1. What steps the Government have taken to increase awareness of the minimum wage since its introduction. (215941)

Last year, the Government ran a major advertising and awareness campaign to highlight entitlement to the national minimum wage. The campaign produced some very positive results, including a 400 per cent. increase in calls to our language and help lines, more than 170,000 hits on the online guidance, and an increased number of enforcement requests to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but further to it, what is he doing to enforce the minimum wage, in particular in respect of employers who exploit migrant workers by paying them below the minimum wage and apportioning unrealistic costs on them?

We are taking two steps to address those concerns. First, the Employment Bill, which is currently going through the other place, will significantly change the way in which we recover arrears of unpaid wages and make it clear that it is the will of this House that every worker should be entitled to a proper national minimum wage that is properly enforced, and that there will be a consequence for employers who do not pay it. Secondly, we have provided significant additional resources to help enforcement of the national minimum wage. I hope that that addresses the concerns that my hon. Friend and many others have expressed to Ministers in recent weeks.

The national minimum wage has increased by 53.3 per cent., while average earnings have increased by only 39.9 per cent. The British Retail Consortium has stated that members’ costs increased by £1.7 billion in 2006, which was 13 per cent. more than they expected. The strain on small businesses is ever growing and increasingly causing problems. Recognising the Chancellor’s call for inflation-related pay increases, will the Government now ensure that the minimum wage will no longer increase at levels above inflation?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the latter point is a matter for the Low Pay Commission, which will make recommendations to Ministers. I know that he is a fair-minded man, and I would have thought that he would welcome the fact that the wages of the poorest workers in Britain have been rising at a faster rate than those of others; I would have thought that that would be welcomed in all parts of the House. On the point about small businesses, let me rehearse the following argument with him. Almost 0.75 million more small businesses are now trading in the United Kingdom than 10 years ago, so he cannot portray the national minimum wage as in any way inhibiting the growth of small businesses. That would be unreasonable, and it is not borne out by the evidence, which it is always important for us to keep in mind. Also, 3 million more people are now in work, going to work every day, than in 1997. If we had listened to the advice of the many Opposition Members who argued that the national minimum wage would destroy jobs, we would not have seen the progress that we have seen so far.

My right hon. Friend may be aware of a case in Nottingham in which an immigrant worker was paid £8.80 after a week’s work. That is total abuse. Is he also aware that 42 per cent. of the construction labour force in London is immigrant labour? That labour needs protecting. I hear what he says about the Employment Bill that is currently in the other place, but does he agree that further protection is needed, and will he consider working with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions in order to extend the gangmasters regulation to construction?

Obviously, we look at a number of these issues, because it is important that proper protections are in place. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Nottingham case and his concerns about what is happening in the construction industry. We have enacted legislation to protect workers and to ensure that they are entitled to a proper national minimum wage. It is our responsibility as Ministers to make sure that that legislation is properly and fully enforced. Our current focus is on improving enforcement. We are willing to listen to, and consider carefully, any further requests for additional legislation, but the case for such legislation has to be fully and squarely met.

What has been the regional variation in the number of complaints regarding non-payment of the minimum wage?

I do not have the regional data, but I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

In a recent debate that I secured in Westminster Hall on the national minimum wage, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has some knowledge of these matters, suggested that the legislation now going through Parliament could require wage slips to include details of the national minimum wage currently in force and of the national minimum wage hotline number. That simple measure could provide greater awareness of the minimum wage and of enforcement. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider making such provision as that legislation goes through Parliament?

I am a great admirer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who did a sterling job in introducing the legislation. We will obviously look seriously at any such proposal, and I am happy to discuss in more detail later with my hon. Friend this and any other concerns that he has.

2. What recent representations he has received on the future of the post office network in rural areas. (215942)

The Department receives representations on a wide range of issues relating to the post office network, including, of course, its future in rural areas. The access criteria for the post office network ensure that 95 per cent. of the total rural population across the UK are within 3 miles of their nearest post office outlet.

More than 300 people from the Vale of York alone took the opportunity to respond to the consultation. Twenty-three branches have been earmarked for the outreach programme, which constitutes nothing less than post office branch closures. For sometimes only two hours each week, a man in a van is going to present himself at these villages. Does the Minister not accept that he is being less than honest with the public? People in the Vale of York feel that they are being taken for a complete ride. They have not been listened to, branches are closing, village shops—where they do exist—are even being threatened, and the level of service is being reduced to virtually nothing. Will he apologise to the people of the Vale of York?

I accept that this is a difficult process, but I am afraid that I do not accept that I have been less than honest throughout it. The hon. Lady referred to outreach, which is not the same as a post office closing. She will in future find, I believe, that outreach can provide a very valuable service to her constituents. My understanding is that the number of outreach facilities planned for her constituency is six, not 23, as she stated.

My hon. Friend will know that with the growth in the number of outreach branches, some sub-postmasters are taking on several branches. One sub-postmaster in my constituency is running three outreach facilities and another is running four, yet they get only the one piece of portable kit to enable them to go around the villages delivering this service. That reduces the number of hours that they can do and the flexibility of the service. Can my hon. Friend therefore make representations to the Post Office so that, where sub-postmasters are running several outreach branches, they have more than one piece of portable kit to enable them to offer a more extensive and flexible service?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right that the provision of outreach is dependent on a core sub-postmaster providing that service in two or three villages. I am very happy to convey to the Post Office his point about the equipment.

Two of the rural post offices in my constituency, Inverkeilor and Carmyllie, along with Arbroath’s Cairnie street post office, are scheduled to close. The rationale, apparently, is that the business will transfer to the main Arbroath post office. However, in the middle of the consultation period the Post Office suddenly announced that the franchisee of the main Arbroath post office did not wish to renew their franchise in the early part of next year. I contacted the Post Office, and although it confirmed that the main office would have be relocated, it could not tell me who would run it, or where or what size it would be. Does the Minister not accept that even under this inadequate consultation process, such a material change in circumstances must mean that the proposed closures are put on hold, at the very least, until the future of the main post office is clarified?

I certainly accept that where closures take place and there is an assumption of migration to a different branch, that branch should be capable of dealing with that business. I am very clear that that should happen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in others.

Many hon. Members have raised the question of post offices in the House, but is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office proposes to start the consultation in my area on the day after the parliamentary recess begins? Dozens of MPs are in the same situation, and their constituencies contain about 5.5 million people. Will he reflect on that situation and discourage the Post Office from beginning and finishing the consultation during recess? Otherwise, millions of people will be disfranchised because Members of all parties will be unable to express their views.

I call Mr. Hendry. Apologies: Mr. McFadden.

I do believe that the consultation can proceed during a parliamentary recess. I believe that our constituents can still take part even if Parliament is not meeting. The timetable was set out in some detail about a year ago, so we would not recommend its suspension for a few months during the parliamentary recess.

I very much look forward to the opportunity to answer questions rather than just ask them.

How can the Minister tolerate the restrictive practices being imposed by the Post Office on rural and other shops where post offices are being forced to close? Is he aware that sub-postmasters, who were not allowed to have a national lottery terminal, be a PayPoint outlet or work with carriers other than the Royal Mail simply because they had a post office are now being told that they may not offer those services simply because they no longer have a post office? Does he understand how angry postmasters are that they face losing compensation simply because they want to help what is left of their business to survive? Does he not think that it is utterly wrong that the policies of Post Office Ltd should lead to the closure not just of post offices but of many of the private businesses that house them?

The compensation arrangements for sub-postmasters leaving the network were negotiated by Post Office Ltd and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. They are fair in relative terms, and quite rightly so. They amount to some 28 months’ compensation for sub-postmasters leaving the network. People will not be banned from having a lottery terminal or entering into an arrangement that would put them into competition with the post office down the road, but their compensation will be adjusted. That was defended by the general secretary of the NFSP when he spoke to the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

As for closures, I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who recently said in the House:

“Let me make it clear that we fully expect the network to shrink in size. We have never given a guarantee that no post offices will close”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 947.]

That is the position of the hon. Gentleman’s party.

3. What recent representations he has received on post office branch closures; and if he will make a statement. (215943)

Again, the Department regularly receives representations on a wide range of issues in relation to the network, including the current closure programme and the establishment of new outreach outlets under the Post Office’s network change programme. To date, the Post Office has published and put out to local public consultation 34 of the 41 area plans in the current programme.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Previous post office closure plans decimated the post office network in Edinburgh, under both the previous Conservative Government and the present Labour Government. All the post office closures—we are expecting the next wave in August—have been done without any strategy or any plan in mind for the entire city. Why should it be any different this time, and what reassurances can he give the residents of Edinburgh that that will not happen again?

One of the differences between the programme that we are in the middle of and previous programmes is that the previous one, for example, was entirely voluntary for sub-postmasters leaving the network. Perhaps that caused less local protest, but as a strategy to plan the network it may not have been the best option; such an approach could leave holes in the network in the hon. Gentleman’s city. This time, access criteria will broadly mean that people in urban areas should be within a mile of a post office and people in rural areas within 3 miles. That will help with planning the future shape of the network. It means that some sub-postmasters who do not want to leave the network are being asked to leave, and I understand that that is difficult for them, but it also means that the network is being planned in both urban and rural areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a worrying aspect of the last closure programme was that, no doubt for business reasons, a disproportionate number of the closures were in working class areas, often in major cities and near former council schemes, some of which had a high proportion of elderly people? As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, we do not have the Edinburgh proposals yet, but is there any prospect that that will not happen this time around? We had quite a hammering last time, not least in Edinburgh, East.

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point about the importance of the post office network to people on lower incomes, and that is why this Government have put so much public funding into supporting it. The network faces major changes in how people do business, but we are supporting it with up to £1.7 billion over the next few years. Without that public support and strong commitment from the Government, thousands more branches would be under threat. We have put that support in place precisely because we appreciate the value of the network to the constituents whom my right hon. Friend mentions.

Is it not the case that we would not be in this sorry mess and having to close about a third of the network if the Government did two things? First, they should allow a much greater range of Government services to be provided through post offices, and secondly they should allow and indeed encourage the Post Office to be far more entrepreneurial in the range of services that it provides.

I quite agree that the Post Office needs to be entrepreneurial in the range of services that it provides. It has successfully expanded into foreign currency and insurance, for example. In terms of Government work, I know that the Post Office is highly interested in biometric identity management for passports and driving licences and, possibly in the future, identity cards. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman’s party has its way, the Post Office will not even get the chance to bid for that Government work.

A moment ago, the Minister said that this process was very difficult, and he will know from the Adjournment debate that I had last week that I understand that. However, may I commend for his further consideration the point that I set before him then? When we have a Devon cluster that includes one of the most sparsely populated counties in the country together with an urban area with some of the most deep-seated poverty, perverse proposals emerge, such as the closures of Pennycomequick, Beaumont road and St. Leven’s valley post offices. Does he really think that he is getting value for money from the £1.7 billion when it produces such perverse proposals to close busy post offices?

My hon. Friend has made her point, and it is clear that she believes that it is wrong for her city to be in the same closure plan as a major rural area such as the county of Devon. Of course, that has happened in several places around the country where urban and rural areas have been combined for this purpose. It is difficult, but the access criteria are intended to ensure that we have a stable network for the future in both rural and urban areas.

May I make a plea to the Minister to have a further discussion with the Post Office about these closures, bearing in mind the representations that he is receiving from both sides of the House? This is not a party issue: we are talking about an important public service. In my constituency, six post offices face closure and that is under consultation now, but they are profitable enterprises. Why should profitable enterprises be closed, and why should rural areas be put at a further disadvantage by the access criteria? I am deeply concerned: will he not have further talks with the Post Office about its proposals?

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) thinks that urban areas are being put at a disadvantage; the hon. Gentleman thinks that rural areas are being put at a disadvantage. He should perhaps be cautious about saying that the post offices that are closing are profitable. The post office network is losing £0.5 million a day. When we take into account not just the costs to sub-postmasters but the central costs borne by Post Office Ltd for services such as cash handling, IT and so on, we see that three out of four post offices in the country run at a cost to Post Office Ltd. That is why it is so important that we have stepped in with a large-scale public subsidy, which did not exist under the last Government.

May I confirm that my hon. Friend is aware of my concern about the way in which the consultation has been done in deprived urban areas? Let me also tell him that the closure programme that we have seen so far will be as of nothing if something is not done about the Department for Work and Pensions issuing the Post Office card account to the Post Office. Will he do all that he can to ensure that the Post Office retains that card account?

I fully understand the importance of the Post Office card account to the future of the network. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has made its views on that matter very clear to me and to right hon. and hon. Members from all parties. My hon. Friend will understand, too, that this is a commercial tendering process and the DWP will consider bids from around the country. I am sure that the Post Office has put in a very strong bid, but the decision will be announced later this year.

5. What plans he has to tackle fuel poverty among users of fuel heating oil. (215945)

The Government have a range of measures to help with fuel bills, including grants to improve energy efficiency and the winter fuel payment scheme. The Government are also exploring the role that alternative technologies can play in alleviating fuel poverty—I think that that will be directly relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and we are looking to provide connections to deprived communities off the gas network, as gas remains the cheapest form of heating.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will know that in constituencies such as mine, fuel heating oil is the principal source of heating in most communities. It is also used in older houses in remote areas, which are more expensive to make energy-efficient. Huge oil price rises and an already expensive source of heating have conspired to put fuel oil users even more into fuel poverty than they were before. Will the Minister ensure that in his fuel poverty strategy heating oil users have top priority? Will he ensure that energy companies are encouraged to take the fuel poverty measures that they are being asked to take by the Government, with specific reference to fuel heating oil users—although, of course, they will not be customers of gas companies, in particular?

I understand the difficulties faced by those who are heavily reliant on oil for their heating, for example in rural and island communities. Of course, the price of a barrel of oil worldwide has doubled in just one year. I think that some of the work that we can do to connect people to the gas system, where appropriate, is helpful. The development of our microgeneration strategy is very relevant, because technologies such as ground source heat pumps can offer some relief in future. That is why we have earmarked £3 million from the low-carbon building programme as a pilot to see how microgeneration can help to tackle fuel poverty.

As a former heating oil user in a rural area, I am aware of some of its advantages. At the moment, a typical 1,000-litre tank, when full, can contain oil that is valued at well over £600 and is quite attractive to would-be thieves. The loss of such oil, of course, would push rural people even further into poverty. What discussions might the Minister have with his fellow Ministers to alert people, and the police in particular, in such areas to the risks that are being run?

I certainly do understand the risk and, sadly, there have been well-reported cases in recent days, as the price of fuel has increased. Obviously, the police will take whatever action they can. If I feel it helpful to discuss the matter with Home Office colleagues, I will certainly do so.

I do not for a second dismiss the issue of poverty, but is not the problem the price of fuel oil? Will the Minister tell the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries producers that they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and will he tell the House what research the Government are conducting and encouraging on alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen, to replace oil?

I am happy to say to my MP—the ballot is always secret—that the Prime Minister is leading from the front on the issue. He attended the Jeddah meeting called by the King of Saudi Arabia, and a process is under way that will lead to a high-level London summit later this year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are active on many fronts on this difficult issue, but things are not easy. The Saudis have announced a significant increase in supply, but other countries do not have the capacity easily to do the same. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking into the issue. Given that we published our renewable energy strategy consultation document last week, and given the announcement about nuclear, he knows that we are active on the issue of finding alternative energy sources to play a part in the diverse energy strategy that Britain requires.

It is not only heating oil but liquefied petroleum gas that poses a significant financial problem for households in rural areas, although I accept that LPG is a much lesser cost. I applaud everything that my hon. Friend has said so far this morning, but there is deep concern in many households in remote rural areas. In particular, there are pensioner households that do not qualify for any support through, say, pension credit, but have to spend between 18 and 22 per cent. of their income on heating oil. That is not acceptable in 2008.

I do understand that concern, and of course all of us are concerned about the most vulnerable, elderly households. All pensioner households receive the winter fuel payment, which for the over-80s will be £400 this year. For the over-60s it will be £250—a significant increase. Insulating the homes of Britain’s elderly, and improving the energy efficiency of those homes, is crucial. We are spending record amounts of money, through Warm Front and the carbon emissions reduction target, on energy efficiency programmes. That could be of particular relevance to my hon. Friend’s constituency.

How many households does the Minister think will be helped by the £1 million grant recently given to the east of England under the low-carbon buildings programme, given that 1 million people in the region are thought to be in fuel poverty, and more than 50 per cent. of households in my constituency of South-West Norfolk have no access to mains gas?

I said that the programme is a pilot study. It is a new initiative from our low-carbon buildings programme. The number of households affected will be in the hundreds; I will give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure in writing. I would have thought that he might welcome the fact that we are trying to use new technologies to tackle the old social evils of fuel poverty, an issue that we are determined to pursue. We are spending record amounts of money on CERT and Warm Front; there is some misunderstanding about that. In the current spending period, the figures will increase by £680 million, compared with the previous spending period, and will reach about £2.3 billion. There is a lot of scope for improving the thermal efficiency of our housing, and as we move forward we need to, and will, complement our energy strategy with a strong energy efficiency programme. Our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working on that.

What role does my hon. Friend think that speculators are playing in talking up the price of oil, and has he given any consideration to the paper that Dr. Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, published in Petroleum Review? It puts the proposition that oil companies have double the reserves that they claim to have.

I promise my hon. Friend that I will read the article. My copy has not yet arrived—it has obviously been delayed at Petroleum News—but I will read it. The important point is that a great debate is going on about what lies behind the rise in the price of a barrel of oil, which has doubled. We would emphasise the fundamentals: China, India and other countries are fuelling their growing economies with energy, and there is a mismatch between supply and demand, hence the earlier dialogue about the need to increase supply, which the Saudis are doing. Many OPEC nations emphasise speculation, and we would not entirely dismiss the speculative element. We are working with OPEC and the international energy bodies to try to produce a shared analysis of what lies behind that very grave problem, and I do promise to look at the article.

The Minister mentioned connecting households to the gas mains, but he will know that in many areas the capital cost of doing so is enormous. Are the Government planning any assistance schemes to help fuel-poor households that do not have gas connections simply to get connected?

Yes. In the Department earlier this week we were discussing with the relevant bodies plans to increase the numbers of households that are connected to the gas grid. There is significant scope for it, but I do not want to exaggerate the situation, because many such households will never be connected to the mainstream gas grid. We need to work hard at providing other options for those people, so that they have some of the choices that many of us in urban areas take for granted, hence my emphasis, in reply to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), on using microgeneration imaginatively to try to provide choices for some households in isolated communities.

Every 1 per cent. rise in fuel prices pushes another 40,000 people into fuel poverty and if, as forecast, the cost of heating our homes rises by 40 per cent. this winter, that will mean another 1.6 million such people. What specifically will the Government do to help those people? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still absolutely committed to their own target of eradicating fuel poverty which is now within less than two years?

We are going to do our utmost to tackle the problems of fuel poverty, but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fundamentals. We are faced with extraordinary increases in prices—global prices. I have mentioned oil, but the wholesale prices of gas and of coal are going up to astronomical levels, and it is very difficult territory for business and for all our constituents. So since 2000, we have spent £20 billion on fuel poverty benefits and programmes—I know that the hon. Gentleman will not dismiss that figure; I have said already that the Chancellor has agreed to increase winter fuel payments quite significantly; we are increasing the amounts of money spent on energy efficiency payments through CERT and through Warm Front; and the Secretary of State has brokered an agreement with the six major supply companies to increase their social tariffs from £50 million now to £150 million in a year or two’s time. That is a significant programme, but we are not complacent. We are worried about the situation’s impact on vulnerable people, and we will do everything possible to protect those decent citizens of ours.

6. What recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on the position of UK firms which trade with Cuba. (215946)

My Department has not received any formal complaint from UK-based firms affected by US trade sanctions against Cuba. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes the Government’s position clear every year by voting against the US trade embargo on Cuba—including aspects of its extraterritorial legislation—at the United Nations General Assembly. The last such vote was on 30 October 2007.

Each year, thousands of British people visit Cuba as tourists, and the liberalisation process that has started in that country means that there are huge opportunities for British firms to do business. I welcome last month’s decision by European Union Foreign Ministers to lift political sanctions against Cuba, but does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that more could be done to explain to British businesses the opportunities that there will be to expand their operations in Cuba in the years ahead?

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that UK Trade and Investment has the equivalent of almost three full-time staff working on trade activities in Havana precisely to increase awareness of the trading opportunities with Cuba, as my hon. Friend suggests we should. We want those staff to continue to engage with the business community both in the UK and Cuba and to go on promoting increased trade between our two countries.

7. When he expects the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to make its recommendation to him for the preferred bidder for the new parent body organisation for the Sellafield Site Licence Company. (215948)

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is running a competition to select a new parent body organisation for the Sellafield Site Licence Company. Ownership will enhance the company’s performance. The NDA is evaluating the four bids received for this competition against agreed evaluation criteria. The results of the evaluation are expected later this month.

It is a little known fact that only one nuclear power station anywhere in the world has been wholly dismantled; I am thinking of Three Mile Island. Even decommissioned structures are still hazardous. My question for the Minister is this: what factors will he take into account when deciding which company will be responsible for the clean-up of Sellafield, or is he simply going to rubber-stamp the recommendation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority?

I am pleased about—indeed, rather proud of—the fact that after several decades in which no action was taken, it is this Government who now have a clear strategy on decommissioning our existing nuclear sites. Whatever the arguments and controversies about future nuclear, we have an ethical duty to ensure adequate decommissioning and clean-up. We are looking to the competition to get companies to bring world-class management to the task so that we can spread best practice and innovation and drive forward efficiency. We have four strong bidders and that is what we need to do. We cannot duck this task. We may wish that we did not have to do it, but we are doing it and we will do it in the most competent and cost-effective way.

8. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals on employment rights for agency workers. (215949)

I am glad to say that at the EU Employment Council on 9 June, agreement was reached on the terms of a proposed directive on temporary agency workers. The terms of the directive will provide new and important protections against unfair treatment and maintain essential flexibility to meet the needs of the UK labour market.

The timing of legislation in the United Kingdom will depend on agreement between Parliament and Council as this is a matter for co-decision, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope to bring forward the necessary domestic legislation as soon as possible.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. One of the main proposals coming forward is to give agency workers the same protection as full-time workers after 12 weeks. What does he intend to do about employers who sidestep those protections by, say, employing somebody for 11 weeks and four days?

The 12-week qualifying period to which my hon. Friend referred was recorded in the agreement reached between the Trades Union Congress and the CBI; that was the platform that allowed final agreement to be reached in the European Council. The directive also has strong anti-avoidance provisions. Obviously, the final details are still to be resolved in the process of co-decision making. However, the benchmark of proper protection has been established, and our view is that the directive must ensure that the obvious abuses to which my hon. Friend referred are dealt with fully and fairly.

When he is drawing up these proposals, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that after the end of the second world war, large numbers of people from eastern Europe—“displaced persons” they were called—came to Britain and other countries looking for jobs? Literally thousands of them started working in the pits. There were no middlemen and no agencies—nobody had ever heard of such things. Nobody was taking a cut of their wages; they were paid exactly the same as the others of us who were down the pits and they were affiliated to the appropriate trade union. If we could do that post-1945, why do we need these middlemen now? Let us get rid of them and get on with the job. Let us get back to giving the people who work for the money all the money, rather than there being a cut for somebody else.

I recognise what my hon. Friend has said about the mines and the immediate post-war period, but I am sure he will know, as he is very much in touch with the modern world, that the labour market today is a very different thing. Many workers in many industries have chosen and prefer agency working to other forms of employment. That is true in many sectors—in health, in teaching, in many of the managerial professions and in computing and technology. It would be quite wrong to take away from workers the opportunity of working in that way. I hope that he and I agree that where there is agency working, there should be proper and fair protection for agency workers so that they are on an equal footing with regular, full-time employees. I hope that that is what the directive that we have agreed in Europe will ensure.

9. What assessment he has made of the effects of post office closures on local shopping centres. (215950)

The Government recognise the important social and economic role of post offices in the communities they serve. In developing the area plans that are going through at the moment, Post Office Ltd considers the impact on local communities among other factors such as the profitability of the branch, local demographics and the availability of public transport.

If Mr. Sale and his family, who ran the Ilderton Road post office in Rotherhithe for 30 years until it was closed yesterday afternoon against their will and that of the community, decide that they can no longer continue in business, and the effect of that is that the whole parade of shops goes downhill, what will the Government do to help?

Mr. Sale, like all the sub-postmasters who are leaving the network as a result of this programme, will shortly receive, if he has not already received, the compensation that has been negotiated between the National Federation of SubPostmasters and Post Office Ltd in recognition of the important efforts that he and many others like him have made to the community over the years.

I call Anne Begg.

I thought we were on topical questions, Mr. Speaker.

I will see what I can do for you.

Marston road in Stafford is a local shopping centre in that it is a collection of small shops, including a post office. On Tuesday, Post Office Ltd announced the closure of that post office, which serves the local population, including many elderly disabled people in sheltered housing. Obviously we cannot transfer the post office to another shop locally, but would there be the possibility of an outreach service to one of the sheltered housing schemes so that at least people can stay in their locality instead of having to go somewhere else for their post office?

It is difficult to comment on the immediate circumstances that my hon. Friend raises. However, he should be aware that on 9 April Post Office Ltd announced that it was going to pilot the outreach concept, which had previously been geared towards rural areas, in urban areas as well. My advice to him would be to contact Post Office Ltd to see whether his constituency might have such a pilot, although I cannot guarantee that that will happen.

May I press the Minister on a specific issue that the Government could implement to help the post office network? The National Federation of SubPostmasters has said it fears that a further 3,000 post offices will close if the post office network does not win the Post Office card account. In view of the Government’s handling of this issue so far, what representations is the Minister going to make in order to help it to win that vital account?

I do not think anyone is in any doubt about my view on this issue, which will be decided in a proper and legal way by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that the last thing the hon. Gentleman would want is for me or another Minister to do something that would place the proper tendering process in jeopardy so that if the result that he wants happens, it is then challenged in the courts. That is why it is important that this is carried out properly according to the legal tendering rules. As I have said, the post office network is in a strong position to bid, and I am sure that it will bid strongly, but this has to be decided in a proper way by my colleagues at the DWP and announced in the normal fashion later this year.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (215931)

The central purpose of my Department is to help to ensure the success of UK business. We promote business growth and a strong enterprise economy, lead the better regulation agenda and champion free and fair markets, benefiting workers, consumers and companies. We are also the shareholder in a number of Government-owned assets, such as Royal Mail, and we work to secure clean and competitively priced energy supplies.

Given that answer, what is the Secretary of State’s Department going to do about the Financial Services Authority? I appreciate that it is a Treasury responsibility too, but it is also a matter of business regulation. In the last few months, we have learned that the outgoing chairman was paid more than £250,000 after he stopped working, that the new chairman got a pay rise of 37 per cent., which took him to a salary of £662,000 after a £114,000 bonus, and that the man who was effectively sacked because of the Northern Rock debacle got a £612,000 golden pay-off, plus a £30,000 performance-related bonus. What is a Labour Government going to do to stop such absolutely scandalous pay for people at the top end, when our constituents can hardly scrape enough together to pay the household bills?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is important that the FSA is able to recruit the right people and the best people. [Interruption.] That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to reflect on. The one thing that I have learned from doing this job is that it is usually a good idea to leave matters to do with the Treasury to be dealt with by Treasury Ministers in this House.

T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for our economic future to make the UK the safest place to do business online? Does he also agree that preventing internet-related crime is crucial to public and business confidence? Will he support initiatives to get industry to take the lead on this matter, in partnership with Parliament, the Government and civil society, to make the internet the safest place to undertake activities, and to ensure that confidence? (215932)

Yes, I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to what he has done in the past year or so, leading on some important work, which I hope will come to fruition. I agree that we need to discuss such matters carefully and closely with the industry. He referred to the importance of self-regulation in this regard, and I agree about that, but the Government have the responsibility to ensure that people and businesses in the UK who use the internet and do business online can do so safely, free from the fear of crime. I assure my right hon. Friend that active discussion is taking place between Ministers in a number of Departments to address the concerns that he and others have raised.

May I tell the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs that there is substantial and growing concern in the northern isles about the consequences for post offices if the post office network does not get the next generation of the Post Office card account? At present, just about every inhabited island in my constituency has a post office where people can use their card account. Will the Minister assure me that when the new contract is awarded, that will remain the case, and that questions of geography, as well as just bald population statistics, will be taken into account so that the matter is properly implemented?

There is not a lot I can add to what I have already said about the card account, other than to repeat that I understand how important it is to the post office network. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that his constituency, which is a special part of the country, has good post office provision. We want to maintain that, and the large amount of public subsidy that we put into the network is partly in recognition of the special circumstances of constituencies such as his. I am sure that the Department for Work and Pensions will take into account all relevant factors in deciding the future of the contract.

I call Anne Begg.

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

In the debate about the negative effects of the high oil price, the crucial part that the North sea oil and gas industry plays in the UK’s economy sometimes gets lost. However, that contribution has been made at some cost to human life. This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, in which 169 men died. I would welcome my right hon. Friend’s reflections on the lessons that have been learned and need to continue to be learned as a result of the tragedy.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Piper Alpha. All hon. Members know the scale of the tragedy on that day 20 years ago. Since then, significant improvements in health and safety have been made across the UK continental shelf, and that is a tribute to the trade unions and employers who worked together to achieve that better result to improve the safety and security of workers, on whom we all fundamentally depend for our long-term national self-interest. I pay tribute to that work. We all continue to regret the tragic loss of life on that terrible day, but we stand ready to work with both sides of the industry always to push forward the barrier of safety and do more to protect workers who work in incredibly dangerous situations. The UK Government remain committed to achieving that result.

On the day that the price of crude oil has burst through $145 a barrel, and further to the earlier comments of the Minister for Energy, how much extra have the Saudis produced since the Prime Minister’s visit to Jeddah? Will the Secretary of State explain how any extra production of heavy oil, when the world needs, if anything, light oil, would have any beneficial impact on global prices?

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has indicated its willingness to provide an extra 500,000 barrels a day of crude oil, and that is welcome. I accept that most of that is heavy crude, and that there is an issue about the world’s refining capacity to use that. However, the short-term problem cannot be fixed with the flick of a switch. It is important to deal with supply issues in the way my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy stated. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is addressing that in a way that gives the UK global leadership, and that is welcome. However, we must do more on the demand side, and what the G8 Energy Ministers agreed in Japan is important and will, I think, be confirmed at the G8 summit in Japan next week.

We can do more about energy efficiency, developing new technologies, having an open view about trade and making it a win-win situation for oil-producing countries to invest in some of the new technologies. I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge our work to try to get stability in oil prices—hopefully a climate in which they can come down—and that the Jeddah process and the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are the right response to the problems that we face.

I hear what the Secretary of State says and he is right about the importance of the demand side, but is not the problem for Britain the fact that the Prime Minister simply does not understand global oil markets and that his so-called new deal, which was much vaunted when he visited Saudi Arabia, was in fact a deeply humiliating begging mission, which has led neither to any additional oil production that is of any use nor to any reduction in the pain that consumers face?

It is easy to sneer and be cynical about such matters and it is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman has taken that approach. The exercise is far from humiliating, as he described it. There is now a process and a discussion, which has never happened before, between the producing and consuming nations. That will be an essential way to try to resolve and find a way through the problems. What is the alternative? Not to talk and not to have a dialogue? That is completely ridiculous.

The Minister for Energy and I both visited Bristol port authority a couple of weeks ago on Friday to discuss the potential impact of the Severn barrage on the port’s future business. Sadly, we did not quite meet on that occasion. Will either my right hon. Friend or the Minister for Energy tell the House whether the representations that were made to the Minister on that occasion about the potential impact of the barrage on the port’s future will be fed into the Severn barrage feasibility study?

Yes, they certainly will. It is important to consider all the potential impacts, not only environmental but economic, of a barrage across the Severn. They must be taken into account in the consideration of all the various options. However, I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, given the enormous potential of generating significant amounts of clean energy from such a barrage, we should proceed with the work, have everything on the table, be clear about the way forward and, when we are ready, make an informed, proper decision. However, as I said earlier, we must take into account both the economic and environmental impacts of such a proposal.

Does the Secretary of State think it was wise for the Prime Minister to reappoint the chief executive of Anglo American as one of the Government’s most senior business advisers this week, in the light of recent controversies over the company’s investments in Zimbabwe? Did the Secretary of State discuss the appointment with the Foreign Secretary?

It is a good and sensible appointment. All such matters are properly looked into before any such appointment is made.

T5. The next wave of post office closures will be announced for Edinburgh in August. Is the Minister concerned about the precedent set in Greater Glasgow, where the post offices saved were in marginal Labour seats, given that Edinburgh, South and Edinburgh, North and Leith are highly marginal against the Liberal Democrats and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s seat is marginal against the Conservatives? Where does the Minister think the most marginal seats are in Edinburgh, and will the post offices be saved there? (215935)

One of the beauties of topical questions is that we can do the whole thing twice. There is absolutely no political interference or consideration in the process at all. I therefore wholeheartedly and totally refute any inference that there is such.

T6. I am grateful to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs for his answer to my written question concerning the future of the sorting office in Crewe. Although that closure is an operational matter for Royal Mail, he must surely have a view, as the Minister for Postal Affairs and a portfolio-holding representative of the sole shareholder in Royal Mail—that is, the Government—on whether the closure of that sorting office is bad for the people of Crewe and bad for those who work there, who have been both long serving and hard working. (215936)

Let me welcome the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) on his first time at these questions—I do not know whether this is his first question in toto. My understanding is that no announcement has been made on the mail centre at Crewe. Royal Mail will of course be engaged in a process of modernisation and automation over the coming years, and it will have to take operational decisions about that. However, the hon. Gentleman’s party cannot say that decisions about Royal Mail, along with a number of other difficult decisions, including about transport infrastructure, nuclear power, planning and so on, must all be put into a box marked “too difficult to decide”.

T7. Does the Minister agree that one of the problems faced by those who are reliant on home fuel oil and propane gas is that there appears to be no regulator and no consumer body responsible for that market? Is he prepared to consider whether that market can be brought into the ambit of Ofgem, perhaps through the Energy Bill which is currently in the other place? That would at least allow the possibility of the same sort of help for that market, by way of social tariffs, for example, as for gas and electricity markets. (215937)

The Office of Fair Trading has responsibility if there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence, that is the authority to which it should go. I made it clear earlier that we need to find and develop the alternatives for those rural communities and rural households. Microgeneration—I have mentioned heat pumps as an example—has a great deal of scope in helping to bring more diversity and choice to some of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

T8. The Minister keeps perpetuating the myth that 99.7 per cent. of people living in North Yorkshire will remain within 1 mile by road of an alternative branch. However, I could take him to villages that will be 3, 5 or even 7 miles away from the nearest branch. When there are poor roads, when not everyone has a car and when there is insufficient public transport, because of the rural nature of the county, how does he propose that people will get to those branches? (215938)

I understand that anyone affected by post office closures is in a difficult position, because closures of course have consequences for post office customers. However, it is precisely because of that that we have put in place access criteria, in both urban and rural areas. In the face of losses of £500,000 a day, to which the hon. Lady did not refer, and a loss of custom amounting to 4 million customers a week in recent years, we have put in place the level of subsidy that will ensure a network of around 11,500 post offices, even after the closure programme is completed. Without the subsidy put in place by this Government, the Post Office would be in a much more difficult position than it is now.

T10. I am afraid that I want to take Ministers back to the Post Office card account. In 2003, I was the shadow Minister responsible for the Post Office, and I well remember the way the Government, using a list of 30 questions, tried to deter people from taking up a card account. It reached the position where they seemed to be saying, “Get your own bank account.” What faith can we have in the Government’s determination to keep the card account going, when in January 2006 they actually suggested that they did not wish to have another extension of the contract? Will the Minister assure me that the Government will definitely go for the best contract, not the cheapest contract, when the Post Office card account tender comes in? (215940)

The suggestion that the Government are somehow to blame for the changes in the way people choose to live their lives is one that I reject. Nine out of 10 new pensioners choose to have their pension paid directly into a bank account. I cannot add anything further on the decision on the contract. As I have said, that will be decided by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that the Post Office is extremely keen to win it, and I am sure it has put in a strong bid, but that must be decided in a proper, legally robust manner.