|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if the Government are really serious about democracy and human rights in Pakistan, why is it that the Government, including in answers given by the Minister herself, have absolutely refused to take any interest in the imprisonment of Benazir Bhutto's husband? Whether or not he is guilty, the fact is that he has not been brought to trial; he has been tortured; and his treatment has been condemned at a conference of the IPU. And the Government just say that the plight of the husband of a leading politician in that country has nothing to do with the functioning of democracy and is nothing to do with the Government because he is not a British citizen. Why is it not their concern?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I have made it absolutely clear in replies on this matter that I have given to the noble Lord that our consular responsibilities are clear. They are set out in international law. We have a responsibility to look after the welfare of British citizens abroad. Benazir Bhutto's husband is not a British national.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a fairly obvious case of double standards when Pakistan is not allowed to become a member of the Commonwealth because of its undemocratic regime, whereas Zimbabwe is being reconsidered for admission by both South Africa and Nigeria? Does she agree that this case of double standards calls into question the value of the Commonwealth as a forum for promoting democratic rights?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Pakistan and Zimbabwe are both suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe's suspension will continue until the next CHOGM in December in Abuja, as was announced by the Commonwealth Secretary-General last weekend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am surprised at the answer given by the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that this country does not have a responsibility to people who are being imprisoned in Pakistan, as is the husband of Benazir Bhutto. I thought weaccording to the Prime Ministerwere in the process of conducting a war in Iraq to make a regime change, a regime that is in fact imprisoning and torturing people. What is the difference?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made absolutely clear what our consular responsibilities are. I have set out those responsibilities in reply to the noble Lord in correspondence that goes back over many months.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Miller, who has been called away urgently from the House for a family emergency, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that the switch of the benefit payment system will result in a loss of 40 per cent of the Post Office network income, which is some £400 million per year, can the Minister tell the House how much of the savings resulting from this exercise the Treasury will contribute annually to stop the haemorrhaging of post offices in our countrysome 635 in the past few years alone before the scheme has even begun?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is important to realise that there is no alternative to this change. We cannot continue with a system that is effectively dying on its feet, for the simple reason that people are voting to go over to banking services. No assessment has been made of the total impact of the change on the finances of the post offices. But, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we are making substantial commitments to rural post offices. Subject to state aids clearance, we shall be making available £450 million£150 million a year for the three years 200304 to 200506in order to make certain that the rural post office network is in good condition.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in view of the imminence of the transfer of payments on 1st April to the new system, will the Minister accept that many of the reservations expressed over recent years from all sides of your Lordships' House about the new system have proved to be well-founded? Will he accept that there is a significant danger that many of the elderly, and in particular many of the elderly infirm, will, at best, be confused by the new system and, at worst, be deprived of their benefits?
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I declare my usual interest as a former postman. During the proceedings on the Postal Services Bill in May 2000 does my noble friend recall the response he gave to me and to the House regarding beneficiaries being able to get their benefits in cash in a post office? In an earlier response today my noble friend mentioned people voting to transfer benefits into bank accounts. Does he agree that there is no alternative? Beneficiaries must go into one of the systems, and if nothing else, the one that the Post Office is providing. Therefore, he is no longer able to say that people have the right to get cash: they have to go through a banking system.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I remember well the answer I gave. The answer I give now is exactly the same. The point of the Post Office card account is so that people can receive their benefits in cash. What is different is simply that it is not a paper-based but an IT-based system. Their ability to get cash is exactly the same.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further following his response to the noble Lord. Can he confirm that post offices are being denied the opportunity to offer their first choice to recipients? The Government are deliberately not offering the universal banking system as first choice, but are pushing people into using banking systems as first choice and post office systems as second choice. That could undermine the future viability of sub-post offices.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not managing people's choices, as has been suggested by some. They are simply informing individuals of the available choices. There are no eligibility criteria. There is no cap on the numbers of the Post Office card accounts. I should have thought that giving people choice was something of which the noble Baroness would approve.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister able to give an undertaking that the Universal Bank and post offices will be able to provide facilities that are adequate for the use of the blind and the partially sighted?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a system has been introduced for PIN numbers which is, I believe, widely used without any problems, but the Post Office is committed to finding ways to improve such provision. The PIN pads that have been installed are widely used without problems across Europe and
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained to the House in the, I think, second answer I gave, there is no alternative. We were embarked, as a result of the previous government, on a system to computerise the service which the Post Office gave. When one has a system that has such very obvious economic benefitsthe difference between the cost of this system to the DWP is 1 pence compared with £1.40 for every giro direct paymentthere really is no alternative to going forward.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is not the impact of all that the Minister has described for the benefit of the Government, not at all for the benefit of the customer? When discussing PIN pads, does he not realise that elderly people never remember their PINs? I am sure that many people around here forget them too. Small post offices in rural areas serve all those elderly people who have no alternative and do not like those new-fangled banking methods.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page