On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 29 August, during the debate on chemical weapons in Syria, the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who is not in his place, denied—

Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman proceeds, I must first seek his confirmation that he has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) is aware that this matter is being raised in relation to him in the Chamber this afternoon.

I can confirm that I spoke to the office of the hon. Member for Bradford West to advise him that I would raise this point of order.

During the debate on chemical weapons in Syria, the hon. Gentleman denied accusing Israel of supplying chemical weapons to al-Qaeda, and yet in the week before the debate, on Iranian-funded Press TV, he was clearly recorded accusing Israel. I would be grateful for a ruling on whether he has misled the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his reassurance that he made contact with the hon. Member for Bradford West, or his office, in advance of raising it. Let me just reiterate the factual—constitutional, if you will—position. All hon. and right hon. Members are responsible for what they say in this Chamber. If they make a mistake, it is their responsibility to correct it. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) is a sufficiently astute student of the procedures of the House to be aware of the many channels that are open to him to pursue the matter. I feel sure that he will be tenacious in pursuit of his opportunities. He will, I am sure, readily accept both that I have not heard the interview in question, and that it is not for the Speaker to adjudicate upon the factual accuracy of the content of Members’ speeches. I feel sure that he will pursue the matter in one or more of the ways I have outlined.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I clarify for the record that, in the Opposition day debate on 10 July, I did not intend to suggest that I regarded either Pat’s Petition or We Are Spartacus as extremist groups?

That is commendably clear and pithy, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The events of last week have created a historic constitutional precedent that future decisions on war and peace will be subject to the decision of the House. That has implications for other constitutional conventions, one such being the tradition that the Government do not reveal their legal advice in those matters. That is normally a very sensible convention, but if the Attorney-General is the adviser to the Government and to the House of Commons, that creates a problem in giving independent advice to the House. Can you, Mr Speaker, use your offices to resolve that problem, either by obtaining independent advice on future occasions, or by approaching the Government to change that convention?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting constitutional point, which I readily accept is worthy of further reflection and consideration. My best advice to him is that, if he wishes to pursue the matter and for the House to have an opportunity to reach a judgment about it, he should, in the first instance, approach the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform with a view to that Committee undertaking a study of, and making recommendations in relation to, the issue. There should then be an opportunity for the House, before too long, to come a view about it. I hope that that is clear and helpful.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have noticed that the Defence questions Order Paper was dominated by questions about the Trident successor and the Liberal Democrat-demanded alternatives review. Given that the delay to the main-gate decision cost this country £1.4 billion in extending the life of the existing submarines, is there any way in which I, within the rules of order, can set on the record that, present for those questions, were no more at any one time than two or three out of nearly 60 Liberal Democrat MPs?

The hon. Gentleman has, not for the first time, found his own salvation. I noticed during Question Time that, when he put his inquiry to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, with his customary courtesy, and no world-weariness, observed that the hon. Gentleman had made his point before. I could have told the Secretary of State that the hon. Gentleman has, in my recollection, made the same point in relation to Trident, or a number of the same points, for the best part of the 30 years that I have known him. On most occasions, he has done so on a daily basis.

I would go further than the hon. Gentleman and indeed the report, although it contains some useful comments. The present system is not just a farce; it is completely and utterly dishonest. It wastes Members’ time and misleads the public about what we do on a Friday. May I suggest that he avoids the concept of “Back-Bench legislation”? When the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) was on the Front Bench as Secretary of State for Wales, she introduced good legislation. In his terms, she would have been Front Bench, not Back Bench.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for putting his views so forcefully. He gave excellent evidence to the Committee and I will come on to the points he raises and try to address them.

Some 90% of the Bills now reaching statute that are marked as Back-Bench Bills or private Members’ Bills are, in reality, Government hand-out Bills. Not all Government hand-out Bills are to be despised, but there has to be a better balance.

I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Committee for their first-class work. I have two reservations about the report, however, that I would like briefly to put to him. As one who was fortunate enough to see two private Members’ Bills enacted thanks to the support of colleagues in all parts of the House, will he explain to me why the recommendation is still for such Bills to be debated on a Friday, the worst possible day for being quorate? With regard to the end of the report—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that to call Acts “Back-Bench Acts” reduces the importance of legislation that has as much support as any Government legislation in both Houses once it has received Royal Assent?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those observations. First, we are sticking with Fridays because a year ago the House took a view that it wanted Back-Bench business to remain on Fridays. It would not be for the Committee to suggest moving such Bills from Fridays 12 months after the House decided not to go down that route.

As for calling the business Back-Bench Bills as opposed to private Members’ Bills, that is again entirely for the House to decide. These are just recommendations; we are not going to force them on the House or demand that it adopt them. It is entirely for the House to come to a view on the many recommendations in the report, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will put his arguments forcefully at that moment.

May I say what an excellent job the Chairman does of chairing the Procedure Committee? However, given the number of people in the Chamber to hear his eloquent remarks, does he not think that it would be helpful if the Government found sufficient time at the earliest opportunity for the whole report to be debated at some length?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Leader of the House is positively chomping at the bit to find time for the report to be debated, because he is a great reformer and is entirely reform-minded. Indeed, I feel that I am presenting these reforms today with his support, which is extremely exciting and very welcome.

Before any chomping starts, does my hon. Friend agree that although most private Members’ Bills are Government sponsored, as he mentioned, that is the choice of the private Member?

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, but if private Members felt that they had a genuine chance of getting their own legislation on to the statute book or that the Government would at least give it a proper hearing, we might begin to redress the balance.

indicated dissent.

My hon. Friend is shaking his head; I think we shall have to disagree on this.

I thank the Chairman for giving way and congratulate him on his efforts in keeping the Committee working on this project. Does he agree that it is an opportunity to move the balance of power in the constitution away from the Executive and towards the democratically elected legislature? We should look at the attendance last Thursday—not only was the Chamber full, but the Gallery was too—to see that where there is an opportunity for the will of the House to confront the will of the Executive, people will turn up.

That is very much the flavour of this moment in time. I thank my hon. Friend for making that observation, but if hon. Members are happy that 90% of private Members’ Bills are in fact Government handout Bills, there is a good argument for returning the 13 Fridays back to the Executive, because they seem to have no trouble filling them.

We have come up with a number of recommendations that may or may not find support with the House. The first suggestion relates to how Bills are selected for debate. The current ballot system has much to commend it. Those entering have an equal chance of success and it is not susceptible to manipulation. However, the ballot is totally random and does not discriminate between Members with serious intent to engage with the process of private Members’ legislation and those with a passing interest—such as myself, at times in my past—and a willingness to sign their name in the book because it seems like a good idea at the time, as they are directed towards it in a Division Lobby by the Whips. Therefore, we ask the House to consider a system whereby the responsibility is placed on Members to gather support for their legislative initiatives.

Those Bills with the greatest number of signatures drawn from across the House would take precedence. Members would be allowed to support only one Bill with their signatures—this is very important—so once they had signed their signature away, they could not give it to anyone else, unless they withdrew it from the Bill that they had already said they would support. The process of attracting support would start well before the date of presentation and demonstrate the seriousness of intent behind the Member’s proposed legislation. It is hoped that those participating would cast their net wide in seeking support and, of course, include Ministers and Whitehall at an early stage.

I signed the report and very much support the idea behind it, but does my hon. Friend not agree that that mechanism risks encouraging populism behind Bills, rather than encouraging Bills that are worthy but obscure?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is much to commend the current ballot system, but it is incumbent on the Committee to put a series of proposals before the House so that it can come to its own view, because the House is populated by extremely wise people who have a lot of knowledge and wisdom to impart in this area. It will be for the House to reflect on what it wishes to do.

I have been able to read the Procedure Committee’s report since it was issued this morning, and I greatly welcome it. Were it to be implemented, it would result in a sea change in the attitude of Members on both sides of the House to private Members’ legislation, and their behaviour would change as a consequence. However, achieving such a change in behaviour is not so much about the method of selecting the Bills in the first place as about providing, through timetabling, a process by which decisions can be made. At the moment, any Bill that is even remotely contentious ends up being kicked into touch as a result of the activities of the Whips. This creates a dishonesty that verges on farce, and leads to institutional disingenuity by those in the Whips Office—of all persuasions—and therefore by Government Departments. I also very much welcome the Committee’s proposal for the Government to have to state their attitude to a Bill on First Reading. The Leader of the House suggested in his evidence to the Committee that the Government spent a great deal of time forming a view of such Bills. If that is the case, things have obviously changed since 2010. Also, we must be able to come to conclusions on Bills, whether on a Friday or on any other day.

The right hon. Gentleman has made some useful observations. In preparation for this afternoon’s debate, I wrote a very long, tedious and laborious speech, but I do not think that I shall have time to make it. Instead, I shall demonstrate the clear thinking of the moderately informed by answering each of the points that he has just raised.

First, in my view and the view of most members of the Committee, timetabling is an outstanding idea. We have come up with a number of suggestions to facilitate its introduction, in which either some or all of the private Members’ Bills drawn in the ballot would be timetabled. They would get a vote at the end of the Second Reading debate, and there would be a facility on Report to table a timetable motion that could be debated for 45 minutes and voted on if the House so wished.

The House really needs to give serious consideration to our suggestions on timetabling. It is incumbent on every colleague here to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and others spend more time with their constituents on Fridays. As much as I enjoy listening to my hon. Friend on Fridays, I believe that on occasions his time on those days could be better spent in his constituency, where he would be welcomed with open arms. I know that you will be concerned about my mentioning my hon. Friend in this way, Mr Speaker, but I spoke to him in the Tea Room this morning and he told me, in his rounded Yorkshire vowels, that he thought the report was a load of rubbish and “cobblers”. However, we need to ensure that colleagues have an incentive to turn up on Fridays, whether they are for or against a particular Bill, and that they at least have a chance to make their views heard. If a Bill has a timetable motion, one can then impose time limits on speeches.

I want to refer the hon. Gentleman back to the answer that he gave to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would not be right to reconsider the moving of the debates on private Members’ Bills to the middle of the week because Parliament had already discussed that proposal and rejected it. Perhaps he is crediting Parliament with a little too much consistency. If we were to put that question to the House again, I think that it would attract a huge amount of support. Holding the debates and votes midweek, rather than on Fridays, would give real status to private Members’ Bills. It would also give us a better chance of ensuring that they are not talked out.

Any motions that we table are amendable, and if there is a desire in the House to consider a day other than Friday for such debates, the House may do so. It is not incumbent on the Procedure Committee to tell anyone to behave in a particular way. We have come up with a set of suggestions, and the House is free to accept them, amend them or throw them out as it sees fit.

I may have missed it, but does my hon. Friend’s excellent report deal anywhere with the issue of one single Member shouting out “Object”, effectively killing or pushing into the very long grass a Bill that might have widespread public support? Did my hon. Friend and his colleagues look at that issue; does he have any thoughts on it?

It is to be hoped that our recommendations will ensure that when someone secures a position through the ballot or whatever other system the House chooses, that person will get a chance to put their legislation before the House and let it decide on its merits or otherwise without having it talked out or ruined by a single individual or a small minority. If, however, my hon. Friend has found a deficiency in our report, please point it out to me, the Clerk and others, because we hope to bring these recommendations forward in the not too distant future and we want to make sure that what is put before the House has been properly tested.

I thank my hon. Friend for this very good report, although there are a couple of things in it with which I do not agree. Some of the most controversial legislation has gone through this House as private Members’ Bills, so trying to restrict Second Reading through a timetable for fewer than three hours would, I think, be damaging. I have in mind issues such as the legalisation on homosexuality, abortion and similar issues. A greater move is being made to have one Member present or address one Bill on one day, but I am slightly concerned because I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) saying that when Parliament sits, constituents can expect their MP, if the MP so chooses, to be in Parliament. I think that point should not be dismissed lightly.

As my hon. Friend says, two and three quarter hours—one of the suggestions for timetabling on Second Reading—does not sound a lot, but we have to remind ourselves that most private Members’ Bills, if not all, are fairly straightforward. I appreciate that that is not the case on every occasion, but they are often straightforward and short. Government Bills, which are usually enormously complex and run to hundreds of pages, get six and half hours, which is often truncated by urgent questions and statements. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) says, but that is why we have options in the report. One suggestion is for timetabling to be limited to one Bill on a Friday. Again, it is for her and others to argue for and against the system they favour, which can then be put to the vote.

The report is much to be welcomed. Could we summarise the hon. Gentleman’s and the Committee’s views thus: “Here is a package of proposals to make sure we reach a view and decide on private Members’ Bills in the future, so that they do not get kicked into touch, but we are not against revisiting the time of the week or the week of the month in which such Bills are looked at if the first set of proposals does not achieve the sort of objectives that I hope we would all want”?

The right hon. Gentleman has nailed that with great perspicacity; that is exactly what the report says. As I have now said on about four occasions in this rather long speech, it is for the House to come to a view on our recommendations and to amend them as it sees fit.

rose—

I want to make one important point about Third Reading before taking any further interventions. One of the most important parts of our report is the suggestion to remove the vote on Third Reading from the Friday proceedings and put it on a mid-week prime-time slot. That will serve two purposes. First, it will allow the Government to take a view and if they want to kill a Bill, they can stand up at the Dispatch Box and explain why they want to kill it and whip accordingly. It also means that the whole House—or those present, which will be almost the whole House perhaps on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday—can come to a view on that. If it is passed, it will pass with the will and support of the House.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him and his Committee on putting together an excellent report, whose effect would be to empower Parliament and, by extension, voters. I think it is absolutely right that if a motion is to be defeated, it should be defeated as a result of a Division—the collective will of the House, rather than the procedural trickery of one or two people who are particularly good at it. I would like to add my voice to the concerns expressed about Friday sittings, if only on the basis that Friday is fine for people whose constituencies, my own included, are relatively close to Westminster, but exclusive when it comes to people representing seats miles away from London, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for whom giving up a Friday is a very big deal.

My hon. Friend has made a very good point, which has also been made by a few other Members today. I must stress that it will be for the House to reach a view.

It worries me—and this came up in evidence—that a Government, of whatever colour, shape or creation, will occasionally say to a Member who promotes a private Member’s Bill “We are 100% behind your Bill—we think it is a great idea which will go far, and we are all there for you”, while, behind closed doors, geeing up a number of colleagues to run it into the sand and kill it off. I think that that is pretty outrageous and pretty shabby. It is not peculiar to this Government or to previous Governments; it is something that all Governments do. Governments enjoy exercising power. I do not propose to take that power away, and I do not think that my Committee does either. We merely wish to see it exercised openly and honestly, and for that reason I feel that this is a good report.

Some Members have expressed concern about our suggestion that private Members’ Bills should be called Back-Bench Bills in future. I think that “Back Bencher” is a term worthy not of derision but of great pride, and I therefore do not share their concern; but, as I have said, if they cannot live with it, there will be a chance for a decision to be made on the Floor of the House on what we should call what we hope will be an improved, refined and enhanced process.

I thank you for your patience and forbearance, Mr. Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the publication of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee, Private Members’ Bills, HC 188.

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the vital contribution that Royal Mail makes to rural areas; notes that the six day a week collection and delivery service to rural and remote areas is invaluable to local life; further notes that the relationship Royal Mail has with the post office network is equally important for the continued survival of post offices; recognises that the impending privatisation of Royal Mail will place a question mark over its willingness to maintain what may be loss-making services; and calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas, remote areas and islands while ensuring that the postal universal service obligation in its current form endures.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to introduce this debate on the future of our post office network in the event of the Government deciding to proceed with their plans to privatise Royal Mail. I thank the Members in all parts of the House who signed the motion that led to the allocation of time for the debate by the Backbench Business Committee. The motion expresses the view that the privatisation of Royal Mail will lead to uncertainty over the continued survival of many post offices, particularly in rural areas where there are often loss-making services, and calls on the Government to provide

“more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas”.

I represent a rural constituency with many small town and island communities, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among post offices in my area about the impact that privatisation will have on the services that they provide. Post offices are central to the life of many small communities in particular. They provide a number of vital services, enabling people to obtain cash and even to buy a pint of milk.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House.

My constituent Hugh Gaffney, who is a leading member of the Communication Workers Union, has on several occasions—along with others—brought to my notice the impact on pensions that will result if the Government proceed with their plans. He and other members of the union consider pensions to be not national liabilities but deferred income, and he has asked me to convey to the House the strong views that they have expressed. Not only are the union members unhappy, but Mr Gaffney feels that if the Government go ahead with their proposals it will be—as he put it—daylight robbery.

I was contacted by Hugh Gaffney today. He and other members of the union have been lobbying Scottish Members of Parliament in particular. It is vital for many pensioners who live in small communities—and in communities of many different types—to have access to postal services, but such access is also vital for many other people living in small communities.

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. The post office is often also the only shop in the area, and it is a place where an elderly person can feel safe because he or she knows the person who works in the shop. If such people now have to travel to a much larger town, they will not benefit from the same sort of reassurance.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; if the post office was not there—and if the shop that is part of the post office business was not there—there would not be anything in many communities for many of our most vulnerable constituents.

I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in this debate, because in my constituency rural post offices are essential, as they obviously are in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Does she not recognise the Government’s wise decision to protect 11,500 post offices, modernising 6,000 of them, and to make sure that post offices that exist today will exist tomorrow and always in the future?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As he will be aware, however, organisations such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters believe that what the Government have done is inadequate to ensure the future of our post office network, and I suspect we will be exploring such issues in today’s debate. I also recognise that he, too, has a very rural constituency and that this debate is of as great importance to his constituents as it is to mine.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she recognise that the link between Royal Mail and individual post offices is crucial? We talk about “rural post offices”, but in my constituency, which borders the M4 and is a former coal mining constituency, all but three of the post offices are part of the rural network.

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, one that has been made to me by many who run post offices in my constituency.

The post office is vital, not only for individuals, but for many rural businesses—that is another point that many people in my constituency have made. I believe that those who work for Royal Mail have a strong public service ethos. They provide a vital service in many parts of the country, and in rural areas nobody else is going to provide it. There are real concerns about the impact that the privatisation of Royal Mail will have on not just Royal Mail itself, but our post office network. I suspect that many issues associated with that will be explored in this debate by many hon. Members from all political parties.

The background to this debate is, of course, the Postal Services Act 2011, which was passed by this House and allows not only for the privatisation of Royal Mail, but for competition for postal services. The Government have not, as yet, specified what form the sale of Royal Mail will take—whether it will be an initial public offering or a sale to private equity—although they have said that an IPO is their preferred method of sale. There is a great deal of concern throughout the country that the Government are rushing their timetable for political reasons. They have said that the sale will take place within the 2013-14 financial year. If that is the case, we will be hearing further details on the privatisation very soon.

The Government have framed their argument for privatisation in such a way as to suggest that Royal Mail is in imminent danger and that privatisation is the only solution, but that is not the case. Royal Mail is doing very well at the moment, and profits more than doubled in the past year, to more than £400 million. That is partly because the Government have taken over the assets and liabilities of Royal Mail’s pension scheme, saving the company £300 million each year. I congratulate the Government on taking that step. Of course Royal Mail needs access to capital for investment, but the urgency of the Government’s case seems to be driven more by a political timetable. There are many ways to get access to capital. For example, Network Rail is a public body that is authorised to access private capital, without affecting Government borrowing. This House has the right to expect the Government to look at other ways in which Royal Mail could get this access without going down the privatisation path.

The privatisation path is deeply unpopular, with not only the public, but Royal Mail staff. When the Communication Workers Union consulted its staff, it found that 96% opposed privatisation. Unite, which represents managers in Royal Mail, has also come out strongly against privatisation. The National Federation of SubPostmasters was originally sympathetic to some of what the Government were saying but it is now calling on them to halt the privatisation of Royal Mail, because of what it says is the Government’s failure to provide new work to post offices. In the briefings that it has been providing to Members throughout the country, which have been given to me by my constituents and when I have visited post offices over the past few days, the NFSP says that no new work has been awarded to post offices since May 2010 and that the new services that have been introduced are one-off transactions available only at a small number of post offices. It says that without the promised new Government work Post Office Ltd and individual post offices do not have a viable future and that a close relationship with Royal Mail is vital and will be jeopardised by privatisation.

One reason people are so opposed to privatisation is the fear that the universal service obligation will be under threat. The affordable six days a week service that is so valued in the United Kingdom is expensive to provide, particularly in rural areas. Rural post offices and rural postal services are most vulnerable because they are the most costly, and private parcel delivery companies routinely charge a high premium for delivering to remote or rural areas or to islands—or simply refuse to deliver at all.

A report by Citizens Advice Scotland in 2011 found that 83.8% of people surveyed living in remote parts of Scotland had been refused delivery altogether by a retailer using a carrier other than Royal Mail and that increased charges are normal. That is, of course, a problem not just in Scotland but throughout many parts of the UK.

The hon. Lady mentions the universal service obligation. Is it not the case that the obligation is now better protected than ever as it has been written into primary legislation by Parliament?

There is not a short answer to that question, but I will try to explore it. My point is that the legal protections are inadequate, as there is a great deal of uncertainty about where we will go. The 10-year agreement that has been entered into is not good enough and does not last long enough. I expect that we will explore those issues as we continue the debate.

Is it not true that the industry lost confidence in the Government because of the failure to deliver the additional work promised to the post offices?

That is indeed the case and that is very much what the people running post offices are saying.

I appreciate the difficulties—the Labour Government grappled with them, too—but I must say to the Government that unless we deliver on providing new services to the post offices, change of this nature is unlikely to be successful. All political parties and all levels of government —not just Westminster, but the Scottish Government and local government—must do a lot more in this area. We need to consider ways in which we can ensure that more services are provided in post offices to ensure a long-term future for them.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being very generous in taking interventions. Although I completely agree that post offices need access to more services, does she agree that allowing greater flexibility in the Post Office Local model about how services are delivered within the business is important? A bakery in Frogmore provided such a service, and the restrictions being placed on it seem entirely unreasonable. Does she also agree that more flexibility is needed in the funding for the Post Office Local model?

The hon. Lady is correct. Many people who are running post offices are being very innovative in how they are trying to develop the system, but how they operate is very much determined by how the Post Office relates to them and how the commission is calculated. Many of the schemes proposed by the Government mean that they will get less commission in the future, which is another issue that many people who run post offices are raising with me.

As I said, there is a significant problem with the delivery of items in more rural areas unless Royal Mail provides that service. Even in areas of my constituency where private companies are normally willing to deliver, as soon as there is a bit of bad weather only Royal Mail continues to provide a service.

Although I will not have time to develop the point, another major problem is the fact that people in rural areas are disproportionately reliant on Royal Mail. Consumer Focus, which is now Consumer Futures, found that users in rural areas were often more reliant on traditional forms of communication, such as the post, because of the limited availability of others. We could have many debates about problems accessing high-speed internet in many parts of the country.

The Postal Services Act 2011 enabled other postal service providers to enter the direct delivery, end-to-end market, which is already enabling private postal service providers to cherry-pick services. For example, TNT has set up a delivery service in west, central and south-west London. It is able to win business because it can choose where, when and what to deliver. It does not maintain the service and standards that Royal Mail undertakes to provide, and it undercuts the terms, pay and conditions of postal workers so that it can provide a cheaper service.

TNT employs workers on zero-hours contracts, which means that they are not guaranteed any hours. A journalist who went undercover in a TNT workplace reported how workers “hustled” each day to get work. The practice of organisations like TNT is to over-hire staff, meaning that staff are turned away each day without any work and therefore, of course, without any pay.

The hon. Lady makes a vital point about how rural areas, especially remote rural areas, will be starved of a service. People on the island of Rathlin, which I represent, will be forced to come to the mainland of Northern Ireland to collect their post, as will people in remote rural areas. Such a strangulation of service cannot be allowed to happen.

My constituents on islands such as Arran express the fear that they will no longer receive deliveries and will have to go to a central point for collections, as happens in many countries.

The hon. Lady has been generous in taking interventions and it has been helpful to hear her responses. If the Labour party were to win the 2015 general election—I know that an awful lot of people hope that that will happen—what practical steps would a Labour Government take not only to ensure the survival of rural post offices, but to encourage them to expand?

I suspect that that topic could be the subject of a lengthy debate. I do not want to stray too far from the terms of the motion, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined fully in previous debates what needs to be done to ensure that post offices have a viable and successful future. The Government have a role to play in that. I call on parties on all sides of the political debate to do what they can, because we all have areas where we are in power and can ensure that post offices get more work and receive more support.

The overall package of pay and conditions of not only TNT staff in London but those employed on a similar basis by other private companies, which have been able to operate in such a way only since the 2011 Act was passed, is significantly worse than that of the Royal Mail work force. Ofcom is responsible for regulating the sector. It has explicitly stated that it is regulating TNT, but it has done nothing whatsoever about TNT either cherry-picking services or undercutting wages and conditions.

The fear is that this is the face of future postal services. Although TNT and others might wish to operate in London and other profitable areas, they will not be interested in many other parts of the country, such as North Ayrshire and Arran. Of course, that means that Royal Mail will not be able to use the money it makes in profitable areas to subsidise—to cross-fertilise—services in less profitable areas so that it can provide a national service. The Government say that they support the universal service obligation, as the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) suggested in an intervention.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She has been extremely generous, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. Did she, like me, see in the fly-on-the-wall documentary TNT’s habit of calling its delivery people back before they had finished their day’s work, thus returning mail to the depot, so that it took longer for people to receive it? That is an ongoing practice, and it is encouraged.

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point.

If we proceed down this path, the pressures on future Governments and the management of Royal Mail will be to reduce requirements, as they will need to compete on a level playing field with other service providers. They will have to ensure that the universal service obligation is financially sustainable. If we go down the path suggested by the Government, loss-making rural services will be the most vulnerable and will be the first to go.

I appreciate the fact that the Government say that the universal service obligation is enshrined in law, but that covers only the bare minimum. Many of the requirements are set by Ofcom and can easily be changed. The regulator has recently consulted on user needs, including getting rid of first-class mail and thus next-day delivery, and moving from a six-day to a five-day service. That may not happen now, but if privatisation goes ahead it is more likely. The privately run PostNL in the Netherlands has put pressure on both the regulator and the Dutch Government regarding the universal service obligation and there are now plans to drop Monday deliveries.

There is no guarantee that the inter-business agreement that has been entered into between Royal Mail and the Post Office will continue or remain unchanged at the end of the 10-year period. I do not believe that the protections that we have been offered are adequate, so I am asking the Government to halt the sale of Royal Mail to give proper consideration to how rural services can be provided in the longer term, and to put in place stronger legal protections for the universal service obligation. I believe that cross-party support for the motion reflects a genuine concern about the issue, and I urge the Government to look at the issue in detail, and to provide a detailed response today.

rose—

Colleagues will have noted the 10-minute time limit on Back-Back speeches. I call Sir Paul Beresford.

I noted the time limit, Mr Speaker, and demolished about two thirds of what I intended to say.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on introducing the debate, and I agree with many of the points that she made. I particularly agree about the need to create opportunities for sub-post offices in rural areas to provide more services, and I intend to discuss exactly that and one other key point. My constituency is bordered by the south-west edge of the M25. It is close to London, but it is rural or semi-rural. Many people will have seen the London Mayor in the recent broadcast of the Surrey cycle race, and some may even have seen Mayor Boris puffing up Leith hill on his bicycle—not a Boris bicycle, but his own bicycle—and the beautiful countryside that is to be found throughout my constituency.

I want, however, to concentrate on something that is on the table. The mainstay of my rural post office services—and this was touched on in the opening speech—is provided by sub-post offices. My constituency has two main towns and perhaps 30 villages. A considerable number of villages have at their core a pub, if not two pubs, and a village shop, which generally incorporates a sub-post office. Between 2001 and 2012, Mole Valley lost a number of sub-post offices, which in turn threatened, sometimes fatally, the associated village shops. I understand that there are 11,800 post offices in the United Kingdom, and approximately 750 are what could be called main post offices. Logically, therefore, the remainder are sub-post offices, of which 55% are in rural areas. In the United Kingdom, 31% of those post offices are the only retail outlets in the area, and 58% provide some of the very few shops in village areas.

Sub-post offices are absolutely key to my villages. The viability of these sub-post offices is what I want to concentrate on, and I shall look at one particular angle. The Government can help us, because there is a move by Post Office Ltd to centralise a key front-office service: the system for the acceptance and checking of the printed photo ID market. Post Office Ltd is the front line in over-the-counter processing of digital photographs for licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, passports and other ID photos. This service is being cramped by Post Office Ltd. It is being moved to the 750 main post offices, where Post Office Ltd is installing at considerable expense what are called Cogent cameras, which will take the photograph and transmit it to the DVLA or Passport Office, as appropriate.

I have in my constituency the head office of Photo-Me. This is a business with which many of us are familiar because there are a couple of Photo-Me booths downstairs. There are many such booths throughout our small towns and, in my area at least, some sub-post offices have them. If the proposal to use Cogent cameras proceeds, my constituents will have to travel from their villages to a centre such as Guildford. It does not look far on the map and it is not far as the crow flies, but my constituents do not fly. I am aware that the trend is for on-line services, but according to a recent estimate, 40% of households in my constituency do not have a computer, let alone broadband. For many, the internet is so complicated that they prefer to use the printed form with the printed photograph. These folks will have go to Guildford, with some difficulty, or one of the other 750 main post offices, rather than the 11,500 sub-post offices that could be available. That is inconvenient and takes time. It means time off work and, at various times of the year for various people who work in rural areas, this is impossible.

A proposal has been put to Post Office Ltd by the chief executive of Photo-Me on behalf of a considerable number of photographers who currently produce ID photographs. There are about 1,500 independent photographers nationally, including well-known names such as Photo-Me, Jessops and Snappy Snaps, and a number of small outlets in small towns. The proposal is for the sub-post offices to have a relatively cheap scanner so that the sub-postmaster or staff can go through the transaction and scan the printed photograph into digital form to be sent online to the DVLA, Passport Office or whichever Government Department needs it.

For some years long and technical discussions, in which I have participated, have been taking place, first with the DVLA, which now accepts that that would be possible and is a very good idea. We have now reached the Post Office, which seems to have put up a brick wall. Having got technical acceptance from the DVLA, I hope we can persuade Post Office Ltd to put this cheap and simple system into our rural post offices. I am having difficulty with that. The benefits to the sub-post offices are obvious. They would provide a new, better and increased service, which would also increase the footfall in sub-post office shops, which has a knock-on effect, similar to the system that supermarkets work. If people want to go to the pharmacy in a supermarket, they have to walk past absolutely everything before they get there and on the way back as well. They look and they tend to buy, so they use that service. It is vital, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, that we keep those sub-post offices in shops going.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of sub-post offices, a shining example of which is Hopes of Longtown in my constituency, which has a shop alongside it. Does my hon. Friend share my view that many of these sub-post offices are also rural sorting offices and that it is equally important to preserve that aspect? He may wish to join me in asking the Minister to dwell on that in future reflection and when closing the debate today.

I thank my hon. Friend. I would love to be able to do so, but as he knows, we are short of time. He has made the point and the Minister appears to be making a note of it.

I am sure the Minister is as anxious as we are that rural post offices and sub-post offices continue. I would be grateful for an opportunity for two or three of us working in this area to have a meeting with her to discuss progress or, rather, the lack of progress. The chief executive of Post Office Ltd has offered to discuss the matter with me. I accepted her invitation some weeks ago but I await notice of time and date from her.

The importance and vitality of a rural post office and postal service must not be underestimated. Having seen the evidence in my constituency, I believe that the previous Government damaged that, but as many of their Ministers were urban they probably did not realise it or they turned a blind eye. In essence, I am looking forward to the Minister’s agreement and support at a meeting to try to persuade Post Office Ltd to see this as an opportunity to expand a service and increase footfall in the sub-post offices in our rural areas.

I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). In the remote former mining villages in my constituency, up the valleys, there are many pensioners and others who do not have cars and are not online and for whom rural postal services are absolutely vital. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) argued persuasively, the universal service provided by the Royal Mail makes a vital contribution to life in remote and rural communities. However, I think that that public service is currently under threat from the combined effects of Government privatisation and end-to-end competition from private postal operators such as TNT.

The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) claimed that the universal service will not be threatened because it is enshrined in law through the Postal Services Act 2011, but that covers only the bare minimum of the universal service. Many aspects of the universal service are set by the regulator, Ofcom, and could easily be changed while remaining legally compliant. For example, Ofcom recently looked at various ways the universal service could be changed to make it cheaper to run. It considered getting rid of first-class mail, and therefore the next-day service, reducing quality of service standards and cutting delivery days from six a week to five. Thankfully, it did not proceed with those changes, but with a privatised Royal Mail those options are likely to be raised again and again because of commercial pressures. On 23 December 2012 The Daily Telegraph reported that Conservative Ministers were thinking about future changes to the universal service obligation and that an all-Conservative Government could perhaps seek to relax it.

Privatised postal services abroad have been successful in pushing Governments and regulators to downgrade the universal service. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, the plans to drop Monday deliveries in the Netherlands were the result of pressure from the private company PostNL. A privately owned Royal Mail would be under pressure to generate a return for shareholders and might similarly want to cut the burden of the universal service and lobby for similar changes here in the United Kingdom. Downgrading the universal service in that way would disproportionately affect consumers in rural areas. Services outside the universal service would not be commercially justifiable and would either become very expensive or not be sustained.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only consumers in rural areas who will suffer but businesses? In fact, the whole local economy of large swathes of rural parts across these islands will be severely detrimentally affected.

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, who makes a valid point about the impact on businesses, especially small businesses.

Equally, if quality of service targets were downgraded it would be the harder-to-reach locations that would be most affected. Ofcom’s recent review of user needs suggested that removing Royal Mail’s air network in the name of cost-cutting could mean areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland, south Wales and rural England seeing first-class quality of service fall to just 50% to 75%.

The Government say that they have no plans to change the universal service requirements in law for the duration of this Parliament, but that is hardly a long-term commitment, given that we are just two years away from a general election. Royal Mail privatisation is likely to place pressure on the Government to downgrade those aspects of the universal service that hurt the bottom line. Private companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders, and the public sector ethos behind the Royal Mail’s universal service does not sit well within that model. We need only look at private parcel delivery companies to see what happens when profitability rather than public service is the driving force.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, consumers in remote and rural locations are frequently charged extra. She pointed out that there are reports of £45 being charged for the delivery of £25 phones. The Government say that Royal Mail faces imminent danger and that privatisation is the only answer, but that is simply not the case. The most recent financial results show that under public ownership its profits more than doubled in the past year to £403 million. That demonstrates that Royal Mail can be profitable in the public sector, which is where most people—two thirds of the public, not just the vast majority of staff—want it to remain.

Privatisation of the letters service will also impact on post offices in remote and rural locations. The post office network is reliant not only on Government subsidy but on the commercial relationship with Royal Mail that allows its postal products and services to be sold through that network. The current chief executive of Royal Mail says that the commercial success of both companies is best served by their working closely together, but a new chief executive of a privatised Royal Mail may take an entirely different commercial view. There are legitimate concerns that a privatised Royal Mail responsible only to shareholders would seek to sever this relationship in line with its commercial interests. That would have a disastrous effect on the entire post office network, but branches in remote and rural areas would be at particular risk because of their low population density and their revenues. The last Postcomm annual report on the post office network in 2010 found that fewer than 23% of rural branches generated over £40,000 per annum, compared with 70% of urban branches and two thirds of branches in deprived urban areas.

The Government and Ofcom need to make sure that the universal service obligation in its current form endures and postal services in rural and remote areas are protected. This requires Ofcom to use the powers that it has to tackle the end-to-end competition from private postal operators such as TNT UK. It also requires the Government to consider an alternative business model for Royal Mail that would keep the postal service run in the interests of the public and properly engage the work force. The main problem is that the model of competition under the 2011 Act has meant, in a privatised context, cherry-picking of the most profitable parts of Royal Mail’s business—for example, taking the profitable parts such as business mail, sorting it and then delivering it to city centres, but dumping it back into the Royal Mail network for delivery to the most remote and costly rural areas. That imposes a double burden on Royal Mail, taking revenue away and then forcing it to bear the extra cost.

TNT’s stated aim over the next five years is to increase its end-to-end operations to a work force of approximately 20,000 and to deliver business post—that is, the most profitable post—to doorsteps across the UK. Evidence from Communication Workers Union members in the trial areas of London shows that Royal Mail’s postal volumes have been materially affected because of this competition. Loss of revenues on the scale that TNT is working towards would have very serious consequences for Royal Mail. It means Royal Mail missing out on the most profitable business that would usually subsidise the high cost of delivering to remote and rural locations. Such unchecked competition places the current universal service under significant threat.

The right hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I agree with every word he has said on this occasion, though that may not have been the case when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think it would strengthen his argument if he could throw a little light on the last part of the motion which

“calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas”.

Will he explain what concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas would be introduced if there were a Labour Government in 2015? That would be enormously helpful.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I mostly agreed with her when I was Secretary of State, even if she did not agree with me, but there we are. I would want the next Labour Government elected in 2015 to ensure that the competition regime was fair and that Ofcom regulated the market to ensure that competitors did not cherry-pick the most profitable parts of the business. That is quite an easy thing to do, but it has to be driven ultimately by Government policy.

Royal Mail needs a level playing field where its competitors also have an obligation to deliver up remote Welsh mountains, or to the Scottish islands or the Yorkshire dales. That is why Ofcom must use the powers it already has to introduce general universal service conditions on competitors such as TNT which provide services that fall within the scope of the universal service. GUSCs do not require legislative change or ministerial approval, and they provide the best option for intervention on cherry-picking in the short term. Requiring Royal Mail’s competitors to deliver to a minimum area of geographic coverage for a specified number of delivery days and to a representative proportion of the population would go some way towards ensuring that competition was on much fairer terms.

Ofcom could also seek to introduce a universal service compensation fund through which rival postal operators would compensate Royal Mail for the costs of providing the universal service. Similar support funds are being established in a number of other European countries to ensure the long-term viability of the universal service.

Running Royal Mail as a not-for-dividend company, such as, for example, Welsh Water, would provide a suitable alternative model, and that is entirely compatible with the 2011 Act. The Government could choose that model and I urge them to do so.

Royal Mail’s recent profitability shows that it could raise investment capital through its own profits, which would be a step towards becoming a self-financing, not-for-dividend company under the Act. Without changing ownership, Royal Mail could borrow from money markets, at a cheaper rate, as is the case with Welsh Water, even under the terms of the Act. That would be a much better model for protecting rural postal services. Otherwise I fear that the future will be an end to door-to-door delivery in remote rural areas and the appearance of personal letter boxes in village centres, with the post office network all but disappearing.