Office, which was the equivalent of a chief executive. Because of his expertise in international mail routes, particularly across the continent of Europe, he was an extremely effective spy during the Napoleonic wars. He was therefore not only the chief executive of the Post Office, but a spy from the 1780s until the 1820s. He collected all the accounts, mail coach maps and employee records and put them into an archive. He was therefore the founding father of the archive.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 516

There are other, more immediately attractive items. There is a remarkable sheet of stamps that depict the ageing Edward VII. The stamp was known as the Tyrian plum and was used only once. On the night that the old King died, one of the stamps was sent to the new King. The used stamp that was sent to the new King is in the royal collection and the sheet of unused stamps is in the archive. That was the only time that the stamp was used to post a letter. George V, who was an avid philatelist, collected it.

Another remarkable sheet of stamps was designed in the 1970s. At that time, it took a long time to design a stamp, print it and make it available, so they had to be prepared in advance. Scotland was in the World cup finals in 1978, so stamps were produced so that they would be ready if Scotland won the cup. Those stamps are in the archive and will be available for the public to see, so long as the museum is established. The stamps depict the winning team holding aloft the World cup and celebrating victory, which, tragically, was never realised.

Another stamp documents Churchill’s plan during the second world war, when there was concern that France would fall. Churchill’s plan was to unite the Kingdoms of Britain and France so that they would stand together and France would not be able to capitulate to the Germans. A stamp was designed to celebrate the uniting of the two countries. The plan did not work, but it is evidence of attempts that were made during the second world war. Such things one learns from stamps.

The museum is not only about stamps that depict history; the postal archive holds hundreds of paintings, letters, telegrams and photographs documenting Britain’s social history. There are two telegrams from the owners of the Titanic, one from the evening of 14 April 1912 declaring that rumours of the Titanic’s distress were unfounded, and another from the following morning announcing the death of more than 1,500 people and saying that women and children had been saved. The museum owns 100,000 photographs taken by Stephen Tallents, the person who first coined the term “public relations” and was the first public relations manager of the Post Office. In the 1930s, he revolutionised how companies were to communicate with the public.

The style of many of the posters put up to promote the Post Office in the 1930s was copied by London Underground, and if we compare some of London Underground’s more famous posters with those produced by the Post Office immediately before, we can see where it got the idea. At long last, when the museum is finally opened in my constituency, those posters will be available to be seen. They include photographs of postmen in the 1930s delivering across the country, including to fields where women and children were working, and to washerwomen in Poplar. All sorts of different things were delivered. There are photographs of a postman delivering live fish, and another of a postman holding two dead game birds in both hands—it seems that pheasants could be delivered as long as they were not leaking at the time.

The oldest document in the collection dates from 1636 and is a letter from Charles I to the mayor of Hull. The mayor is told in fairly clear terms that the mail service is now a monopoly and that he is no longer allowed to use his own personal service. He is told that the monopoly is now under ownership of the king and that he must cease using the local mail. It is a remarkable and unique version of history.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 517

The BPMA plans to spend £10 million on a new archive and museum, and £12 million on the little known rail mail—another gem. The rail mail runs under my constituency and many others across the heart of London. It was devised in 1911 and completed in 1927 and is an underground railway that served the main sorting offices from Whitechapel to Paddington. The idea was to link the major railway stations across London so that mail coming into Liverpool Street could be delivered straight from Paddington and out the other side. Therefore, if someone in east England wanted to write to west England, the post would go down to the underground railway line. We talk about producing new railways and the ideas behind them, but that was the first Crossrail devised many years ago. It was built at a time when the belief was that we would—of course—continue to invest in the Post Office because the amount of post would increase and people would always want to communicate with one another.

When the railway line was built across central London, knowing that people were likely to want to expand the line in future, spurs were built so that if it was necessary to have a new line going out to Oxford street, there was a spur already there. It could simply be blocked off at one end and the railway line not closed completely, and the line could be expanded. Things are so different now; now we build to a contract and only to that contract, and hope that we will build it in time and to budget. The project was built with vision, confidence, and with a positive attitude for the future of Royal Mail. So unlike our current times, unfortunately.

The original Royal Mail allowed mass communication across the UK and ran for 76 years. The public have never been allowed to see the railway, but hopefully when the railway museum is opened people will, at long last, be able to go down to see it. There is huge excitement not just in train circles, but for many people who are interested in the industrial heritage of Britain in the 20th century, and they will be able to ride on that railway underneath the streets of London.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): My hon. Friend is making a marvellous speech. Is she aware that one third of the world heritage sites in this country are industrial world heritage sites? Would she consider putting this forward as another one?

Emily Thornberry: My hon. Friend is always full of very good ideas. I shall make a note and attempt to propose it.

The historic tunnel has not been seen by the public. It was also used during the wars to house some of our most priceless treasures. There are photographs of Turner paintings in the underground railway during the first world war, where they were held safe from bombs. It was also a home for Air Raid Precautions during world war two.

In total, the BPMA will have raised £8.91 million, and secured a further £8.15 million from donations and loans from Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. The bulk of the remaining funding will come from an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is currently in progress. The £4.6 million of HLF funding is a second round application. I have written in support of it to Dame

27 Feb 2014 : Column 518

Jenny Abramsky, the chair of the HLF. I would like to use this opportunity to ask the Minister and other Members to write to Dame Abramsky and offer their support to the bid. If successful, the grant from the HLF will make a significant contribution to the total project. At £4.6 million, it will make up 20% of the total figure. I am sure that the House will agree that it is vital the BPMA is successful in its application.

It is, however, with some regret that, of the £21.8 million already raised by the BPMA, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has donated only £70,000. That figure derives from the residue of the sales of shares in Royal Mail. I hope the Minister will agree with me that such an important historic and social archive as the BPMA deserves a little more than £70,000. It deserves more of the £2 billion sale of Royal Mail than the £70,000 it is being given.

One of the quirks of Royal Mail history is that it has always had two Postmasters General. I hope the Minister will be able to visit and see the history of the two Postmasters General from, I think, the late 17th century to the 19th century. The deal was always, to ensure that when franchises were given out there was an even split of political profit, that one Postmaster General was always a Whig and one was always a Tory. Such things go around: even then there was a coalition of Tories and Liberals who were selling off Royal Mail services.

Given that the Government have acted within the tradition of Royal Mail, I am sure that they will be as keen as I am to ensure that this history is properly documented and accessible. The archives have been closed to the public since the mid-1990s, when the old site at St Pauls was sold off to Merrill Lynch at a time when Royal Mail was in public ownership. Does the Minister not agree that perhaps some of the profit, made when the Royal Mail museum was first sold off to Merrill Lynch in the 1990s, could be ploughed into the new museum? Is it not right that the money from the sell-off, which has been held in trust ever since, is returned to the museum?

The BPMA has managed to raise £21 million towards this project, but it is still £500,000 short. Does the Minister agree that the Government could do more to ensure that the postal archive is once again accessible and that the never-before-seen rail mail is also open to the British public? It is asking for £500,000. I hope that the Minister will this evening be able to grant its request. It is vital that the museum is open to the public.

How far can one walk through London without seeing part of Royal Mail history, such as a pillar box? The museum is like a pillar box. Think of all the history pillar boxes have seen in central London. This museum is standing there showing us the social history that has evolved around it. If any of those 100-year-old pillar boxes could talk, they would be telling us the sorts of things we would be able to pick up at this museum. I hope the Minister will agree that it is vital that the museum opens and I hope that he will be able to show some support for it today.

5.14 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this debate on the future of

27 Feb 2014 : Column 519

the postal museum and the Post Office railway. I commend her for such an entertaining and informative speech, which I think we all enjoyed.

The Government recognise that the British postal museum and archive is the leading resource for all aspects of British postal history in the United Kingdom. These records are designated as being of outstanding national importance. The BPMA was established by Royal Mail in 2004 as an independent charity to manage and preserve the Royal Mail archive and to be the custodian of the museum’s collection. As well as housing the world’s greatest collection of British postage stamps, the museum and archive hold written records of the GPO and the Post Office, staff records, telegrams—as we have heard—posters, photographs, uniforms, pillar boxes, an amazing collection of postal vehicles including a five-wheeled “pentacycle”, and a fascinating variety of other artefacts, including the signature stamp of Anthony Trollope, who worked for the Post Office for over 30 years, and sheets of the Penny Black, the postage stamp that is at the heart of the history of the universal service.

The BPMA effectively safeguards visual, written and physical records from 400 years of postal history. It acknowledged some time ago that in order to secure a sustainable future for that heritage, it would need to relocate and redevelop the museum and archive. The current premises at Freeling House have space and access limitations; they are also prone to intermittent flooding, so the staff have had to deal with additional curatorial issues. As the hon. Lady told us, there was previously a Post Office museum, but it closed in 1998. Since then, a large part of the collections has been held at a storage facility in Essex, or held by other museums around the country. It is clear that the BPMA needs a permanent and damp-free home, for its museum collections in particular but also to lay the foundations for a more sustainable future.

The plans that the BPMA has set in play to address the situation are beginning to pay off. These are exciting times. An existing building near the Mount Pleasant complex is to be the new home for the archive, and the surrounding land will be used to build a new exhibition space. The selected building, Calthorpe House, has been provided by Royal Mail, and planning permission has been granted for the development of a museum building on adjacent land. The BPMA is also proceeding with plans to bring back into service part of the historic mail rail underground system—which we have heard about—as an additional visitors’ attraction. That will enhance the visitors’ experience, and I am sure that it will attract many people to the hon. Lady’s constituency.

The cost of all the redevelopment—again, as we have heard—is just over £22 million, which is a significant sum. The BPMA has secured much of that funding from a number of sources. Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd remain firmly committed to the work of the BPMA and to the redevelopment project. Donald Brydon, the chairman of Royal Mail, has been a great advocate for the BPMA, and has been consistently in touch with me about it. Royal Mail has made available a 999-year lease on Calthorpe House—the new museum and archive premises—at a nominal rent, and further donations of £350,000 have been made in respect of preparation work for the new museum.

Both Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd continue to make payments to the BPMA as part of the ongoing arrangements. For example, in 2012 a £640,000 charitable

27 Feb 2014 : Column 520

donation was made for the running and maintenance of the museum. Fees of £400,000 were also paid for archive services provided by the BPMA in order to ensure that Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd would meet their obligations under the Public Records Act 1958, and, in doing so, would themselves ensure that records of social and historic importance were preserved and made publicly available after 20 years.

Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd have also contributed to the new project by providing soft loans and grants of just over £7.5 million, to be paid at various stages of the redevelopment. To secure the loans, the BPMA prepared a commercial business case which will enable it to be more self-funding in future—by, for example, charging for mail rail, and allowing its facilities to be hired for corporate events. The BPMA has also secured access to heritage lottery funding of over £4.25 million, and was awarded £250,000 as initial funding, with access to a further £4 million-plus. My Department arranged a contribution of £70,000 to the BPMA last year. That came about as a result of the terms of the retail share offer element of the initial public offering which we saw through successfully in October. Under the terms of the offer, any sums less than the offer price of one ordinary share were not to be refunded to the applicant, but the Secretary of State could give these amounts to charitable purposes.

Emily Thornberry: Was all the residue and the money that was to be given to charities given to this museum, or did some of it go elsewhere?

Michael Fallon: My understanding is that it was all given to this particular charitable purpose, but I will check whether I am right.

We considered what charitable donation would be most appropriate and we thought a donation to the BPMA was the most merited of the various possibilities canvassed. The BPMA is also raising significant funds from charities and foundations by selling surplus duplicate stamp collections and related material and using corporate donors to help to raise the funds needed. All proceeds from such duplicate stamp sales are ring-fenced for use by the BPMA. The BPMA also has effective plans in place—along the lines of its existing fundraising activities—to attract the outstanding funds needed for the project.

I hope that today’s debate has served to highlight the highly important work for which the BPMA is responsible as custodian of our postal heritage. That is deserving of wider recognition, and I think deserving of the highest praise given the history of the museum and some of the hiccups along the way. Through the hard work and determination of the BPMA’s administrators over the last few years, this truly worthy project is now within touching distance of coming to fruition, and to get this far is a magnificent achievement in its own right.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have already made contributions to the redevelopment project. Through their generosity a very important part of Britain’s history will be preserved for the benefit and enrichment of everyone—most importantly, of course, future generations. I would encourage all charitable trusts and foundations, corporate sponsors and individuals to give serious consideration to supporting the BPMA in whatever way they can.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 521

I hope that any necessary additional funding can soon be secured to ensure that work can start on schedule for the planned opening in 2016. In the interim I hope that anybody listening to this debate, including those of us who have engaged in it, will be encouraged by the BPMA’s plans and will seriously consider paying a visit to the museum, as I intend to do, to find out more about a key period of our modern history—the communications revolution that started here in the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century and spread with remarkable speed around the globe.

27 Feb 2014 : Column 522

The Government will continue to monitor the progress of the project with keen interest, and Parliament will, of course, be kept informed of the progress through Royal Mail’s annual reports on its heritage activities that are laid in Parliament, as the Government required under the Postal Services Act 2011.

Question put and agreed to.

5.23 pm

House adjourned.