Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday 12 April 2000

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business

City Of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 19 April.

Oral Answers To Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Education Funding

How Northern Ireland schools and colleges will benefit from the additional funding for education announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement. [117340]

As you are aware, Madam Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot be here today, because he is attending the Queen at Hillsborough as she awards the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming that honour: it is richly deserved, given the RUC's dedication and courage, and a fitting tribute to the 302 officers who have lost their lives.

I announced on 6 April that additional resources totalling £14.7 million were being distributed to primary, post-primary and special schools for the current financial year, largely on the basis of pupil numbers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is consulting Northern Ireland political parties on how further resources might be deployed, and I hope to be able to make a further announcement shortly.

I echo the Minister's opening remarks, and thank him for his reply. I regret to say, however, that the additional funds will not solve the problems in Northern Ireland. School governors throughout the Province experience great difficulty in managing within their budget allocations, especially when teachers are on the top salary scales. Many well-managed schools are in deficit for the first time, and are cutting the services that they used to provide for pupils. Will the Minister further review funding for our schools, and undertake to meet the full cost of teacher salaries at each school?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sum to which I referred is the additional amount earmarked specifically for schools in the Chancellor's Budget statement, and it will go directly to them. The hon. Gentleman will probably also know that an extra £18.8 million is to be distributed across the public services in Northern Ireland. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is consulting party leaders on where priorities should lie with regard to the extra money, and I am sure that what he has said, as well as other competing demands, will be taken into account.

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the RUC, and those members of it who have impartially upheld the rule of law over the past 30 years. Is he aware, however, that beneath that umbrella of congratulations are those who stood idly by while Belfast was burned and the ghettos were bombed, and those for whom a former Secretary of State and Attorney-General had to use the royal prerogative to prevent them from being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice—

Question!

Order. Has the hon. Gentleman a question that relates to the substantive question on the Order Paper, on education? If so, I should be pleased to hear it.

I have, Madam Speaker; but, given my hon. Friend's introduction, and given that Robert Hamill was kicked to death in the presence of RUC officers who did not intervene, it must be seen that the award is a matter of controversy. While we applaud all RUC members who impartially uphold the rule of law, those who did not should not be covered by that.

As for the substantive question, will my hon. Friend arrange for schools to publish the details of how they are spending the extra money? There is concern about that.

Schools will, of course, be asked to account for the £14.7 million. However, the reason why we gave the money directly to schools was to enable them to decide for themselves what their priorities should be. Although we hold them accountable for the way in which they spend public money, it would not be appropriate at this point for us to direct their resources. As for the additional expenditure, it will be in line with the public spending priorities set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following consultation on what those priorities should be.

Has the spending increase proposed for Northern Ireland been subjected to the same double and triple counting by Government as has applied in relation to both England and Wales?

As the hon. Gentleman's premise is entirely false, it would be inappropriate for me to answer in terms.

Executive

What progress has been made in re-establishing the Northern Ireland Executive. [117372]

What progress has been made in re-establishing the Northern Ireland Executive. [117375]

We are currently engaged in discussions with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland political parties to agree on a way forward that will enable the Executive and other institutions to be restored as soon as possible. Our aim is to achieve an understanding that will provide the cross-community confidence that is necessary to enable the restored institutions to work effectively for the benefit of all people in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Minister for his response, but may I ask him for two parallel and linked assurances? First, will he assure us that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be tireless in exploring all avenues that might lead to the re-establishment of the Executive? Secondly, will he assure us that he will not seek to involve any persons who have not been able to establish, by their actions as well as their words, that they are genuinely committed to a peaceful solution?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course the Secretary of State and I, and our colleagues in the Government of the Republic of Ireland, are deeply committed to that. No stone will be left unturned as we try to find out how we can progress matters. I know that there is, if not complete support, then wide support throughout the House for that position. The coming weeks will be difficult; no one pretends otherwise—but I still believe that, with good will and above all some understanding for everyone's position, there is an opportunity for us to achieve something.

It is important that everyone, including those who have links with terrorist organisations, or who have had such links in the past, understand clearly that the only way forward involves no violence, but instead, politics. Through politics, we can make it work. Through violence, the only way is backwards.

Given that the Executive failed because of the inability to secure meaningful decommissioning, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Executive cannot be re-established until decommissioning is achieved? If that is the case, is he sure of the wisdom of his policy of continuing prisoner releases, because those prisoners might be the leverage by which he would achieve the decommissioning necessary?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that prisoner releases is a difficult issue. The issue has been difficult for everyone to deal with and to face up to, but in the agreement there is no direct link between prisoner releases and decommissioning.

The Secretary of State rightly takes the view that prisoner releases will be judged on the merit of each case and on the basis of the prevailing security circumstances at any given time, but the hon. Gentleman made a fair point within his question. If we want politics to work, private armies must be removed from the equation.

Decommissioning is still most likely to happen in the context of the implementation of the whole agreement, including the restoration of the institutions. That, in its turn, is most likely to happen if there is genuine confidence on everyone's part that decommissioning will happen in good time and that the threat of violence has been removed for good. Only the IRA can create the confidence by making the position clear with an unmistakeable signal of peaceful intentions. I hope that it will do that.

As too many people would like the Good Friday agreement to be dead, and numerous people fear that it may be, can my hon. Friend give any reassurance based on discussions that he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

It is important that we emphasise that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are a very important partner in the undertaking. We keep close contact with them and respect very much their input to the process.

My hon. Friend makes the point that some people would like the process to fail. I have no doubt at all that she is right, but, by the same token, no one in Northern Ireland wants to go back to the situation before the peace process started and before the Good Friday agreement.

It is my view that most people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in the House, have too much invested and too much to lose if the process fails. I believe that most people of good will want the process to work and to move forward. I just hope that, over the coming days and weeks, we can find a way to make that happen.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the re-establishment of the Executive will require community-wide support from all sections of Northern Ireland society? To that end, does he welcome last week's ecumenical initiative from the Churches in Northern Ireland, which, I understand, met representatives of the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein? May I ask the Government to continue to encourage and to support all such genuine community initiatives to find a way forward in the peace process?

My hon. Friend is right. At the end of the day, the understanding that is needed will happen because of cross-community confidence-building measures. We will, ultimately, get a solution through politics. At the same time, however, any pressure, help or new incentives that can be applied in the situation by Churches and other groups in the community are always to be welcomed. I believe that it is very important that the whole society of Northern Ireland make it clear, by whatever means are available to them, that they want to move forwards, not backwards.

Will Ministers be convening formal round table negotiations with the political parties in Northern Ireland before the end of April? In that context, how significant does the hon. Gentleman feel that the 22 May deadline is?

We are using a variety of meeting formats, including round table discussions. There has already been one round table meeting of all the pro-agreement parties, to talk about how we can move forward. We certainly would not rule out using that medium again. However, other ways need to be explored—including bilateral discussions between us and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and meetings with individual political parties. All those methods have been employed in recent weeks, and we shall continue to employ them as and when it is appropriate to do so. Of course 22 May is still a significant deadline, as it had certain actions attached to it.

As I said a few moments ago, however, it is important that we get some sort of agreement that recognises that all the issues that come under the heading of the Good Friday agreement can be resolved. At this stage, I want to use dates not as barriers, but as targets. If we can have that type of understanding, it is possible that we can get people together and understand what is necessary to get this whole process back on track.

Does the Minister accept that no institution of Government properly described as democratic can include the political representatives of an armed terrorist group that is determined to remain armed? Does he accept that there is absolutely no evidence of any type that the IRA has shown any intention whatever of disarming?

It is very kind of the hon. and learned Gentleman to strike a constructive note in these discussions. As I said a few moments ago, if we want politics to work, private armies have to be removed from the equation. Our objective is to bring not only the IRA but other paramilitary groups who profess support for the Good Friday agreement to a point of understanding, so that guns, bombs and violence are taken out of the equation for the future. If we can achieve that—replacing what has gone before with proper politics and with devolution, whereby local people make local decisions about local services—it has to be progress. That is what we want to achieve. I hope that all people of good will—politicians and others—in Northern Ireland will come to see that that is the only way forward.

Will the Minister straightforwardly confirm that it is incompatible with our parliamentary democracy for those who are inextricably linked to paramilitaries who have singularly failed to decommission any illegally held arms or explosives to be Ministers in the Executive?

Over the coming weeks—if it takes longer, it will take longer—we seek to achieve a situation in which those who are linked to paramilitaries make it absolutely clear and beyond doubt that that phase is over and that they are irreversibly in the phase of politics. The issue that therefore arises is whether, in the next few weeks, we can get a process going whereby everyone—including those who are in the Unionist party, who have to make very difficult decisions—is absolutely clear that we are in a phase of politics, not a phase of terrorism. I hope that we can achieve that. If there is anything that I or the right hon. Gentleman can do, we should set out on that path.

It appears that Government policy is moving. Will the Minister explain the fact that the Secretary of State said on 11 February when suspending the Executive:

The blunt truth is that unless the issue of decommissioning is resolved, the Executive institutions cannot properly function whether formally suspended or not?

Yet last Saturday, at the Alliance conference, he said:

I believe that we must think twice before linking decommissioning directly to the continuation of these institutions.

It does not help the process if there is conflicting information in speeches by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister be good enough to clarify the position?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should heed the words of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), leader of the Ulster Unionists, who has made it clear that the Ulster Unionists need to feel confident that the decommissioning issue will be dealt with once and for all, that the threat will be gone and the weapons will he put beyond use. We and our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland are working towards that. It is what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will need to persuade his colleagues back into the process of devolution, with an Executive running services that are directly relevant to Northern Ireland. I have explained the position and what we will work towards achieving.

Let us hope for the early re-establishment of the Assembly and the Executive. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State, in his talks with representatives of the political parties, is actively engaging with the likes of Monica McWilliams, David Ervine, Gary McMichael and others who, in their different ways, have an important part to play in the peace process and the re-institution of the Executive and the Assembly?

I can confirm that. Indeed, I have attended many meetings where all the parties, including the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and other parties whose representatives were mentioned by my hon. Friend, were included in the process. We recognise entirely that it is not just the big parties, important though they are, that are part of the process; the small parties also signed up to the Good Friday agreement. We have every reason to include them and we shall continue to do so.

Security

If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [117373]

There remains a continuing potent and dangerous threat from dissident paramilitaries. There has also been a recent increase in the so-called punishment beatings, which we unreservedly condemn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to keep the security situation under close review.

On this most remarkable day, with the presentation of the George Cross to the RUC, Ministers are clearly speaking for us all when they pay tribute to the matchless courage of the RUC. The Roman Catholics who have been brave enough to serve in the RUC also deserve a mention, bearing in mind that the Irish Republican Army made it clear that it would kill them for doing so, if it could. Does the Minister understand that if the badges, emblems and tradition of the RUC are to be cast aside to appease those who spend their lives trying to destroy the RUC, that will amount not to a celebration of the courage of the RUC, but to its betrayal?

Of course today is a very auspicious day, with the award of the George Cross to the RUC. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to that and the whole House endorsed what he said. In terms of the way forward in respect of the future policing of Northern Ireland, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman could lif his eyes slightly higher and look at the new horizon, which is an inclusive approach to Northern Ireland that involves everyone in taking forward a new normalised society. That was implicit in the Good Friday agreement and was presaged in the Patten report. We will present our views on how to proceed with that in legislation in due course.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the central point for future security in Northern Ireland is decommissioning and that, if paramilitary groups ensured that there was a noticeable reduction in or an end to punishment beatings, that would be a positive move towards decommissioning and could form part of the Government's discussions on the issue?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which was addressed on earlier questions by my ministerial colleague, who made it very clear that if politics is to work, private armies must be removed from the equation. Decommissioning is most likely to happen in the context of implementation of the whole agreement, including the restoration of the institutions, which in turn is most likely to happen if there is genuine confidence on everyone's part that decommissioning will happen in good time and the threat that weapons pose is removed for good.

On this special day in Northern Ireland, we welcome the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. We are especially delighted at the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Does the Minister recall that, when we signed up to the Belfast agreement, the Government agreed in article 1 on page 28 that they would give full respect for the

identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities..?

Is he aware of the public opinion poll conducted last week by McCann Erickson—a well-known public relations firm in Northern Ireland—and printed in the Belfast Telegraph, which confirms that 93 per cent. of the Protestants in Northern Ireland and 61 per cent. of the Roman Catholics are not offended by the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary"? Why do the Government propose to breach the Belfast agreement?

I do not think that we are breaching it. We are involved in discussions through which we hope to move forward in a more progressive way over the coming weeks, or a longer period, if that is required.

The survey to which the right hon. Gentleman referred contained other statistics and showed that a sizeable proportion of the minority community found the RUC offensive. We have to take that into account. We can argue against it all we want and we can uphold and defend the good name of the RUC, which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do on many, many occasions, but we have to take account of the need to create an inclusive society. That is what the Belfast agreement set out to achieve, and that is what we are seeking to implement in full.

Is the Minister aware of the controversy surrounding the action of an IRA prisoner who is suing the Government for £50,000 following a botched attempt to escape? Will he instruct his Department to stop settling claims from prisoners out of court and to ensure that any money received by prisoners is clawed back to make up for the amount spent by the Government in compensation?

It would be inappropriate for me to discuss any individual case that is currently before a court of law. Compensation claims are settled following a practice that has been adopted over a number of years: there is no new development. Claims are always settled on the basis of the best legal advice available on the nature and extent of the claim. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. If he returns as a Minister in the restored Assembly, he may have to make some difficult decisions himself. I look forward to his having that opportunity.

Fuel Tax

What recent discussions he has had with the petrol retail industry in Northern Ireland concerning the level of tax on fuel; and if he will make a statement. [117374]

Ministers and officials have maintained close contact with industry representatives and are fully aware of the impact of excise duties on Northern Ireland petrol retailers. In his recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that apart from the automatic inflation rise of 2p per litre there will be no real terms increase in road fuel duties. Officials are in touch with Treasury colleagues to explore possible ways of ameliorating the situation.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that he agreed with his ministerial colleague who criticised Barclays bank for destroying the commercial heart of towns and villages, but that is what the fuel duty is doing to the rural communities of Northern Ireland. Would he again consider the scheme that was initiated by the Dutch and German Governments to address their border problems caused by differentials in excise duties and levies? Will he at least introduce a de minimis scheme to alleviate the problem, which benefits only the racketeers, the smugglers and the paramilitaries and denies livelihoods to local people?

The Government do not minimise the impact of the issue on border communities. The scheme that was due to be applied on the Dutch-German border by the Dutch authorities was found to be inappropriate in terms of EU regulations. We considered it as a possibility for Northern Ireland, but if it is not deemed to be appropriate for the Dutch it would also be inappropriate for us to proceed with a similar scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to consider how we can develop schemes that will tackle that difficult issue.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Q1. [117445]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 April.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our most profound condolences to the family of Bernie Grant, who died at the weekend. He was a dedicated constituency Member who worked tirelessly for the cause of social justice. He was an inspiration and an example to black people and others throughout the country. He will be deeply missed.

I also send my best wishes to Bernie Grant's family. He helped me some years ago when I was a council leader and I had huge admiration for him. He will be deeply missed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour-controlled Northamptonshire county council has today announced a £4.4 million cash windfall, as a result of the recent Budget, to pay for 5,400 extra child care places, and an £8 million cash windfall to do up the county's schools? That is in a year when we do not even have council elections. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that Labour is delivering on the big issues that affect the lives of my constituents, while the Tory Opposition can only sit on the political sidelines and brand those spending plans as reckless?

About a half of schools will get new buildings and facilities as a result of the new deal for schools, which is opposed by the Conservatives. I am delighted to say that the extra £1 billion of Budget spending for education will mean that in the three years between 1998–99 and 2001–02 there will be an average real-terms increase of some £300 per pupil. That increase of £300 per pupil compares with the reduction of £50 per pupil in the three years of the last three Budgets of the Conservative Government. That is the reason why people should choose a Labour Government who care about education over a Conservative Government who undermined it.

May I associate this side of the House with the Prime Minister's remarks about Bernie Grant, and join him in sending our deepest condolences to Bernie Grant's family?

On a different subject, does the Prime Minister recognise that what has brought thousands of sub-postmasters here today, with a petition with 3 million signatures, is the fact that the Government are presiding over a record number of closures and a threat to thousands more post offices? Will he now listen to the wholly reasonable campaign for people to be able to receive benefits and pensions in cash at post offices without the compulsory use of bank accounts and introduce a proper swipecard system, as we planned, so that the future of post offices can be secured, not destroyed?

The first thing that should be pointed out is that the Conservative Government closed 3,000 post offices and planned to privatise the Post Office. The Conservative party still plans to privatise it. Of course we all want to see post offices thrive, but we must ensure that that is done against the background of necessary modernisation. More people will want to draw their pensions, child benefits and other benefits via their bank accounts. However, let me make one thing absolutely clear, again: no one will be prevented from continuing to receive benefits in cash at the post office if he or she wants to, and not only monthly but weekly. We will work with the post offices to give them a viable future, but like every other institution—they recognise this—they will have to face the challenges of modernisation.

Everybody involved in the lobby down the Committee Corridor knows that those are meaningless reassurances. They know also that the number of post office closures in the last year of the previous Government was 116, but that in the last year under the right hon. Gentleman's Government there will be 500 closures. We had a policy to save post offices; the right hon. Gentleman has a policy to close post offices. Is it not sickeningly hypocritical of the Government to launch hopeless boycotts of banks while swinging the axe on thousands of small businesses? Is it not undeniable that a system such as the Conservative Government proposed to introduce would have saved hundreds or thousands of post offices, which now are being condemned to closure?

No. Of course, the last Government did not actually introduce the new system, and I shall explain why. When we came to office, there was probably no greater shambles than the Horizon project. It was three years behind schedule. It would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than the present system. It is a cruel deception to pretend that that project would have provided an answer. The system that we are suggesting will still allow people, if they want to, to get their pensions or their child benefit in cash, while recognising that more and more people will want them paid through their bank accounts.

We must now work out with the post offices and others how they can have a viable future. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The 3,000 figure for closures that I gave the House is correct. However, let me give the average for Wales when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales—it quadrupled in the years 1992–97 and averaged 90 a year.

Give the answer now—if the project was such a shambles, why did the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the then Secretary of State, say 18 months after the Government came to power that the project was important? He added:

I feel confident that the project will be properly completed.

Now we know that those assurances meant nothing. It was not the project that failed, it was Ministers who failed. The problem was not smart cards, it was stupid government.

The right hon. Gentleman says that people can still collect their pensions or benefits in cash, but who will bear the transaction cost of the collection of benefit from a post office when it goes via a clearing bank? How can people collect their benefits in cash if the sub-post office has already been forced to close? Asked these things, the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, said that the Government

do not have answers to all the questions—[Official Report, 29 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 451.]

The Minister is obviously an understudy for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman now change his policy and complete the project that we planned, to save the post offices before it is too late?

Again, I stress that if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he would reintroduce the benefit payment card system, that is a commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, without the slightest prospect of that project being able to do what the previous Government said it could do. No doubt that is why they did not introduce it. The information technology platform is important, which is why we are introducing it into post offices.

We are also sitting down with the Post Office to see how many post offices can provide some of the banking services. Barclays has already agreed to take part, and 3,000 post offices—[Interruption.] It is surely sensible to take these steps. Three thousand post offices are to have cashpoint services, but we must face the hard realities. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that we have to make welfare savings. This system will allow us to make welfare savings of £600 million a year—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is having its fun, but it will come to order now.

At least we know that the Conservative party would refuse that offer. It would turn it down and not allow new services to be provided by the Post Office. What a ridiculous position to be in.

More and more people—

More, more.

Order. One or two people will be leaving the Chamber in a moment—and, Mr. King, you might be one of them.

Half a million more people each year choose to get their pension or child benefit through their bank accounts. That will carry on, so inevitably the post offices are faced with a process of change. The question is how to deal with it. The best way is make sure that people can still get their benefits in cash, if they want to do so, but that we work with the post offices to provide a new range of services for the future. That is better than proceeding with the policies of the previous Government, who did not introduce their benefit payment card, which would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Their actions had already resulted in the closure of 3,000 post offices. That is not a sensible policy for the future.

Q2. [117446]

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a matter that is of great concern in Scotland, especially in the central belt? He will be aware of the world-renowned quality of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Does he share my concern at the speculation that the Ministry of Defence order for roll on/roll off ferries could go overseas? That could have damaging consequences for the long-term future of shipbuilding on the Clyde.

I am fully aware of the uncertainty over the order, but I stress to my hon. Friend that no decision has been taken—contrary to some of the speculation in the media.

I stress also that United Kingdom warship orders are coming up, and Scotland can be expected to benefit. For example, it is most probable that the type 45 destroyer first of class will be assembled and launched on the Clyde. That is a different order altogether, but I stress that a decision has not yet been taken. However, I also emphasise that the Government recently spent about £500 million on defence equipment from contractors based in Scotland. Orders are coming, but it is important that we take decisions not only on the best commercial grounds but in the best interests of our shipbuilding industry.

May I associate my hon. and right hon. Friends, especially those who represent London constituencies, with the tributes that have been paid to the late Bernie Grant?

To return to the issue of post offices, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government had a plan to save them? I am sure that King Herod had a similar plan to save the first born. The Prime Minister is right to condemn the 3,000 post office closures that took place under the Tories, but will he not at least express regret at the 500 closures that have taken place under Labour?

Of course, but we must try to provide post offices with the best guarantee of a good future. No one can stand here and guarantee that no post office will ever close. I said that half a million more people each year now decide to get their benefits paid through their bank accounts. We cannot stop them. If more and more people want to do that, there will inevitably be a challenge for the post offices.

We are very happy to sit down with the sub-postmasters and post mistresses and work out the right way forward. However, it has to be done on the basis that we recognise the modern realities, and there has to be a limit to Government subsidy.

Given that the Government are proposing to transfer benefit payments and pensions away from the post offices to the banks—and I am not sure that hitching their wagon to Barclays is sensible at the moment—will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government have projected that savings of £640 million will accrue over the next five years? If the House is serious about the future of rural post offices, would it not make sense to reinvest those savings in the network so that it has a viable future?

Finally, will the Prime Minister confirm that, when in opposition, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who is now Paymaster General, wrote in a letter that the Tories' plans were totally unacceptable to the Labour party because they targeted

those members of our society who are least well off, such as those on benefits and pensions…?

If that was the case then, why is it not the case now?

The Conservative policy was then, and is now, to privatise the Post Office. The privatisation of the Post Office would lead to the closure of rural post offices. We have to balance two different things. The first is obviously to make sure that if people so wish, they can get their benefits paid through their bank accounts, and the second is that if they still want to receive them in cash, they should be able to do so. We have given an absolute commitment, which I have repeated again today, and, what is more, they can collect them weekly as well as monthly. We must work out the best way to do that.

The new system will not be introduced for two years and then there will be a transitional period of two years. We have time to work out the right future for the Post Office, but it must be done on a basis that is sustainable for the future.

As for welfare savings, I accept that the Liberal Democrats always want more money to be spent—that is part and parcel of what they are about—but for the Conservatives to go around the country saying that they will fund tax cuts through welfare savings and then to oppose every single aspect of those savings is absurd. The £140 million that it is estimated will be saved as a result of reductions in fraud is also important.

I make no apologies for the policy—it is right. We now have to work out how we deal with the consequences of the fact that more and more people over time will get their benefits paid through their bank accounts. We have offered a proper partnership to the post offices, which is surely better than giving a guarantee, which could not be sustained, that no post office will ever close. It is surely better than the Tory plan which is, I repeat, to privatise the Post Office.

Q4. [117448]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very welcome new deal for communities programme, operating in Liverpool and elsewhere, and boosted by today's announcement, will be fully effective only if we continue to have a successful economy? Does he accept that the triumph of the new deal programme generally is a vindication of the importance of redistribution and intervention in our economy, and please can we have more of both?

Of course, as a result of the partnerships that have been announced today a considerable sum of money will be available. Indeed, £31 million will go to an area in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Overall, to tackle the problems—particularly of inner-city deprivation—the Government introduced the new deal, which is cutting unemployment. Some 800,000 new jobs have been created. Also, 1 million people are benefiting from the minimum wage and the working families tax credit benefits 1.25 million families—while free eye tests, the new winter fuel allowance and the new minimum income guarantee all help pensioners. Those policies show that it is part of the Government's essential mission to tackle poverty in this country.

When I asked the Prime Minister some time ago what the effect would be on Britain's emissions of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations, he did not know. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions thought that the effect would be so small as to be laughable. It turns out that the effect is, in fact, so large that it countervails the whole effect of the climate change levy. Did the Prime Minister not answer me because it was embarrassing, or did he not know because the Government had not worked out the figures? If he disagrees with my facts, he may wish to know that they were contained in an answer given to the House last month.

If the right hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, I hope that people in the coal industry will realise what it means for them. We are on course to hit the entirety of our Kyoto targets on CO₂ emissions. The Government have taken the lead on that, and our commitments will be met—and met in full. That is the best answer that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman.

Q5. [117449]

Does the Prime Minister welcome the most important recommendation made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Liaison in its report "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", which, if implemented, would mean that the Government would never again choose who should be charged with scrutinising them and holding them to account through the Select Committee system? That would be a welcome and universally acclaimed constitutional change. Will my right hon. Friend use his authority to ensure an early vote on the matter, which should, by convention, be a free vote as it is a House of Commons matter? That would allow us to put the proposal in place before the general election and to say goodbye to the parliamentary choreographers on both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches who choose who shall serve on Select Committees.

I do not think that anyone has ever accused my hon. Friend of being choreographed by anybody. I have been given some rather wise advise from my right-hand side, which is that our response will be made in due course.

Q6. [117450]

Does the Prime Minister accept that sterling's appreciation by 40 per cent. against the deutschmark over the past four years has made life extremely difficult for those who produce and export everything from cars in the midlands to ships on the Clyde? Has he read the comments attributed to the Secretary of State for Defence in today's Scottish press, to the effect that metal bashing is no longer a vital national asset? Will he take this opportunity to distance the Government from that attitude and to show that he recognises that shipbuilding is a high-technology, not a low-technology industry? Will he indicate that he understands the vital contribution of the Govan yard and offer his personal involvement in securing its future?

First, the comments attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence are absolute nonsense. Secondly, I have already answered my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) on the order referred to by the hon. Gentleman. However, I must add that the SNP is the one group of people with absolutely no right to raise the issue. There are 20,000 Ministry of Defence personnel in Scotland, and £500 million a year is spent on defence equipment orders. The SNP wants British armed forces out of Scotland. The SNP's separatism plans would close Govan, Faslane, Coulport, Yarrow and RAF Lossiemouth and lose 20,000 MOD personnel. When it comes to a choice between the SNP and Labour on defence and its contracts, people are better off with us.

The whole of Scotland will welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that there is everything to play for over the contract for six roll on/roll off ferries. Will he guarantee that the competition for the contract will be held on a level playing field? Will it be taken into account that foreign competitors are reportedly moving cheap labour from eastern and central Europe into their shipyards? People are living in containers on the docksides and in the shipyards, and that sort of competition is wholly unfair.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on Ministry of Defence procurement spending, each and every one of which would be in danger of being sunk by the flagship policy of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), which would make England a foreign country and break up this small island?

On my hon. Friend's first point, yes of course there is everything to play for, and of course it is important that there be a level playing field. With procurement contracts, as they are not defence contracts as such, we are bound by the procurement contract rules of the European Union in the same way as every other country. I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall scrutinise carefully any bids to make sure that they fall in line with those rules. As for what my hon. Friend was saying about the policy of the SNP, I wholeheartedly concur.

The whole House will want to join in congratulating the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the richly deserved award of the George Cross by Her Majesty the Queen today. I know that the Prime Minister will agree that it is a fitting tribute to its service and sacrifice, with 300 officers murdered and 10,000 injured over the past 30 years.

Does the Prime Minister also accept that many people will find it difficult to understand how the proposal to strip the RUC of its title sits easily with that wholly justified award today? Will he at least think again about that and agree that it would be a mistake to introduce any of the security-sensitive measures in the Patten report before there is lasting peace and decommissioning?

The award is absolutely vital for the RUC and totally deserved in view of what has happened during the past 30 years. It is vital that its officers' service be recognised throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Many died during that period and many others have suffered loss of limbs. Their families have often lived in the most appalling fear and terror. I am delighted and honoured to pay my tribute to the RUC for all the work that it has done.

The Patten report made a series of recommendations about the RUC name. We believe that that report, with the amendments that the Secretary of State has already discussed, is the right way forward. Although we listen to the concerns that people have, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is essential in future that Northern Ireland should have a police force and a police service that can attract recruits from all sides of the community. That is all that the Patten recommendations are designed to achieve.

Of course we agree with the objective that the Prime Minister has expressed, but does he acknowledge that the capability and capacity of the main terrorist organisations remain, in the words of the Chief Constable, "undiminished", and that, as events last week confirmed, the threat from dissident groups continues? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that there can be no question of introducing measures such as large cuts in the manpower of the RUC, or allowing Sinn Fein on to policing boards, while the IRA hangs on to its guns and bombs?

We will take no risks whatever with security in Northern Ireland; of course not. The number of people in the RUC is dependent on the security situation, but the actions of a small group of dissidents should not hold up progress towards a better future for everyone in Northern Ireland. Irrespective of the actions of those dissidents, it is surely important that we try to implement proposals that are designed to give us a police service and a police force in Northern Ireland that can attract people from all the different parts of the community.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the right objective. After all, the Patten report was drawn up by Chris Patten, a former Northern Ireland Office Minister in the Conservative Government, and the committee that drew up the recommendations was made up of a very balanced group of people. It would be unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman and his party now decided to disagree with those recommendations.

Q7. [117451]

By the time of the next general election, will hunting with dogs be banned, as most people believed that Labour had promised to do at the last general election?

As I said, Lord Burns will publish his report in due course. The Government will then state their position and the House will have an opportunity to vote. Let us be quite clear that the views of the House are already well known—and so are mine.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the enormous contribution made by public libraries over the past 150 years towards enhancing the lives of British people? Does he recognise the continuing importance of public libraries to the knowledge economy and the information society?

Yes, I do. What is more, as a result of lottery money that is being used for libraries, we are making sure that everyone in the country has an opportunity for education. The proportion of national income spent on education having fallen in the last few years of the previous, Conservative Government, it is now rising again under the Labour Government. The investment in schools and hospitals is one very good reason for people to come out and vote Labour on 4 May.

Points Of Order

3.31 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At about 2.50 pm today, I tried to gain access to the House through the St. Stephen's entrance. Because of the large number of representatives of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses complaining about the change of policy on the payment of social benefits, it took me and my two guests more than five minutes to gain access. The Metropolitan police had lost complete control over access to the House. Will you make representations to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Madam Speaker, to ensure that Members of Parliament can gain ready and immediate access to the House whenever necessary?

I shall certainly draw the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and the delay that he experienced in gaining access to the House to the attention of the Serjeant-at-Arms and seek a report from him.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 13 April, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), speaking as a Minister, made a statement commenting on—[Interruption.]

Order. To which year is the right hon. Gentleman referring?

This year, Madam Speaker—[interruption.] I apologise, Madam Speaker; it was last year.

I should like to know the year because my memory is not all that good.

Clearly, there may be deficiencies in mine, Madam Speaker.

At column 13 of Hansard, on 13 April 1999, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, speaking as a Minister, commented on remarks made by the Opposition. She said that our policies would have caused a third of the London underground to be closed down. While she was still in office, I pursued the reasons behind that statement through correspondence with her Department.

I received no reply, but continued to pursue the matter by correspondence. Yesterday, I received a reply from the office of the current Minister, signed by a private secretary. The substance of that letter was that, because the item that I queried had come from a Labour party briefing, it was not possible for the Department to comment on it, and that the matter was being referred back to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate for her personal comment.

I had thought that when Ministers spoke from the Dispatch Box, they spoke on behalf of the Government, and that they should be able to justify their statements. Is it in order for such business to be sub-contracted back for answer from a Back-Bench Member?

The matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises is certainly a matter for argument; however, it is a matter for the Government and I hope that he will pursue it with them.

Registered Fair Rents

3.34 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Act 1977 to limit the maximum fair rent registrable in respect of regulated tenancies.

The Bill is a technical measure to restore the position of protected tenants to what it was before the 15 February Court of Appeal judgment that the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 was made beyond the powers of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Most private tenancies entered into before January 1989 are regulated under the Rent Act 1977. Tenants have long-term security of tenure and both landlord and tenant have the right to have a fair rent determined by an independent rent officer. Both have the right to appeal to a rent assessment committee if they are not satisfied with the rent officer's decision. Rents are set every two years and become effective two years from the previous registration, or on the day of the rent assessment hearing.

Fair rents, as laid down by the 1977 Act, are decided by, first, the age, character, locality and state of repair of the building, and, secondly, the rent that could be achieved in the open market if the supply and demand for accommodation are balanced, which is usually referred to as "scarcity". Therefore, until 1988, fair rents were decided by comparisons with previous fair-rent decisions based on those two factors.

The system did not seem to be unfair to landlords, who continued to buy property in which protected tenants lived. They were able to buy property cheaply because the protected tenants were there. They received a reasonable, secure and unfailing return on the money that they had invested, and they were certain of capital gains when the tenant died or moved on.

The Housing Act 1988 had two main effects: it introduced assured and shorthold assured tenancies at open market rents, so now comparable market rents were available; and it prevented the emergence of future generations of regulated tenants by allowing tenancies to be inherited by spouses only. As a result of the latter effect, those affected by the Court of Appeal judgment are mainly pensioners or coming up to pension age.

Since the 1988 Act came into force, a number of developments—some of which were consequential on the Act—have had the effect of raising rents. The sale of council houses sanctioned by the 1988 Act added to the shortage of homes available at lower rents, and increased prices generally. The increased use of the rent assessment committee by landlords resulted in rent rises in 80 per cent. of cases heard, and in half of all cases the rent was increased by an average of 18 per cent.

In 1997, the case of London Rate Assessment Panel v. Curtis determined that market rent comparables should be used in all cases. That placed tenants at a disadvantage in obtaining reliable information on market rents actually paid, as opposed to those asked for. Landlords, on the other hand, usually have their own properties with which to compare, and were placed in a more powerful position.

A Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper, published in 1998 and sent to tenants and landlords, offered tenants some hope. Its tone was sympathetic to statutory tenants and it suggested that rent increases should be capped at 10 per cent. plus inflation. Following representations by tenants, that was altered to 7.5 per cent. plus inflation, and the Government drafted a statutory instrument known as the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order.

What is galling for the statutory tenants, given that the judgment appears to result from a legal technicality, is the fact that the order was delayed because it had to be checked by the lawyers of the Law Officers' Department, but, on 11 January 1999, the statutory instrument became the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. It came into force on 1 February.

Spath Holme Limited, a Manchester-based landlord, took the matter to judicial review and the Court of Appeal found that the order was ultra vires vis-a-vis the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

It is important for the House to realise that the Court of Appeal did not rule on the principle of capping regulated fair rent increases, or on the level of the limits set in the order; it ruled merely that it was outside the powers conferred on Ministers by the parent legislation to set limits by regulations.

As a result of that judgment, thousands of tenants now face the prospect of rent increases similar to those that were common before the order came into force. This morning, I met a tenant of Lamont Properties, whose rent has increased from £135 to £255 a week; another tenant, of Clapham Properties, whose rent has increased from £4,000 a year to £9,000 a year; and a tenant of the Wellcome Trust, supposedly a charity, whose rent has increased from £3,100 to £8,500 since the Court of Appeal judgment.

The situation for tenants is actually more difficult than it was before the order was introduced. Through no fault of their own, they have been made responsible for the difference between the capped rent and the uncapped rent, backdated for at least 28 days. DETR issued guidance to the Rent Service Agency to advise landlords that, if the difference between the capped and uncapped rent is large, it will be open to them to seek a county court order to obtain arrears for up to six months. Bearing in mind the fact that most statutory tenants are pensioners, not only will they have to pay retrospective arrears, but they may be forced to appear in the county court—an indignity that will horrify them and that they have done nothing to deserve.

Although initially refused leave by the Court of Appeal, the Government have indicated that they will petition the House of Lords to appeal. Although the ruling raises an important constitutional principle about the scope of ministerial discretion, it could be several months before an appeal is heard and there is no guarantee that it will be successful.

I present my Bill in the hope that the Government will consider another way to restore the limits on registered fair rent increases and to prevent vulnerable tenants from receiving unaffordable rent increases that may force many of them from their homes. Emergency legislation is required and there is not a day to lose.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adrian Sanders, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Tom Brake, Mr. Andrew Love, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Dr. Vincent Cable.

Registered Fair Rents

Mr. Adrian Sanders accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rent Act 1977 to limit the maximum fair rent registrable in respect of regulated tenancies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 April, and to be printed [Bill 111].

Opposition Day

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Sub-Post Offices

We come now to the motion on the future of sub-post offices. I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.42 pm

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Government's failure to provide a coherent strategy for the future of sub-post offices; expresses concern that nearly a year has elapsed without any solutions to the problems created by the arbitrary announcement to withdraw income from community post offices in return for the payment of benefits; believes that the acceleration of post office closures in 1999–2000 will continue as a result of the Government's policies; applauds the determination of the last Conservative Government to maintain a national network of post offices; supports the computerisation project started by the last Conservative Government to tackle fraud and improve technology available in post offices without cutting their income; calls upon the Government to recognise the social value of post offices to local communities; and now requires the Government, as a matter of urgency, to identify new income streams for sub-post offices in the future and to end the confusion for benefits recipients about the future payment arrangements at local level.

Today, 2,000 sub-postmasters are in London because they fear for the future of their businesses. Nearly a year has elapsed since the Secretary of State announced Labour's Treasury-driven decision to switch the payment of benefits and pensions from post offices to automated credit transfer. Since that announcement was made, there have been many debates in the House; indeed, this is the second Opposition day debate that the Conservative party has introduced.

In the past year, there has been an acceleration of post office closures—double the number the previous year. Post offices are being advised by their banks not to extend their borrowing and we know that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters fears for the future of 8,000 sub-post offices, which are privately owned businesses at the heart of both rural and urban communities. Indeed, it was shocking to hear at Prime Minister's questions this afternoon that the Prime Minister still seems to believe that Britain's network of sub-post offices is part of a nationalised industry and that it is not made of private businesses that invest their own capital and need to prepare their own business plans for the future.

My hon. Friend has touched on one of the most important aspects of this issue. Six post office closures in my constituency have already been announced this year. Four were very much part-time post offices and two were small village shops with a post office. Does she not agree that we are seeing a process that cuts at the bone of the rural network of small businesses that support small village and rural communities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The network is made up of businesses that provide a range of services and they often combine the post office with the village shop. Like everyone else, sub-postmasters have to make business decisions and plan for the future. In the uncertain world that the Government have created, many choose to get out altogether rather than sell their businesses on. That is an indictment not only of the Government's arbitrary decisions a year ago, but of the way in which they have subsequently handled matters.

I want to place Conservative achievements on record. When we were faced with a choice between more savings for the Treasury and ensuring the survival of the post office network, the previous Conservative Government, by contrast with Labour, opted for the more expensive benefit card project to ensure the survival of the sub-post office network for rural and urban communities.

As the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters said in its submission to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry:

the decision of the previous Government to automate the delivery of benefits payments using the benefits payment card was based on the need to reduce costs, eliminate fraud and ensure beneficiaries would be able to continue to receive their payment in cash from the post office, thus ensuring they retained a choice as to the method of payment which best suited their individual circumstance …

The submission continued:

this was recognised to be the only way to ensure the future survival and prosperity of the post office network.

Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) introduced a debate on sub-post offices in Westminster Hall. It is not the first time that he has spoken on this subject in the past year. The fact that he puts on record the background to the way in which the Conservative party introduced the switch from the book to the payment card, and the proposals that this Government inherited, clearly identifies the previous Government's priorities.

My right hon. Friend speaks with the authority of someone who has been Secretary of State in the two key Departments—the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security. He said:

When I moved to the Department of Social Security, my interest deepened further, as I saw how essential the network was to the effective delivery of benefits to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I helped to ensure that that delivery mechanism and the network would continue by agreeing to the horizon project, about which the Government are now trying to rewrite history … —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 52WH.]

The hon. Lady will recall that, in the last Parliament, I praised the approach of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to merging benefits and taxation issues. However, I am not sure that I could praise his handling of the original Horizon project. I have followed its progress from the beginning. Will the hon. Lady put on record the fact that it is Conservative policy to reintroduce the previous plan, exactly as it was, for the system? We will then know precisely what the debate is about.

The hon. Gentleman knows what the Government inherited, and what they did with that inheritance. The Conservative party will consider what we inherit and what we can salvage from the damage and the mess that the Government are creating.

In the past year, we have asked many questions to which we have received few answers. Even today, the Prime Minister failed to answer questions in terms that could provide comfort to the 2,000 sub-postmasters who have given up a day's work to persuade the Government to think again and identify new streams of income to replace the income that has been lost through the Government's policies. We have debated the matter often in the past, but the Government do not intend to listen. I want to focus on the future, because today's debate is about that. That is why sub-postmasters are here today.

Sub-post offices are businesses and, like any other small business, they need to plan for the future. When the Prime Minister received the sub-postmasters at No. 10 this morning, he pointed out that the Government still have many issues to sort out between now and 2005. However, businesses do not have the luxury of time: sub-postmasters have to make business decisions today, and their bank managers are advising them today. What a luxury it is for a Government to think that such considerations can all be kicked into the long grass while they set up another focus group or advisory committee. We know that in the meantime sub-postmasters are going to the wall.

The Government should be focusing on possible extra streams of income for sub-post offices and prioritising those Government services that might be such a source of income in future. However, as we heard again from the Prime Minister this afternoon, this is all about saving money from the Department of Social Security budget, which is a failure if ever there was one, because the Government have not fulfilled the pledge to cut that budget which they made when they came to office.

The DSS and the DTI are packed with former Treasury Ministers who have rolled over and allowed the Treasury to recoup that £400 million, taking it out of the pockets of sub-postmasters, yet Ministers need four years to think up ideas that will enable post offices to plan for the future. In this matter, as in so many others, the DTI ministerial team do not understand how businesses work, and despite all the wringing of hands by Labour Members, they do not care.

Since the last summer recess, I have visited dozens of sub-post offices throughout the country. Only last month, in Sadberge in the Prime Minister's constituency, I visited the small post office, which sells a few groceries and is clearly important to the local community. With the sub-postmaster and the national president of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, I posted a letter from that post office to the Prime Minister at No. 10. He did not reply, and I was rather surprised because I should have thought that even he would have time to recognise that in his constituency sub-postmasters are struggling, as they are throughout the country.

The Prime Minister's office sent my letter to the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who I see is on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. He sent me a two-page reply in which he comes to the crunch and makes a point that may explain why the Government have been so slow in deciding how to help post offices and how they can contribute to replacing their income streams in response to the smash-and-grab raid by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said:

Therefore, sub-postmasters' remuneration is a matter between POCL—

Post Office Counters Ltd.—

and the post-masters themselves.

In other words, this is nothing to do with the Government, and yet they have decided to end a contract halfway through its duration and, without giving any notice, they are removing a huge chunk of post offices' income, without the slightest idea of how the loss will be made up, jeopardising post offices and accelerating their closure.

According to the federation, 8,000 small businesses are now at risk, representing about 24,000 jobs throughout the country. If 24,000 jobs were at risk in any other industry, one would expect that the Secretary of State would have set up a taskforce by now, but instead the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, writes to me saying that it is not a matter for the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's Panglossian optimism is singularly misplaced when we recall that the group managing director of banking and customer services at the Post Office, Mr. Stuart Sweetman, said that he is not at all confident that income from other sources will in any way be sufficient to make up for the Post Office's loss of income from benefits as a result of the Government's stupid policy?

My hon. Friend is right, and I have visited an excellent sub-post office in his constituency.

The Government are quick to claim that they are doing something. When the Prime Minister is out and about in the country—I recall his visit to the countryside in the west country a little while back—instead of saying frankly, as we now read in missives from every Department around Whitehall, that it was not a matter for the Government, he tried to placate postmasters by saying that cash dispensers would be installed, and that the Government would sit down and talk, as he said again today. He has had a year to sit down and talk to those businesses, yet we are expected to believe that for once he will come up with something useful.

rose—

I have already given way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller); I now give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne).

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On the contributions to the discussion from Mr. Stuart Sweetman, is she aware that Mr. Sweetman attended a meeting of the all-party group on community banking convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on Monday? I hope to tell the House some of what he said, if I am called to speak. In the Committee Room, he explained in great detail the discussions with banks in which he was engaged, which could generate £200 million of income for sub-post offices—hardly a drop in the ocean.

Of course we support any initiative. I must tell the Secretary of State that it is past five to 12, as far as sub-post offices are concerned. As they plan their business for the coming financial year and particularly for the next two or three years, sub-postmasters need to know what other sources of income will be available to them. After a year of inactivity on the Government's part, any activity is to be welcomed. The question is whether it will be enough to save the sub-post offices that are now closing at double the rate at which they closed last year.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Before she leaves the subject of the Prime Minister, did she find it instructive that in his replies earlier this afternoon, he said that there was nothing wrong with the policy—it was just the consequences? Would it not be helpful if the policy touched base with the consequences? The consequences are that there will be no post offices by the time the new technology is available.

The hon. Gentleman is right. It was also noted this afternoon that the Prime Minister made a point of saying that he made no apology. Those on the Treasury Bench are well known for making no apology when they close businesses, put people out of work and create chaos and confusion among some of the most vulnerable people in society. That is the hallmark of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

Let us consider alternatives to chaos—[Interruption.] I wrote the speech myself. Unlike the ones that come from Millbank tower, these are all home-made.

There are steps that the Government could take, and they should act quickly if they are to save the post offices. The big question is whether they want to save them. If they drag the process out long enough, the more difficult cases—those that open part time and those that are less viable—will be off the scene altogether by the time the Government produce proper suggestions to help the rest. Given the Government's track record, that seems to be the policy that they are following.

We read in the papers this week a suggestion from the Minister for Competitiveness that sub-postmasters are to become local consuls. We would welcome that, if it is recognition of the other services that postmasters provide in their local communities—the many things that they do, unpaid and unsung heroes and heroines in their communities.

However, apart from proposing that postmasters should be given a smart badge, which presumably was meant to flatter, the hon. Gentleman did not spell out whether there is to be any remuneration for them. If he has a practical business plan to put on the table that would help post offices by allowing them to provide services for which they would be remunerated, perhaps that suggestion would have some credence. This, however, is merely papering over the cracks to disguise the big problem that the Government have brought about.

As we all know, local people rely on sub-postmasters. If someone does not collect their pension one week, the sub-postmaster will notice. The sub-post office is often the calling-off point for the local doctor, who may leave a prescription there at no charge. The value that sub-post offices provide for communities is almost unquantifiable. That is why the last Conservative Government believed it was worth remunerating sub-post offices. We recognised the value of their contribution in the heart of vulnerable communities—unlike the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who has accused sub-postmasters of telling porkies.

That does not sound to me like the view of a Government who are sitting down and talking to sub-postmasters about their problems. It is certainly not the opinion of the 3 million people who signed the Western Daily Press petition. Whatever the Prime Minister and other Labour Members say, there is now such a groundswell of opinion—clearly demonstrated by the size of the petition presented to Downing street—that the Government must either rethink, or come up with alternative suggestions pretty smartly.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already.

The Government must either rethink or come up with alternative suggestions so that these businesses can not just survive, but survive next year. It is as urgent as that.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will indeed.

My hon. Friend is presenting an excellent case. What advice would she give to residents of my hill villages of Kettleshulme and Wildboarclough, which are both in the Peak park, and the village of Higher Poynton, whose sub-post offices will close in the next few weeks? Am I not right in saying that such sub-post offices are critical elements of the success and the on-going potential of rural villages? How will the villages survive if this essential facility is closed?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the rural communities that he and I represent, a fragile situation is deteriorating. He, along with other Members of Parliament, will have made his representations, because there is now a sense of urgency. All our constituencies contain dozens of sub-post offices which are now genuinely at risk, not in three years' time but this year.

Sub-post offices deserve better than the Government's action. It is no good the Prime Minister saying, as he said yet again today, that cash dispensers are the answer. People need bank accounts in order to obtain money from cash dispensers, and if a post office is to have a cash dispenser in the wall there must be a minimum number of transactions a week for it to be viable.

There is another problem, unless the Government announce today that they are to round up all state benefits into multiples of five. In my experience, it is not possible to obtain both notes and coins from a cash dispenser. Pensioners who prefer to draw all their benefit each week so that they can plan how to spend it will not be used to that, but they may now be forced to make more than one visit a week.

Mr. Davey, at my post office in Blockley, tells me that what is really threatening his viability is the fact that a circular being sent to all claimants informs them that their benefit must be paid through a bank account. It does not tell them that, if they wish to continue to receive it in cash, they must opt out of the present system. If they do opt out and continue to have the benefit paid in cash, Mr. Davey's transaction payment will be cut from 12p to 1 p. That is what is threatening his business.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

No, my hon. Friend is right. It is true. The Government have made a virtue of the fact that it costs only I p to transfer the money from the Department of Social Security to the BACS system. Apart from that, the Government have given no explanation of where the funding is coming from. There is certainly insufficient funding to make up for the loss of £400 million, which will be lifted out of post offices' revenue. That is where the problem is. The Government have made a Treasury-initiated decision. They do not have a clue how they will fulfil many of the pledges.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will in a moment.

If the Secretary of State is going to talk us through the payment streams of each transaction movement from the time that it leaves the Department of Social Security, we will welcome that. What is interesting is that the "Dear colleague" letter that we received this week contains no mention of that. One would have thought that, if the Minister for Competitiveness had the answer to that, it would have been a good idea to put it in the letter that was circulated to every Member yesterday.

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the reasons why there was a number of closures last year in the post office network was because of the misleading information put around by a number of Members? [Interruption.] We have just had a very good example of that misleading information from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Benefit recipients have a choice: if they want to receive the benefit payment in cash at the post office, they will be entitled to do so. It is important that we put the record straight.

I am afraid that the Secretary of State misunderstands the problem for sub-post offices. He has outlined what he believes to be his Government's pledge in relation to recipients. We would grateful if he explained how that will work, but the focus of the debate is income for sub-post offices. In the transaction, where is the income to come from for sub-post offices to make up the money that the Government—

indicated dissent.

It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head. That is where the loss of income will come from. Therefore, he must explain to sub-post offices how they will make up the income drop by way of transactions, for which he has been unable to produce an audit trail to show that money will be into post offices and those businesses.

This morning, in the Methodist hall, I listened to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters offer the Government—although there was no Government representative there—the hand of friendship.

I was there.

If the right hon. Gentleman was there, he kept his head down at back of the hall. I am sorry that he was not noticed.

Those in the hall made it clear that they do not want handouts; they want to do business. They want a plan for the future. They need the Government to behave in a more business-like manner, to negotiate and to make decisions now, not in three years' time.

Tomorrow is the Secretary of State's birthday. I anticipate that he will receive about 18,000 birthday cards, one from every sub-post office, asking him to think again. They will tell him:

For your benefit, give us today the answers that will benefit sub post offices—before it is too late.

In that spirit of friendship, I offer him a birthday card for tomorrow—the first of 18,000. I hope that he will listen carefully, if not to me, then to the 18,000 sub-postmasters, the 2,000 who have given up a day's work to come here and the petition containing 3 million signatures that the Prime Minister received this morning.

4.9 pm

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

`welcomes the fact that the Government is committed to a national post office network and is taking steps to secure this; welcomes the Government's moves to plan the introduction of automated credit transfer; welcomes the Postal Services Bill which will enable the Post Office to modernise, so building up new business for the network; welcomes the investment of £500 million to ensure the network is computerised, so enabling a successful and modern network to emerge; welcomes the Government's introduction for the first time of criteria for access to Post Office services; welcomes the commitment to give benefit recipients the choice of having benefits paid in cash via a post office even after the switch to automated credit transfer is complete in 2005; and applauds the work of the sub-postmasters and postmistresses and condemns those who make their lives harder by talking down the network.'.

Open the card.

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall open the card a little later. I am also looking forward to the present that comes with it.

I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and many other hon. Members have had the opportunity today of discussing with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and representatives of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters their concerns about the future of the post office network. I want to use this opportunity to deal with some of the concerns that have, quite understandably, been expressed by those individuals who often have committed many of their own resources to their business—a sub-post office. We are a Government who listen to the concerns of the communities that have been affected. We have also listened, and we shall continue listening, to the concerns of those who are responsible for running the post office network.

We recognise the vital role that local post offices play not only in rural communities, but in our inner cities. Many thousands of post offices in our inner cities and in our rural communities perform a useful and important community function. We recognise that they have that important role to play.

Very often, the post office is the focal point of the local community, providing access to cash, postal services and other daily items. Very often, for the elderly and those who are less mobile, the post office is where their benefits are available. We recognise that.

rose—

I shall give way when I have made some progress.

The Government recognise the invaluable role that sub-postmasters and mistresses play in communities and the way in which they develop and deliver those important services. The Government's commitment is to ensure that people have convenient access to the services of Post Office Counters.

The Post Office is still the largest retail network in Europe. Some 60 per cent. of rural parishes have a post office, and more than nine out of 10 people live within a mile of a post office.

Before the Secretary of State tires himself, and possibly the House, with repetition of those pieties, will he understand that what we need to hear today is a clear and unambiguous statement that the Government will take time off from their current proposals and develop a serious, workable and practicable alternative?

I hope that, once I have had time to make progress in my speech, I shall have dealt with those concerns in a way that the hon. Gentleman will feel is not pious.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, after 2003, on one side of the counter, when pensioners who currently do not have a bank account are forced to have one, turn up at the post office and draw their pension in cash, they will not be charged any extra money whatsoever—bank charges or anything else? Will they will be in exactly the same position as now? On the other side of the counter, will he guarantee that the sub-postmaster will receive a reasonable reward for the transaction?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already addressed that issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"' The answer is yes. I hope that that will go a long way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. That is the policy, and my right hon. Friend has already stated it.

Will the Secretary of State then explain to the House exactly what the components and total of the sub-postmaster's income deriving from that process will be?

I was answering the question of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on a "reasonable" amount. These matters are all subject to negotiation. We are talking about something that will occur in 2003, which is some years away. There will be a process of discussion. We have a very good working relationship with the national federation, which enables us to talk about the details of implementing the transition to automated credit transfer, and we shall do that. However, the answer to the specific question of the hon. Member for Gainsborough is, quite simply, yes.

I was grateful for the Secretary of State's comments on the plight of urban post offices. I should be grateful if he explained to me and those of my constituents who visited Westminster today what choice will exist for those who can exercise a choice under the proposals, but who, in doing so, rob someone else of the choice of being able to continue to use the post office's facilities, because the post office will no longer exist? The viability of urban post offices is very much under threat, and many will disappear. In my constituency, probably half of them will go within two years of implementation of the proposals, unless the Government come up with a plan that will not only give security to postmasters, so that they can continue operating, but allow people to exercise choice in how they receive and use their benefit.

I was rather confused by the hon. Gentleman's question. There will be a choice. The Government are not prepared to compel people to have their benefits paid in cash at a post office. We are not in the business of compulsion. When we move to ACT between 2003 and 2005, people will retain the choice that they have now. Benefit recipients will continue to have a genuine choice.

rose—

I have a choice; I must give way to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) first.

What choice will pensioners have if by 2003 many sub-post offices have closed and there is no longer one nearby?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Post office closures have nothing to do with the move to ACT in 2003. However, changes to the network have continued for decades. Over the years, some post offices close and others open.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton made great play of the fact the number of sub-post office closures last year doubled compared with the year before. The figures show that closures have not doubled, although 383 sub-post offices closed last year. If she looks at the record, she will realise that the highest number of closures in the past 20 years was back in 1984–85, under a Conservative Government. Closures happen because sub-post offices are businesses and people have to take business decisions. It is only right and appropriate that they do so. Any closures that happen today are not because of ACT, as that will not happen until 2003. In the period leading up to 2003, the Government intend to identify a new way forward for the network.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I must make some progress, but I shall try to give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later, when I have explained the new role that we believe the post office network can play.

The clearest demonstration of the way in which we want to develop the post office network is the fact that we are investing £500 million in equipping all post office counters with modern online computer facilities. We are giving the Post Office the commercial freedom that it needs to develop new services. Our Postal Services Bill allows for social and environmental guidance, providing the vehicle for guidance on access to post office services. That is why the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an extensive study on how we can ensure a viable future for the post office network.

I remind the Secretary of State of what he told the House on 15 February. He said that it was a question of viability and added:

The Government will consider very closely the need to include a provision that would enable a subsidy to be provided where appropriate to do so. Indeed, there will be a Government amendment to that effect.—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 805.]

Why did the Government fail to table that amendment in Committee?

We have been considering the detail of such a proposal. I shall address the question of providing a subsidy a little later in my speech. I hope that I shall be able to give some comfort to sub-postmasters about the Government's intentions. There was never a subsidy under the Conservatives. Later this afternoon, I shall announce that when we consider the Bill on Report next week, we shall introduce the provision that I promised the House. We are doing that because we consider it such a significant development that we feel that it is appropriate to deal with it in front of the whole House, rather than in Committee where only members of the Committee can consider it. It will go a long way to reassure many of the sub-postmasters who are in London today that we are listening to their concerns and prepared to respond accordingly.

rose—

I want to make some progress. I have given way many times and I want to put on record the Government's approach to these important matters.

Many people, including those in the federation, recognise the importance of modernising the network. The Conservatives did nothing to help the Post Office to prepare for the challenges ahead. From 1992 to 1997, they frequently announced their policy to sell off Parcelforce and review the status of the rest of the Post Office business; but they did not even do that.

This is an important point, because it strikes at the heart of the money that has been made available to the post office network: by 1995, the Treasury had taken £1 billion from the Post Office. Over the next two and a half years, an additional £1 billion was taken from the income received by the Post Office. That money could have been used to invest in the network, but the Treasury came first with the Conservatives.

Under this Government, £500 million is being invested in the Horizon project and computerisation. We are helping the Post Office to adapt to the changes that are taking place, but that means taking what are often difficult decisions. We have heard the concerns about our decision to cancel the benefit payment card and move progressively to ACT as the norm for benefit payments between 2003 and 2005. That is the sensible way forward.

I want to explain the background to our decision. The previous Government committed themselves in 1994 to modernising how benefits are paid, and in May 1996 an eight-year contract was awarded under the private finance initiative to ICL Pathway. The aim was to automate post office counters and provide a secure and more efficient way of paying benefits, through a card.

By early 1997, still under the Conservative Administration, it was clear that the project was in difficulties. We inherited those difficulties. In late 1997, the project was incurring cost overruns of £600 million and was three years behind schedule and we had to consider whether it could be continued. We undertook a detailed review and in 1998 we tried to put the project back on course, but slippages continued. In October 1998, the key milestone for the start of live trials of the system was missed yet again. There were real and increasing concerns that, even if the card could be delivered, the technology was becoming increasingly out of date.

Why, then, as late as November 1998, did the Secretary of State's predecessor say:

I feel confident that the project will be properly completed.?

Because at that stage we were trying to put the project back on course. Following a further review early in 1999, we decided that the benefit payment card could not continue, because the problems had become overwhelming. We made the tough but right decision to stop the benefit payment card element of automation and instead to build on the existing ACT system as a means of paying benefits.

It is worth reminding the House that ACT was introduced and extended by the Conservative Government, for good reasons, not to threaten the Post Office network but to ensure that payments went to those who needed them in the most secure way possible.

My right hon. Friend should not attack the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in such a way, because at least what she said contained more sense than the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who said earlier that he wanted to reintroduce the system as originally planned. That would be crass stupidity. The previous Government told us on numerous occasions that we could not introduce new services for post offices through Government because those were commercial decisions for the Post Office.

My hon. Friend is right and there is a conflict at the heart of the Conservatives' position on the issue. They introduced and extended ACT as a way of delivering benefits, for what were good and legitimate reasons. People have voted with their feet and have chosen to have their benefits paid into bank accounts. In November 1999, 50 per cent of new retirement pensioners chose ACT, and 54 per cent. of new child benefit customers did so. People are making that choice and the Government cannot and should not ignore those trends.

On 29 March, I put it to the Minister of State that the Government's assurances about the continuation of cash payments after 2003 were on the basis that the recipients would have a bank account. Being the honest man he is, the Minister of State dodged that question and would not address it. Is the Secretary of State now confirming that everyone will have to have a bank account after 2003, and that the Government will fund that; or is he saying that the Government have received an assurance from the banking industry that it will provide free banking? It can be only one of those two—which is it?

No, we recognise that for some benefit recipients—those who do not want, for whatever reason, to have bank accounts—we will need to have an alternative method. For those people, we are considering what alternative simple electronic money transition systems could be introduced that could be accessed through post offices. We are having this debate in April 2000 and migration to ACT starts in 2003, so we have the time—because we have given plenty of notice—to put in place a mechanism that will ensure that all those who do not have or want bank accounts have an alternative means by which their benefits can be paid.

rose—

I am not going to give way, because Opposition Members have had their chance. I have been generous in giving way, but they have sought to mislead so much in their interventions—inadvertently, I am sure.

There are 3,000 sub-postmasters out there who want answers.

They will not get an answer from the hon. Gentleman, but they will get one from my speech.

The reality is that all benefit recipients who wish to do so will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash at a post office, both before and after the change to an ACT-based system. I repeat that we shall put in place a mechanism so that both before and after 2003 all benefit recipients and state pensioners who want to will be able to access the exact amount of their benefits in cash across the counter at the post office, without incurring a charge for doing so.

The Opposition may wish to compel people to have their benefits paid through post offices, but we do not accept that. People must have a genuine choice and that is what we intend to offer.

I heard the proposals that the Secretary of State outlined for recipients, but how much will that be worth in income for sub-postmasters?

As the hon. Lady knows, no figure has been agreed and the contract remains to be negotiated. It is a commercial transaction and the figure will be reached in the normal course of negotiations. [Interruption.] They are businesses and the negotiations concern a commercial arrangement. I shall not take part in the negotiations. Does she not understand that? The Government intend to ensure that the benefit recipient has a choice. She needs to be aware of that. We are having useful discussions with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters about our broad approach to ACT and the new services that can be offered. The Post Office will discuss with the federation the detail of the agreements that are entered into. Contractual negotiations will take place, and there are many months between now and 2003 during which they can be concluded.

If it is a commercial transaction that is a matter for business and not government, how is it that the Prime Minister takes credit for the installation of 3,000 cash dispensers?

I cannot see what relevance that has to the issue that has been raised. The hon. Lady made an important point when she talked about the amount per transaction that a sub-postmaster is to receive as a result of the changed circumstances. I am saying that that is a subject for commercial negotiations between the Post Office and the sub-postmaster. No doubt she will try to explain what that has to do with cash points. We are talking about different issues.

There are new opportunities for people to go to a post office and use its services. As I have said, benefit recipients will still be entitled to have their cash paid over in full in pounds and pence. People such as me will be attracted to post offices to get money from cash machines. I may spend some of that money in the shop, which is often linked to the cash machine and the post office. That is what should happen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making progress on this issue now. We look forward to his comments on subsidy later in his speech. The key issue is whether the Government will underwrite the integrity of the post office network. If, on the basis that it is purely a commercial matter, they are not prepared to do that, we shall lose the network. Will he underwrite it?

We intend to address the issue through access criteria, which the performance and innovation unit report will disclose some time after Easter. That is how we can address people's need for local post office counter services. Access criteria can then be considered by the Post Office regulator when that person is in post. That is the appropriate way to consider the matter. It is all about access to the services that can be offered through the post office network.

In my constituency, 80 per cent. of post offices depend for more than 50 per cent. of their business on the Benefits Agency. Any opportunity to increase their business will be most helpful. As for Link cash machines, will they not provide more business opportunities for sub-post offices? Those people who do not use post offices now will be able to when they are installed. They will then be able to spend the money that has been dispensed in the post office.

My hon. Friend is right. That is why the development of cash machines in post offices has been widely welcomed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It is a good example of the post office network taking a more commercial view of the new streams of income that can come into the network. It is important that we consider new ways of encouraging people to go into a post office and using the services there provided as well as those provided by the shop, which often runs alongside it. As a result, the sub-postmaster and the shop owner—often one and the same person—will have the dual benefits.

We seem at last to be concentrating on the kernel of the issue. As a result of his policy, the Secretary of State will replace a certain, guaranteed, Government-sourced income for post offices with an uncertain, commercially negotiated one on which he cannot at present put a figure. Yet he says that their income will remain reasonable. Those two points do not stack up.

Secondly, if the commercially negotiated income is insufficient, the post office network will collapse. What will constitute a reasonable income, and by how much does the existing income of sub-post offices need to fall for the Secretary of State to deem it to be unreasonable?

The hon. Gentleman did extremely well to deliver that question without breaking into a smile. His views on the Post Office are well known. He wants to go down the route of privatisation. We know that the post office network receives financial support from the Post Office. That is the reality: if Opposition Members think otherwise, they are fundamentally wrong and do not understand how the system works. He is on record as saying that he wants to break up the Post Office and then privatise it. That view is shared by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who has always argued for that option, as have many other Conservative Members.

We have to ensure that, where appropriate, the post office network has proper support. Our proposals in the Postal Services Bill will give the Post Office greater commercial freedom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will let the hon. Gentleman into the debate in a moment. I know his views, which he has stated clearly. He is a man of principle on these matters and it will be useful for the House to hear his views. They may be quite helpful to me, too, so I shall be more than happy to give way in a moment.

The Postal Services Bill gives the Post Office greater commercial freedom. The real question is whether the Post Office will want to support the social role that the post office network can play. That is a real issue, and the Government intend to address it. In a moment, I shall inform the House about how we might do that, but I am sure that hon. Members will want to hear from the hon. Member for Gainsborough first.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he must be fair about this. When I worked at the Department of Trade and Industry with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the proposal was to privatise the Royal Mail. We recognised that sub-postmasters had always been private operators. There was never a proposal to privatise Post Office Counters. We always recognised that we had to maintain a national network of sub-post offices.

The Secretary of State must stop repeating that the Conservative party wants to privatise the whole set-up and that everything will go to wrack and ruin. That has never been our proposal.

The hon. Gentleman probably makes my point for me. He wanted to take Royal Mail and parcel delivery away from the Post Office. That would have broken the link with the post office network and put nothing in its place. That would have had a detrimental effect on the post office network, and it is one of the reasons why the network was so worried about the Conservative proposals. The then Prime Minister would not go down that route because he was worried about its political implications.

On my constituency office wall, I have a letter from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister. He was replying to a member of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which vigorously opposed Conservative plans to privatise Royal Mail. In the letter, the right hon. Gentleman stated quite simply that he believed that the post office network should be privatised.

It is good to have that on the record. I hope that my hon. Friend will circulate that communication and not keep it pinned up on his notice board.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way once more, but then I want to draw my remarks to a close. I also want to talk about the important matter of the financial assistance that we may be able to offer to the post office network.

I want to return to the vital issue of the income stream. What does the Secretary of State say to my constituent Mrs. Hilary Pavitt, the sub-postmistress of Kent's Bank post office near Grange-over-Sands? She says that she will lose more than a third of her income under the Government's proposals. Is he guaranteeing to replace all that lost income?

I have two points to make. First, the hon. Gentleman's constituent will need to convince those who presently receive their benefits in cash to continue to do so. I am sure that she has a good relationship with them, so she need only tell them that they have a choice. People who want to continue with the status quo and have their benefits paid in cash are entitled to do so. They will continue to have that choice until 2003, between 2003 and 2005, and beyond 2005. That is what I would advise her to do to ensure that her customers stay loyal and keep receiving their payments in cash.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's constituent needs to know that her post office will be automated as a result of a £500 million Government investment. She will be able to offer new services, which will result in new people coming in to her post office. That will give her new vision for the future. I hope that she will recognise that this way will provide her with opportunities that she does not have at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will try to if I have time, but I have already spoken for far longer than the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and I want to provide Back Benchers with the opportunity to contribute.

I want to take right hon. and hon. Members through the subsidy. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has any further questions, he may put them after I have gone through how it will work.

I have already, I hope, made it clear that benefit recipients who want to continue to have benefit paid in cash in full at the post office will still have that choice. Next week, we will table a new clause to the Postal Services Bill when it is debated on Report. It will enable me to set up a financial scheme to ensure that essential services can still be delivered through a nationwide network of local post offices. Our key target is a viable future for the network. We want to ensure that the Bill covers all possibilities. It may well be that in future, because of changes that are being introduced, financial assistance should be offered to the network.

The power is a safeguard, intended to keep open the option of financial assistance. The Government believe that the Post Office should modernise the network and be able to provide new and updated services and products, developing alternative revenue streams to replace income that may be lost because of the transition to automated credit transfer beyond 2003.

We recognise the real concerns of many people throughout the country about continued local access to post services, particularly in rural areas and also in some of our inner-city areas. The new clause will provide an additional safeguard in the Bill to provide financial assistance if it proves necessary to do so. This underlines the Government's commitment to a nationwide network of post offices.

I am sure that the Minister for Competitiveness will, if asked, tell the Secretary of State that some Conservative Members were not in favour of the privatisation of Post Office Counters. I happen to fall into that category. The then Government did not proceed with privatisation because of the number of Conservative Members who opposed it.

The Secretary of State is announcing some very encouraging proposals. Sub-post offices in rural villages are as vital as the village school and the village pub. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that his proposals will ensure that they survive so that our rural areas have the facilities that they need?

The important thing is that, through the amendment that we will introduce on Report, we are providing a mechanism that will allow financial assistance to be given. It does not exist at the moment, but we will put it in place. There will be opportunities to provide financial support if it is appropriate to do so. I am sure that it will make a big difference to many small rural post offices as well as some in the inner cities. It is a safeguard, and we intend to introduce it next week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I have already given way generously, and I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that I can look forward to 18,000 birthday cards arriving tomorrow. I understand that this is also good news for post office workers in Victoria SW1, who are likely to receive a bonus—negotiated by the Communication Workers Union a few years ago—as a result of the high volume of cards that I am likely to receive. They will have cause for celebration as well.

The network of post offices has never been static, but the Government must acknowledge the important community and social role played by individual post offices to which we should provide new opportunities. We can use the great strengths in the post office network to reach out to people and to give them access to information and services.

I want to see how we can use the local post office as the first source of information on central and local government services. We need a new vision for the Post Office of the 21st century. I want the local post office to interact directly and electronically with business, and to be a channel of delivery for electronic government. With the new technologies that we are giving to the post office network, all that is possible.

By giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom, investing in new technology and providing safeguards to ensure reasonable access to Post Office Counters services, we are helping the Post Office to adapt to change, expand its services and respond to changing consumer demands. We intend to work with the Post Office. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning to Colin Baker, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, we intend to work in partnership to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is talking about the possibility, for which there is as yet no substance, of replacing a loss of revenue that is certain and definite? Will he confirm that the Horizon project, as now truncated, deals only with the internal management and revenues of sub-post offices, and that it as yet does not have the functionality to deliver the banking and other services of which he has speculatively spoken? Will he confirm that he will not even go out to tender to obtain the necessary software until later this year?

The problem that we inherited was that the scheme concocted by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was three years behind schedule. Our project will deliver automation for every post office by spring 2001. In addition, the changes that I intend to introduce to the Postal Services Bill next week will provide a safeguard and a mechanism. Even if we have to use that mechanism, we shall not have to do so until 2003, when ACT is introduced. We are giving plenty of notice of change, which will continue from 2003 until 2005.

For more than 150 years, the Post Office has been an important part of the social fabric of our country. The Government are committed to ensuring that it continues to play an important role in British society by building a modern, vibrant network fit for the future. We shall deliver that, and I commend the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.48 pm

I welcome the debate and pay tribute to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which has assembled one of the largest petitions ever presented to Government. It has been extremely successful in promoting its agenda, for which, as a small organisation, it deserves great credit. Colin Baker came up with a phrase this morning that captures, in many ways, what is so important about the network. He described postmasters and postmistresses as the general practitioners of Government, the people who provide communities with government services. The network comprises not just a group of small businesses that have fallen on hard times, but people who play a key role in communities.

We must focus on what is happening in businesses. Much attention has been devoted to the decline in numbers, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who talks to people who work in the post office network will confirm that behind those who have sold up stand many more who want to sell but cannot because of the collapse of asset values. Many more people would sell up their businesses if they could.

The Secretary of State made the particularly unhelpful suggestion that much of the crisis was caused by scaremongering by Opposition Members and others. We are talking about rational, hard-headed small business men and women who can make rational calculations about their future earnings and the value of their assets. If they have a crisis of confidence, it is because there is a crisis of confidence. That is what the Government are being called on to redress. We call on them to give a clear, unambiguous guarantee and undertaking to preserve the network. What the Secretary of State said today about subsidy is helpful, and it is an advance, but the Government still need to do a lot of work to remedy the crisis of confidence that underlies the closure programme and the collapse of asset values.

We keep coming back to the issue of the loss of income and what it means—what is the money flow. The answer to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the former leader of my party, established that the loss of income by 2005 would be about £640 million. We have used the figure of £400 million, but it would be due to rise to something of that magnitude. That is the income that is being lost to the post office network.

It is useful to break down that figure and analyse what it consists of. There are two main elements to it. One is genuine technological advance. The automated credit transfer process is a technological advance; it replaces a cumbersome paper-driven operation with electronic switching. There is a real gain in productivity there, and no one seriously argues that that process should be stopped. The other element in the £640 million is the payment that would otherwise be made to the post office network for performing a genuine service, which will still have to be performed by someone.

My colleagues and I have been trying to establish through letters and questions to the Department of Social Security the split between the technological improvement and the fee income to the post office for services. It is a clear question, and the DSS does not deny that such a distinction can be made. However, it has told us that it is a commercial secret. That raises a fundamental issue. We are dealing with a transaction between a Government Department and a state agency, albeit a limited, incorporated entity, which the Government choose to regard as a matter of Government confidentiality.

Some colleagues will recall that we voted a few evenings ago on whether information leading to advice, as well as the advice itself, should be kept secret. We have a good practical example here. Information crucial to an understanding of the debate is being unnecessarily withheld. The issue will be pursued with the ombudsman, but we have great difficulty understanding what is going on, because the Government simply refuse to divulge the split between the technological gain and the remainder of the fee income.

I am listening with care to what the hon. Gentleman says and much of it I agree with. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not yet known, so the split could not be specified. If I have misunderstood, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could point that out to me. I, too, am a great advocate of freedom of information, but unless the information exists, it cannot be withheld. Until the negotiations are concluded, the information cannot exist.

It is a perfectly fair question. I will happily copy to the hon. Gentleman a letter from a Mrs. J. Spiller of the DSS, who acknowledges that the information is available, but says that she will not disclose it because it is commercially confidential. That is a matter of record.

The Minister for Competitiveness, who has responsibility for postal services, is fond of using an analogy that is quite helpful. He talks about the need for the Post Office Counters network to achieve a soft landing. One has a mental picture of an aeroplane with him at the controls and the runway in the distance. I think that we can see the outline of the runway, which consists of a new income stream that will come from a mixture of online government, banking services and so on. That is fine and clear. However, the problem with that mental picture is that the Minister is flying an aircraft that has no undercarriage—it has no wheels. The problem with the Government's story is how that landing can take place.

One of the key aspects is the replacement of the present income stream with one from banking services. That is an important and welcome part of the story. We need to break down those banking services, to find out what they are, how they will be provided and what benefit the network will derive from them.

The banking services have two distinct elements. One is the 3,000 cash machines, which are welcome if they provide an additional facility. However, there is still a question about the many people—especially in remote areas—who will continue to pay a charge for that service. Even if Barclays and the rest move away from their £2.50 charge, the hidden loyalty charges will remain. The public will not receive a free service—the bank will derive income from it.

A more serious and important development—although it is welcome—is that 10 banks have agreed to use the Post Office Counters network for the provision of banking services. That is an advance and represents a significant new vision for postal services. However, why are the banks doing that? After all, Barclays and the rest are closing down thousands of branches throughout the country. Why are they entering into agreements with the DSS or the Post Office to open up such services? The banks are not charities—as we are painfully aware. Sir Peter Middleton and his chums are the most hard-headed bunch in business. Why are they doing that?

One obvious reason is that the agreements represent an extremely good deal for the banks. Instead of providing traditional bank branches, with all their overheads, security costs and business rates, the banks will acquire a cheap facility inside post offices—while keeping their brand. As the Government are in a weak negotiating position, they will not ask much for that service.

The banks will gain in other ways. As people will be encouraged—we are told that they will not be coerced—to have bank accounts, new accounts will be opened. They will bring the banks deposits and spreads on those deposits. The banks will earn charges. Banks will do extremely well from the shift to automated teller machines, and from the provision of banking services. We should be asking the Government—and they should be asking the banks—whether they are getting the best of that bargain with the banks.

The broader context is important. Many questions are legitimately being asked about the operation of the banking system. The Cruickshank report referred to estimated excess profits of £5 billion—in other words, rates of return to shareholder value that are larger than the market—for an industry that does not run full commercial risks, because, of course, banks and their shareholders are underwritten by the lender of last resort. We are talking about a system which has excess profits and is not fully competitive muscling in on the closure of the post office network to earn a nice little penny.

Although I welcome the vision—the development of the post office network from mere post offices to centres for online government and for banking services—will the banks be required to make sufficient payment to the network for that service? I fully accept and welcome the idea that the taxpayer has to pay a subsidy for the post office network, but the banking system also has a social obligation—to deal with the problem of financial exclusion. Are the Minister and—especially—the Chancellor paying adequate attention to the extent to which the banks, as well as the taxpayer, have a financial obligation to maintain the network as it is?

The key issue raised by Members on both sides is that the post office network needs an absolute guarantee of its future. That guarantee will be partly met from subsidy and when the access provisions are identified. However, until then, the crisis of confidence will continue; asset values will continue to fall; and there will be continued closures in all our constituencies.

4.59 pm

When I read the first words of the motion—

That this House condemns the Government's failure to provide a coherent strategy for the future of sub-post offices—

I could hardly believe my eyes, because those words come from a Tory party which, throughout its 18 years in government, was responsible for a colossal reduction in the numbers of sub-post offices, and indeed post offices, in this country.

During the Tories' period of office—more specifically, between March 1979 and just before the most recent general election—the number of Crown post offices declined from 1,580 to 606 and the number of sub-post offices from 21,213 to 17,731. In other words, over the 18 years of Tory Governments, there was a reduction of about 3,500 post offices. I therefore find it a bit rich that the Tories now have the audacity to suggest that they are the friends of the sub-postmasters. It was they who wanted to sell 51 per cent. of the shares in Royal Mail—in other words, to privatise Royal Mail—and no doubt it was the widespread outrage that was expressed at the time by employees and customers that caused the then Government to retreat. Frankly, they were more concerned with providing for profit than for public service.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that, in the Postal Services Bill Committee, the Opposition spokespeople still argued time after time in favour of privatisation as their preferred solution for the Post Office. Is he aware that they are still sticking to that policy? I believe that that was the last time there was a major deputation to Parliament on behalf of the postal services.

I am sure that that is the case, because in a debate in the House on 21 November 1994, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who at the time was Deputy Prime Minister, at column 353, gave us the reason for dropping the privatisation proposal: not that the then Government did not believe in it, but that there was too small a majority to get it through the House of Commons.

The hon. Gentleman may share my concern that, in the Committee considering the Postal Services Bill, the Conservative Opposition proposed an amendment to reduce the threshold for the universal requirement for packages from 20 kg to 10 kg. That would have hit hard at the universal service, which is of great importance to rural services and the whole community. It was a clear indication of a desire to privatise.

As I did not serve on the Committee, I did not know that, but it is the sort of thing that I would expect. However, having said that about the attitude of the Tories—who are, in a sense, irrelevant to the debate—I shall move on.

There are very important grounds for concern. The announcement that, gradually, more and more benefit recipients will have to enter the banking system is probably the hottest issue in my constituency and throughout Liverpool.

I should like the Government to review their policy in light of several matters. Those who have a notion that, by the year 2005, a majority of the people in my constituency will have bank accounts fail to take into account the social variations between the area that I represent and other parts of the country.

The Library of the House of Commons published an interesting research document. It shows that it is not so much rural areas that will suffer, although I have no doubt that many villages will face difficulties. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues were to examine the research paper, they would see that the 20 constituencies at the top of the vulnerability list are almost all in urban areas.

My constituency is rated the 10th most vulnerable, but what do we mean by most vulnerable? In my constituency, there are 15 post offices and, in 13 of them, more than 40 per cent. of the work is related to the payment of benefits. A substantial proportion—87 per cent.—of the post offices in my constituency depend considerably on benefit work. At the bottom of that league table are constituencies such as South-West Surrey, Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells and Kensington and Chelsea. They are richer areas and fewer people in them depend on benefits. The consequences of the switch to payments through bank accounts are likely to be dire for my constituency.

Consideration should be given to social variations, and I recommend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consult the list that I have described. No one is against post offices and the Department of Social Security making use of technological advances, but we must consider in detail how such advances will affect customers and employees.

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that people have the right to have their benefits or pensions paid in cash. That is an absolute must. We must also guarantee a nationwide post office network and ensure that we do not lose it or allow it to wither on the vine in the way the previous Government did.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the Government are sincere in their desire that there should be a proper choice between going to a bank or to a post office and between receiving benefits and pensions in cash or having them paid into a bank account. However, they have not taken into account social variations between different parts of the country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way shortly.

For example, car ownership in my constituency is far below the national average, so many people rely on public transport. I know that pensioners in Liverpool receive, as they do in London, free public transport, but many people on income support will find it extremely costly to go to a bank, because there are only three bank branches in my constituency. There are moreover six wards in my constituency; in three of them there is not a single bank branch.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) tried to get in first.

The hon. Gentleman expresses much common ground between all parties. However, does he acknowledge that no one accuses the Government of lacking good will? The problem is administrative; the Government have simply not worked out how to achieve the result that they seek. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with us and hon. Members of all parties that there should be a delay in implementing the arrangements until the new administrative system has been worked out?

I agree, to the extent that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about examining the details of the scheme more closely. However, he would doubtless privatise the Post Office. Our agreement founders at that point.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the lack of bank branches. Can he deal with the point on which the Secretary of State refused to give way to me? Why are the Government so hell-bent on implementing a costly programme to transfer pension payments to banks, which are reducing the number of branches in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, when the junior Minister wrote to hon. Members today to extol the virtues of the Horizon programme? It has been rolled out in every sub-post office, which could deal with precisely the sort of transaction that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine want handled locally.

The hon. Gentleman may have a point. However, the Postal Services Bill has not been enacted yet, and the problems that the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members face in their constituencies already exist. They do not result from changes in the way in which benefits are paid.

I am worried about the sick, the disabled and the elderly in my constituency. A post office has already closed there, although that was the result of vandalism, not the problems that will beset post offices under the current proposal.

Of course my constituents can go to a post office and draw cash under the proposals, provided that the post office exists. A move from a cash system of payment at the post office, which many of my constituents desire, means that those post offices will close down. Not only post offices, but nearby shopping areas suffer. The post offices will suffer not only through the change in the payment of benefit; their sales of newspapers and cigarettes will also suffer, and a whole range of shops in the area could be affected. Economic activity will decline and more jobs will be lost. The Government should tackle that problem.

The Post Office currently has a monopoly on services up to £1. The reduction to 50p is bound to have an effect and to endanger not only sub-post offices, but other businesses in the area.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, given that 500 post offices closed last year, and given the uncertainty of the impact of the changes on their profitability in future, many decent people who have put their life's savings and work into post offices are now witnessing the value of their businesses depreciate greatly? Those who want to sell them cannot get the money that they need for their businesses.

I am not sure whether the figure of 500 that the hon. Gentleman cited is correct. He would probably be more convincing if he were able to offer options other than privatisation, because that would cause high Post Office prices.

We must remember that industrial relations in the Post Office have been transformed in recent years. [Laughter.] I do not know that the departure of the Minister for Competitiveness had anything to do with that. I am sure that he would have contributed to the improvements that have resulted from the measures to enhance competitiveness which arose from the negotiations between John Roberts, the Post Office chief executive, and Derek Hodgson, the secretary of the Communication Workers Union.

The union members readily accepted the new measures that were introduced by the union and management combined, but I do not believe that that acceptance will continue if we move away from the payment of benefits to recipients through post offices. Indeed, industrial relations are likely to suffer.

There are 15 post offices in my constituency. I fear that if the measures are implemented, those in areas such as Muirhead avenue, east and Baycliff road—as well as the Dog and Gun post office—will not survive for long because there are high rates of high unemployment and sickness and they depend on the payment of benefits such as disability benefit.

I hope that the Government will take heed of what I have said. The Tories' contribution to this debate is irrelevant, given their ideological commitment to privatisation, which is opposed by almost every Post Office employee. I have received representations from many people in my constituency, where this is a hot issue. I have also received representations from the Communication Workers Union, postmasters, the Liverpool chamber of commerce and, of course, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which is leading the lobby today.

It is not enough to defeat the hypocrisy of Conservative Members, who have shed crocodile tears. I beseech the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to listen to the people in our heartlands, where there is real opposition to the proposals on benefit payment changes.

5.18 pm

I wish to express considerable concern that the Secretary of State's speech did not reflect the real fear of tens of thousands of sub-postmasters and mistresses about their future and that of their business. I must tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that the biggest ever red herring is the idea that the Conservatives want to privatise the post office structure. Does he not realise that sub-post offices are already privatised because they are private businesses? I have never been in favour of the privatisation of the Royal Mail. Indeed, at this moment, that is not part of the Conservative programme. We must ignore that red herring.

There is a lack of understanding on the part of Ministers of the role that sub-post offices play in the community, whether in Liverpool or in my villages, such as Dolwood and Southleigh, way out in the country. Part of the role of sub-post offices in the community is the payment of benefit.

I circulated a questionnaire to the 36 sub-post offices in my constituency. I want to tell the House about the feelings of those postmasters and postmistresses. They want a guarantee that they will be able to sustain their businesses in the future. That is not an unreasonable request from any business, whichever party one supports.

Some realistic suggestions have been made, which have not received sufficient emphasis in the debate. Local authorities have the right to give rate relief to sub-post offices. In many areas, that is not done completely. In my area, East Devon district council gives rate relief of 50 per cent. It would be much better for sub-post offices if they were given 100 per cent., as that would assist them generally.

Sub-post offices need to be able to generate greater income, and there are ways in which that could be done. The Government should arrange for sub-post offices to issue vehicle tax licences. There is a demand for that service, especially in the countryside, where people are some way away from a major post office where they can obtain a tax disc. Passport forms should also be available from sub-post offices. Why not? These small matters are not being considered in the debate, but they are realistic and would help the remuneration of sub-postmasters.

There was talk of subsidy. How much? How is it to be dealt with? Has it been agreed with the Treasury? I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will clarify the matter.

Few people know about the banking services that are already offered through post offices by Lloyds TSB, the Co-op and Alliance & Leicester. That is not advertised nationally on television, and only customers of post offices and sub-post offices would know about it. More publicity should be given to the availability of banking services.

The suggestion that cash machines should be installed in post offices overlooks the fact that the people most likely to use them are the elderly. I wonder how many elderly people who do not have a bank account or a piece of plastic understand the operation of a cash machine and would know the PIN number needed to operate it. Such matters must be considered when we speak about elderly people, particularly those whom I see in my constituency, whether in the better areas of Budleigh Salterton or out in Dolwood, Southleigh and such places.

What about the possibility of taking out of a bank machine cash other than in notes? Many pensions are not rounded to a sum that would be payable in notes alone. I do not know of bank machines that will deliver £56.50. What will happen when an account is overdrawn? Does it become overdrawn? How is anyone to know? None of that has been considered fully.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) would be at all happy if his constituents could not obtain their cash on a weekly basis. They need the money in order to run their homes, and they will not be willing to receive it on a four-weekly basis. That has not really been considered either.

The Government seem to gloss over the idea that all this will come about when ACT is operating in 2003 and 2005. I can tell Ministers that I shall not be in the House of Commons then, but I can also tell them that many small post offices will be out of business by that time. There is no point in preparing a system for a group of businesses that will not be able to sustain their operations.

Fear of what is to happen has driven down the value of sub-post offices. It is now six times more difficult for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to sell their businesses than it was four or five years ago. Until now many people, on retirement, have bought sub-post offices, run them for some years using their savings as income, and supported themselves for the rest of their lives with the income from the sale when they have handed them on. Over the past few years, a host of post offices in my constituency have had to close because no one could be found to take them on.

I appeal to the Government to start being more practical, and to come to grips—as any business man should—with the problem of how to extend the incomes of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. It is possible, with a little lateral thinking. If the Government could do that, I believe that thousands of people who are outside Parliament today would be very much happier.

5.28 pm

I am struck by the sheer effrontery of the Conservative party. You were in power for 18 years, but you did absolutely nothing for the Post Office. I marvel at the sheer arrogance of it. You have collective amnesia.

Order. When the hon. Lady uses the word "you", she is addressing me, and I have nothing to do with these matters.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

For 18 years, the Conservative party did nothing for the Post Office. I know, because I was employed in the postal industry, that the Conservatives did not take one significant step to help the industry. A Post Office review took place between 1992 and 1997, but there was no outcome. The issue of privatisation was a shambles: was the Post Office to be privatised or not? If it was to be privatised, where would that leave the Post Office Counters network? Where would it leave the small sub-post offices?

The Conservatives are engaging in sheer opportunism. I will take no lessons from them about post offices. They cared nothing for the post office network; only of late have they begun to show some concern.

Perhaps the hon. Lady could explain in all conscience why my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), when he was Secretary of State, chose the more expensive option of protecting the very network that we are debating?

The more expensive option? To protect what? Let me go through some of the points in case Conservative Members have forgotten. Do they recall that, between 1985 and 1995, the Post Office was forced to hand over £1 billion of profits to the Government and that, despite having announced in March 1995 that they would reduce the burden on the Post Office, they subsequently hugely increased it and demanded a further £1 billion from the Post Office? Do they not realise that that money could have been invested in the Post Office network? We could have had computerisation of sub-post offices years ago. We should have had it years ago. The Conservative party caused unnecessary delays and, of course, there is the privatisation shambles.

Perhaps the Tories will remember that, during their 18 years in office, about one fifth of the Post Office Counters network was closed. They seem to have forgotten all about that. I worked in the industry throughout that period and I can recall no significant Tory Government measure to prevent the widespread closures. I recall no comments from Conservative Members at that time. They now have the cheek to say that we have no strategy or policy on the Post Office. What is their policy? Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) will tell me.

Perhaps Conservative Members will tell me what their plans were for the Post Office. Were they going to privatise? During discussions on the Postal Services Bill, they said that they wanted privatisation. Today, Conservative Back Benchers have said they were not going to privatise and would not privatise if they got back into power. They seem confused about the whole issue of the Post Office.

Besides the confusion on the Opposition Benches, with Front Benchers saying that they are in favour of privatisation and Back Benchers saying that they are not in favour of it, Conservative Members say that they support the universal service obligation in the Bill at the same time as saying that they want privatisation. The two are not compatible.

They certainly are not. Privatisation would have completely wrecked the sub-post office network. We have heard that sub-post offices are private businesses. They are, but they depend on the public side of Post Office Counters. I used to do stock requisitions for sub-postmasters, and used to send money to sub-post offices and do audits. I worked for a public organisation, the Post Office, not for a private company.

Sub-postmasters face problems that need to be resolved. Last Friday evening, I held a meeting with sub-postmasters in my constituency. The fact that more sub-postmasters were at that meeting than there are Members in the Chamber says something about the strength of feeling.

Sub-postmasters are concerned because there is a period of uncertainty. I understand that. No one likes change; it is difficult, particularly if people do not know what the future holds. I accept that some sub-postmasters may be having trouble selling their businesses because the future is uncertain. At the earliest opportunity we need to give as much information as possible to those people, so that they can carry on with their businesses.

ACT is already happening. To do nothing about it would leave sub-post offices to wither on the vine. They are already losing business. We know the arguments. All hon. Members know that, every year, sub-post offices lose business and close. We have to do something about it, and we have to offer them new business.

There is no point in Conservative Members going on about the payment of benefits, because we have to find other types of business, such as banking, for sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters and postmistresses do not want subsidies or hand-outs. They want new business, and I believe that we can help them to find it. Barclays and other banks are closing many branches, creating a real role for sub-post offices to play, especially now that they are being computerised and have the technology necessary to link up with other systems.

I visited a post office in my constituency and saw its new computer system, which is very good. Although of course they are having some teething problems, the system—it is a simple one—is generally working well. However, it needs to be connected with other systems, so that the sub-postmaster can offer banking facilities.

At my meeting on Friday, most of the sub-postmasters said that they would like to have a people's bank, which would not only be a community facility, but would offer a whole new opportunity. We need to help provide that opportunity. Sub-postmasters and postmistresses should be able to offer a cash-back facility to those who pay with a Switch card. We should examine the possibility of placing more lottery terminals in sub-post offices. We also need to provide more information to sub-postmasters on precisely how automated credit transfer will work. Until we can answer those questions, and until sub-postmasters have that information, there will be fear and uncertainty.

Having talked to the sub-postmasters and postmistresses in her constituency, the hon. Lady will appreciate that income from benefits payment sometimes constitutes 60 to 70 per cent. of a post office's income. She is therefore absolutely right that postmasters need more sources of income, derived from providing different services. Does she not agree, however, that the drive to move benefits payment from post offices to banks should be deferred until those new services can be offered?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that ACT is already happening. When new pensioners are asked how they would like their pension to be paid, very many of them already opt to receive it in their bank account. We cannot re-invent the wheel. The change is already happening. The Government are grasping the nettle by saying, "This change is going to happen, so we have to find alternatives for sub-post offices."

Those alternatives will have to be found, and timing is crucial in doing so. Sub-post offices must have new business before ACT is implemented. If that new business is not in place, ACT should be delayed. However, we have three years to go before implementation. The Horizon project is already up and running in most sub-post offices. The initial difficulties with the project have been overcome, and the project is working well. We are now moving to the second stage, when we have to find new banking and other work for sub-post offices to take on. I believe that that is achievable in three years. I am sure that, at the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness will be able to tell me what progress has been made.

I welcome the Government's access criteria, which will guarantee postal services for everyone. I realise that the status quo is not an option but, as I said, it is essential to get the timing right. New business needs to be in place before ACT is implemented. I believe that we can find that new business, and that sub-post offices have a bright future.

5.39 pm

There are 120 towns and villages in my constituency. Some are very small and have never had a sub-post office and others have not been able to sustain one over the years, but a large number have one: there are 59 in all. I will not be able to give all the names as some colleagues have done, because it would simply take too long.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), I recently conducted a survey of all my sub-post offices. I asked people whether, if the situation continues as at present, they will have to close their sub-post office. In an 80 per cent. response, 60 per cent. said either that they definitely will or that they probably would. Even allowing for some exaggeration, that is a very high figure. Of that 60 per cent., 45 per cent. said that they definitely will. The danger is that all the footfall trade for the village shop is lost, so not only the sub-post office but the shop will go.

My remarks are based on that survey and on all the responses that I have had both from sub-post offices and from many of the constituents who use them. Some hon. Members have commented on the fact that sub-post offices have closed over the years. Of course they have, given the changing commercial pressures and life styles and the fact that so many alternatives are available and so many communities are too small to sustain them.

I readily acknowledge that that happened under the Conservatives, too, but the average during our years in office was 143 closures a year, and compared with that trickle we now face a flood. With the loss of the benefit payments on which sub-post offices are so dependent, many will close in the near future. That is why I share the concern of both Government and Opposition Members about the impact on the more disadvantaged, including elderly pensioners in rural areas who do not have a car. About 10 to 25 per cent. of households in villages in my constituency do not have cars.

That is why I said to the Secretary of State that the argument about pensioners having the choice of getting their pension in cash or through the bank will be an unreal one if the anticipated closures go ahead. There simply will not be a sub-post office there to dispense the cash. I share the concerns about the impact on people who are very dependent on their sub-post office. I shall not quote any of the many letters that I have received on the subject, because it would take too long.

The real problem is not the fact that there is a three-year gap until 2003, when the ACT system comes in, but people's perception that it is on the way. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made the point very effectively that sub-postmasters are already aware of the likely fall in income that they will have to face. Many of them get very little income out of the sub-post office side of their business in any case. They foresee running into loss and they want to get out now. They will make that decision now unless they are given some clear idea of where future income will come from.

The Government have not yet found a satisfactory answer to that. I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon and the hon. Member for Twickenham said about some sub-postmasters trying to sell and finding it extremely difficult, with grim consequences for their lifetime's savings and investment.

People are acutely aware that the substantial income that comes from dispensing benefit payments will disappear. It is as though they are being told to get on the plank and that they will have to jump off in three years' time, without knowing whether there will be a safety net or how far they will fall. The problem is that they cannot step off the plank and find an alternative, because they do not know what they are going to do with their businesses.

I recognise that some of the sub-post offices would have gone anyway. They are often run by elderly people who perhaps cannot cope with the new computer era and will get out either by retiring normally or because they cannot cope with the pressures. However, younger people, who are computer literate, will not take on the job, so the sub-post office will go.

I deal now with the alternative services. I entirely agree that the potential for such services exists, and it is important that they be built up. However, I am bothered by the pious claim that such services will replace altogether the income that currently stems from benefit payments. I have studied carefully the letter from the Minister for Competitiveness sent to us on 10 April and other comments that he has made about the matter. The difficulty is that none of the alternatives look really viable and no figures have been attached to them.

For example, 3,000 cash machines will be installed, which is obviously desirable for the communities that they will service. However, 18,000 sub-post offices are threatened, and I suspect that few of the 59 in my constituency will get a cash machine. It is not a real answer, and many sub-post offices would also face technical difficulties in the installation of the cash machines.

The option that pensioners will have in the future of still being able to opt for cash payments will be a problem for the reason I have already given—many of the sub-post offices will close in the meantime—and because we do not know how that option will operate. Much of the thrust of questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends has not concerned the position of pensioners, on which the Government have given a guarantee, but the income flow for sub-post offices. We are told that that will be the subject of a commercial agreement, but the situation is so uncertain that, frankly, that is not much comfort to sub-postmasters, given what they will lose. That is also unlikely to be the answer.

The provision of alternative banking services has potential as part of the solution. The sub-post offices have a network that should be able to pick up a large portion of the business that Barclays and other banks will lose through their regrettable closures. However, some real difficulties arise. Technically, it looks as though much of the necessary software will not be put in place until 2005. That is far too long for sub-postmasters, who are seriously considering their future, to wait. I have not seen any conclusive analysis of the situation, but it seems that alternative banking services will not be a credible replacement for the loss of income that the post offices envisage. I am told that the estimate is that they will replace at most half of the income from benefit payment.

Another alternative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon rightly mentioned, is the provision of other public services, such as driving licences, vehicle licences and passports. I am sure that the Minister is considering such issues and that it will be part of the unit's work. However, I suspect that that option will also face limitations and will not be enough to replace the loss of the benefit payment income. I wholly support all that is being done to look for alternative services, but they will not replace the 35 to 40 per cent. of income that the sub-postmasters know they will lose.

My final point concerns the need for the Government to give the guarantee that the sub-postmasters seek that the income they will lose in 2003 will be replaced. I should say first that I agree with my right hon. Friend that all the issues that have been raised about privatisation are a red herring and totally irrelevant to this debate. That is not only because the sub-post offices are privatised already, but because the income that will be lost comes from the public sector. It is the income that the sub-postmasters receive for delivering benefits. The question is whether private sources will supplement that income sufficiently to sustain the sub-post offices, or whether the Government should do something with public money to replace those payments.

The right hon. Gentleman says that privatisation is irrelevant and a red herring. Does he honestly believe that if Post Office Counters was privatised it would keep such a large network of post offices in rural areas? Would it subsidise small sub-post offices? The banks tell us what would happen if the Post Office were run by a private organisation. It is a public-private partnership, not a privatised business.

The hon. Lady has missed my point. We are talking about the loss to sub-post offices of payments from the public sector. They come not from post offices but from the Benefits Agency. That is why privatisation is irrelevant to the issue. The loss of business from the Benefits Agency is causing all the worry among the sub-post offices.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), in an admirable speech in Westminster Hall this morning, drew attention to the central issue. I recommend all right hon. and hon. Members who were not present to read it. My right hon. Friend was speaking from great experience as a Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Social Security Minister. He said that the solution lies in the DSS area. When he was faced with the proposition to move to automated credit transfer, he was told—I am sure this is right because I have had experience of various Departments, too—that if he carried through the entire project as it is now being proposed, the loss of £400 million would close most sub-post offices.

My right hon. Friend went for an alternative solution, and that was the swipe card. I have received letters from the sub-post offices in my constituency asking why we do not go for that solution. Those who have written these letters say, "That was the solution that would have protected us and we support it", but we are told that it has run into great technical and other difficulties. For example, there are difficulties of delay and in terms of practicalities, and therefore it is no longer practical to pursue it. I do not know whether that is the position and nor does my right hon. Friend, although he has some doubts about how hard the project was driven by the Labour Government. Also, I do not know whether there are real issues that cannot be resolved.

The right hon. Gentleman has talked much sense, but is he really proposing that the future of the Post Office lies in yesterday's technology? That is what he seems to be saying. Is he a supporter of the privatisation that his Front-Bench colleagues are urging? Is he supporting measures that will reduce by half the parcels that can be delivered within the present single cost structure? Is he supporting those on the Opposition Front Bench?

It is obvious why I think that the privatisation issue is a red herring in this debate. However, I and many of the sub-post offices that have responded to me understand the importance of keeping pace with technology. They welcome the arrival of computers under the Horizon programme, for example. The problem lies with the loss of payments that were previously coming through the benefits system.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden went for a solution that would have cost the taxpayer or the Treasury, however one likes to put it, about £200 million. I am talking in broad figures. The remainder of the £200 million under the £400 million would have been saved by moving away from the paper system to a swipe card, so there would be a cost to the taxpayer.

I now come to exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is almost inconceivable that the swipe card should be impossible to deliver? Is it not rather the case that it is seen as something of a bore, and that the management systems for delivering it turned out to be rather inadequate? Is not the answer for Ministers to try to improve the management?

There are two ways of approaching the matter. Unfortunately, because I have not been party to any of the internal discussions and negotiations, I do not know what went on. However, my hon. Friend is right—one approach would be to go back and look at the matter again. I suspect that the DSS and the DTI came up against a problem with the project itself. The Treasury realised that there was an opportunity to grab the whole £400 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden resisted that because he recognised the impact on sub-post offices. If I were in the position that my right hon. Friend was then in, I would still be driving exactly along that line. The other approach is to look to replace the sums of money that would be lost, which my right hon. Friend would have protected.

This afternoon, I took down some of the Secretary of State's words with care. He said—this is in the context of an amendment on Report next week—that financial assistance may well be offered. To take the powers to offer financial assistance but not indicate the scale of it or the way in which it will be delivered will not help any of the sub-post offices. By the end of next week, we shall be in the same position.

The Minister must find a way of firming up that announcement so that it will bring comfort to sub-postmasters, who are thinking of getting out of the business. After all, the Government are proposing that quite substantial sums of public money should go to rural areas for rural diversification over the next few years. It does not make much sense to introduce subsidy schemes to encourage new small businesses when existing small businesses are being driven out through lack of financial or other support.

We know that the Government, in the case of Rover and BMW, are proposing that substantial sums should be made available to help the west midlands deal with the loss of jobs. The loss of jobs as a result of losing rural sub-post offices will be substantial as well.

The Minister needs to firm up the Government's position. He said in Westminster Hall this morning that the previous Government backed down in the early 1980s and 1990s on ACT proposals. I well recall those moments because I was then in government. There is sometimes a tension between the technological advances that we all want to see and the preservation of essential community services in rural areas. There is a balance to be struck. In the early 1980s and 1990s, we struck the balance in finding a way to protect essential local services in rural areas. At present, the Government have not done that, and I urge them to do so.

5.56 pm

I shall keep my remarks brief, given the significant number of Members who wish to contribute to the debate which will soon come to an end.

I recognise that the problems of the sub-post office network are part and parcel of a pattern of difficulties that small businesses have had in communities both urban and rural over the past 30 years, whether they be butchers, greengrocers, ordinary grocers or small independent petrol filling stations. Many of these small businesses that operate to serve local communities have been hit by changes in shopping and retail patterns over the past 30 years.

The decline in the sub-post office network has taken place because in many areas people now shop and spend their money in a different way. That has led to a decline in small retail outlets in small communities, whether in urban or rural areas. That is part of the long-term pattern.

In the context of sub-post offices, we are facing the problem of the introduction of automated credit transfer. We know that ACT exists and that it has had an effect on sub-post offices over the past few years by eating away at their business of providing cash benefits across the counter. As the years pass and if we do nothing, more and more people will transfer to having benefits—pensions, child benefit or whatever—paid through ACT. The 40 per cent. of income that sub-post offices now receive through the operation of the benefits system will decline naturally as people transfer to ACT, irrespective of what the Government do.

The Government's problem was: "What do we do, if we leave the system as it is, to ensure that people continue to have benefits paid through the existing old-fashioned paper system. Do we try to stop people moving to ACT? Do we try to sustain the sub-post office network in that way? Do we recognise the change that is taking place and seek to build on it, and signal"—this is what the Government have done—"that during the two years from 2003–05 there will be a move across the board to ACT, while preserving the right for people to receive cash across the counter in sub-post offices? Can we use that as a trigger for discussions with sub-post offices on alternative revenue sources that can be introduced?" I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's promise of subsidies where necessary to enable the businesses to be sustained into the future.

Sub-post offices are small private businesses, often run from their homes by married couples. The fact that the business plan beyond 2003–05 is not known creates uncertainty and undermines the resale value of those businesses. The Government have encountered a dilemma in attempting to move forward. Did they wait until every nut and bolt of the new system was in place, and until every question about new revenue sources could be answered, before they made an announcement about the transfer to ACT? If so, that could have looked like a fait accompli.

Alternatively, did the Government signal that, some time in the future, most benefit payments would be transferred gradually to ACT? In the interim, some payments would continue to be paid in cash through an automated system at post offices, but the majority would be paid into bank accounts through ACT. That interim period could provide an opportunity for discussion and consultation between the post office network and Government Departments on the development of alternative sources of income. I believe that the second option is the right way to proceed.

Is not there a critical problem with that option? Given the complete lack of a plan, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the period between now and 2003 is not sufficient? Should not sufficient time be allowed to put in place a proper plan, to ensure that people know that problems will be solved in time?

I have made it clear in previous contributions in the Chamber on this matter that, as a matter of urgency, the Government must come up with the details of how the system will work after 2003. They have a responsibility to ensure that post office network representatives can work out business strategies for sub-postmasters and mistresses over the next few years.

Recently, I addressed the annual meeting of the Preston branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. About 60 or 70 people attended a lively meeting, at which it was clear that federation members were not averse to change. Change is part of small business, and many post offices have had to change over the past 20 or 30 years and develop new lines. However, problems arise out of uncertainty.

That uncertainty cannot go on indefinitely. If the nuts and bolts of the proposals cannot be put in place quickly, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consult his colleagues in the Department of Social Security and to re-examine the time scale of the transfer. I have always made it clear that I support the transfer principle, but I want to ensure that my constituents in Lancashire villages have a viable post office network through which they can get their benefits and so on.

If it takes a bit longer than 2003–05 to achieve that, then so be it—that would be a small price to pay to ensure that the network is retained. In the months ahead, we must focus not on keeping things as they are but on ensuring that a robust new model for the sub-post office network is introduced. That model must be capable of being sustained, not for three or four years but for 30 or 40.

6.4 pm

I begin by thanking Keith Nicholls, who runs the post office in Stalham, and John and Christine Page, who run the office in Cromer, for coming to lobby me today. They appreciate the seriousness of the Government's proposals, even if the Government do not. They recognise that to lose 30 per cent. of their income, and possibly more, will damage the capital value of their businesses, put new entrants off going into the business, and lead to widespread closures of sub-post offices.

Many other people have written to me over the past two months. Many do not have bank accounts. Even when they have them, many want to take cash out every week and spend it in their local villages. In addition, many of them have a real understanding of and sympathy for those who live in the countryside.

A Miss Rowe from Gimingham in my constituency wrote to me to say that, over the past 35 years, her local village school has been closed, and the local shop. The local policeman no longer lives in the village, the resident priest has gone and the forge has closed. All that is left in that village—and in many others in Norfolk and elsewhere—is the post office. The post office is a vital hub of local services, especially in rural areas.

I want to draw three key facts to the Minister's attention. First, 2 million adults in this country, most of them pensioners, do not have bank accounts. If they live in the country, the frail, the elderly and those without access to transport often cannot get to a bank. Many of those pensioners are worried that they will not be able to get their weekly cash because their local post office will no longer be there. What choice do they have?

Secondly, 19 million people receive weekly cash benefits from local post offices. If they are forced to go elsewhere, much of the business that they currently conduct in their village, or locally, will go with them. As Mrs. Browning from the small village of Langham in my constituency put it:

The weekly pension I collect gives the cash to pay the milkman, the coalman, and buy my paper and bread. If the Government's proposed changes are implemented, I will have to travel 12 miles to the nearest bank, which means I will spend less money in my local shop.

The knock-on effects on the local economy of closing a sub-post office are very significant.

In the country above all, poor transport means that local post offices are crucial for local people. Online banking and travelling long distances are not options for many, especially for old people.

My third fact goes to the heart of the debate. Most sub-post offices receive at least 30 per cent. of their income from benefit and pension payments. The footfall effect in offices that are in shops or which provide other services may increase that to more than 50 per cent.

How will that income be replaced? Nothing that we have heard today gives me confidence that the Government have thought through the implications of having to replace as much as 50 per cent. of the income of a sub-post office. We have been offered only the Secretary of State's vision for the future. There have been no concrete proposals, and those who run sub-post offices cannot exist on his vision. They need to know where the income is to come from, and how much it will be.

Many sub-post offices operate on the bread line, and are run more for love than money. People run such offices because they want to contribute in a practical way to their local community.

Two sub-post offices in my constituency have closed in the past year, at Tunstead and Saxthorpe. There is a growing suspicion that the Government are closing sub-post offices by stealth. The magazine Saga stated:

There is a time bomb currently ticking away in Britain's villages and towns.

I am not sure that the Government fully understand that post offices are hugely important local community centres, where people can meet and chat. They are a vital part of local communities. It is no good giving people the right to choose automated bank transfers or weekly cash if there is no post office left from which to receive their weekly cash payments.

The uncertainty about the future caused by the Government's proposals for automated credit transfer is undermining the confidence of sub-post offices, destroying their capital values, putting off new entrants and accelerating their closure. That will have significant knock-on effects on local communities.

This project should be put on hold until the future viability of sub-post offices can be assured.

6.10 pm

I cannot compete with the large number of sub-post offices that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) has in his constituency. Nor can I compete with the years of experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), nor with the experience of the Post Office that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) brought to this interesting debate. However, I can articulate some of the concerns of my constituents. I welcome the spirit of all-party good faith from the hon. Member for West Dorset. We must put aside recriminations and move forward together on an all-party basis to get the best for our network of sub-post offices. Many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about sub-post offices in glowing terms this afternoon and we all support them, or else we would not be here.

Talking down the network is damaging it. I know that there are concerns about a crisis of confidence among sub-postmasters, and I accept that that means that people make business decisions in that climate. However, I see a crisis of confidence among the customers of sub-post offices. When I met my own delegation of sub-postmasters today—and I shall not resist the temptation of naming them at a suitable point in my speech—Mrs. Nan Haswell, who has been communicating with me about this issue for some months, told me that she can, in her small sub-post office in the village of Dunlop, collect council rents. One of her regular customers was issued with a new rent book this week. She said to Mrs. Haswell that as the sub-post office would not be there any more, she wrote to the council saying that she would pay her rent directly through the bank. That is the effect that the crisis, which is to some degree generated by deliberate campaigns to undermine the network for political purposes, is having in some areas on the network of post offices.

Millions of people are signing petitions to keep post offices open, and tens of thousands of them are at the same time signing bank forms to carry out transactions that could easily be done through the post office. They are using banks to receive benefits or pay for services. The irony of that is not lost on me, and I hope that it is not lost on Opposition Members.

My delegation consisted of Mrs. Haswell, Mr. Mohammed, who runs an urban post office in a housing scheme in Whatriggs road in the Bellfield area of Kilmarnock, and Mrs. Dunlop who is the sub-postmistress in the small village of Fenwick. Their message was that they do not want any favours, they just want a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. That seems a reasonable request from honest working people and I, as their Member of Parliament, feel duty-bound to help them achieve it.

The complications of this issue have already been mentioned and concern the nature of the businesses. I do not propose to repeat what other people have said, but I think that there is potentially an important and bright future for these businesses in providing community services. However, I believe that that future depends on a partnership between the businesses, the Post Office—which is sometimes all too separate from those businesses—the communities, local councils, community councils, parish councils, local enterprise companies, training and enterprise councils and other local businesses. We have to work together to generate that community spirit, and the view that the resources are important to the community life not only of small villages and rural areas but solid urban communities, which are sometimes small villages within urban settings. The post office provides an important hub for some of those communities.

That cannot happen unless we do several things, including breaking up the centralised approach of the Post Office to the way in which deals are done for post offices rather than by them. Post offices in my constituency are told by Cascade telephone calls that services that they previously provided can no longer be provided because the Post Office has concluded the contract. That happened in one case with Scottish Power. No one explains to sub-postmasters that this important aspect of their business and income stream will be lost—they are told by a Cascade telephone call. They were told in my constituency last week by such a call that they have lost the right to sell BT stamps because BT has moved on to plastic.

I make a plea for the Government to engage with the Post Office to devolve power to the post offices so that the network, which is not a homogeneous lump of rural post offices or two homogeneous lumps of rural and urban post offices but a number of individual businesses, can work with the local communities, councils and local enterprise companies to generate the local partnerships that are needed to provide services.

Another example of how centralisation has worked against the post offices in my constituency is Girobank' s recent insistence on a £1 charge for a transaction relating to the collection of council tax. The council has absorbed that cost for some time but can no longer and has had to tell people who pay their council tax that way that they will have to pay an extra £1 when they go to the post office. Sensibly, those people will not do it, because some of them are paying small sums such as £4 a week towards their council tax. Again, decisions are being made centrally that affect the income stream of individual businesses. There needs to be some flexibility.

My final point relates to the opportunity of post offices to take advantage of the current negotiations with the major banks to design and produce a bank account that can be operated at low or no cost, which will prevent people with small amounts of money from going into overdraft. It is important that the deal, which can, I understand, be done within weeks is properly funded by either the banks or the Government so that it can be put in place now. In that way, it can be ready for customers in time for the ACT changes. I understand from the managing director of retail services at the Post Office that that alone could generate £200 million of the £400 million income that the network receives from benefits payments.

In short, I do not believe that this valuable network of post offices should be made to depend on the payment of benefits or pensions in future. That is an unsustainable and unviable future. However, there are many opportunities out there. We must all co-operate to generate such opportunities, but we need considerable assistance from both the Government and the Post Office.

6.19 pm

I think that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the debates this afternoon and in Westminster Hall this morning show that the Government are mishandling sub-post office policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) advised us, the Secretary of State will be getting his cards in the next day or two—some 18,000 of them—from sub-postmasters.

The Government will be extremely foolish if they go ahead with the policy as it stands. They are out of touch not just with sub-postmasters but with their own constituency, as has been made clear in the debate. Many of the Government's aspirations are common sense, and we agree with them, but they do not add up to a viable policy. It is probably correct to argue that post offices should not depend in the long term on income from delivering benefits. I am a great supporter of the idea that the commercial banking system should subcontract provision of services to sub-post offices, particularly in rural communities. Horizon offers new conduits of business for post offices in the booking of theatre tickets and travel and so forth. All those things provide good opportunities.

The problem is that adherence to the automated credit transfer timetable is likely to cause the loss of one third of our sub-post offices. There will not be enough of a network to take up the opportunities. The Government must adapt their policy to address that problem, and there are several options. They must either provide a public underwriting of subsidies sufficient to sustain the post office network, which would allow ACT to be operative by 2003, or ACT should be postponed, perhaps for seven years but certainly until new revenues from bank subcontracting and Horizon allow post offices to phase in the income reductions that will result from ACT. The Government could also re-examine the Conservative swipe programme arrangements.

It appears that, of the projected £400 million saving on ACT, £100 million is purely from technology advance. The realistic reduction in payment is around £300 million. The swipe card arrangement is a compromise that would marginally reduce income to sub-post offices from benefit administration, but would allow them enough income to remain viable.

It was inappropriate of Ministers to criticise commercial banks for closing branches when the banks have made arrangements with post offices to provide services. The Government's own timetable on ACT is certain to result in closure of one third of our sub-post offices, and they have not made any provision to guarantee support for those post offices. In other words, the Government are being less helpful to customers than the banks are. The banks have done what they feel they must do because of advanced technology, but they have considered the impact and made alternative arrangements. The Government merely say that they must do what they are doing because of the need for ACT, and they could not care less about the people who have invested their life savings in running sub-post offices or about the public at large. It is humbug to criticise the banking sector while doing what they are doing.

I hope that the Government have received the message. They will pay a big political price if they have not. The most logical choice is to delay ACT until alternative revenues have come through.

6.24 pm

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate as a supporter of a publicly owned post office network and a campaigner against the tide of financial exclusion that has engulfed many communities because of post office and bank closures. I also welcome it as a former deputy leader of Reading borough council, one of the few that installed a sub-post office in its civic offices and that was expanding postal services in its area.

Labour Members will not be impressed by the crocodile tears of some Conservative Members. Their party presided over an unprecedented decline in the post office network. Over the past 25 years, one fifth of the network closed down. We all remember, to our horror, that we had a Conservative Government for 18 of those years, and it was that Government, in 1983, who introduced ACT.

I am partly reassured by statements from Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that cash payments will be available after 2003. I welcome the announcement that a new clause will be inserted in the Postal Services Bill on Report to provide subsidy, and I welcome the £1 billion capital modernisation of the post office network. Even a luddite like me can see the value of equipping post offices with modern online information technology.

It would be nonsensical for the Post Office to continue to rely on purely paper transactions. However, it would also be nonsense to suggest that the future of the post office network should be predicated on huge benefit payments resulting from the kind of mass unemployment that happened under the Thatcher Government.

There is an urgent need to find new business to strengthen the Post Office and guarantee its future. Having been broadly supportive so far of the Government's approach, I want to sound a couple of warning notes. We have, to be honest, come to this matter rather late. Cash machines have their place, but I first came to the fight on bank closures in local communities because Lloyds TSB was installing cash machines instead of cashiers in banks in my constituency. What use are cash machines to someone who is blind or disabled? What use are they to a jobbing builder who needs more than £200 a day? Machines are welcome, but they have their limitations.

We need more than talk from Ministers, and from politicians of all hues, if we are to provide the vital new business of banking services in the post office network. Bank closures, which are engulfing many communities, present an opportunity to open up the post office network. Last Friday, Barclays shut 172 branches, leaving 84 communities without a bank, and that is the tip of the iceberg. We have seen 4,000 bank branch closures over the past 10 years. Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group anticipates a similar number of closures over the next few years—1,000 more communities will be bankless. Barclays's last-minute, face-saving deals with the Post Office are fooling no one.

We need measures to support small, district shopping centres in general because post offices face the same pressures as they do. A review of services currently available only at Crown post offices, but which could be available at sub-post offices, is also necessary, as is proper regulation of the banking industry. Access to redundant bank premises—or the capital receipts, where appropriate—would help post office modernisation and extension. A co-ordinated approach is needed by the UK banking sector, Post Office Counters and the Government to ensure that basic banking services are available the length and breadth of the land.

The Post Office is the best loved of all our public services. It belongs in the public sector. It is the fulcrum of community life. All we ask is that it should thrive and prosper in the 21st century. All that my constituents want is access to their own money. It is not too much to ask.

6.29 pm

This is the third time that I have spoken about this subject today, something that I have in common with other hon. Members present. I shall take just two or three minutes at most. I wish to make one practical point, which has become clearer and clearer during the day. It has not yet entered the official doctrine of the Minister and his colleagues.

It is now almost five years since the swipe card system was first proposed. I have no knowledge of what went wrong with the administration of that system in the later years of its implementation, but clearly something did. In those five years, there has been a technological revolution. The Minister will be as aware of it as any other hon. Member present. Among other things, the extension of asymmetric digital subscriber lines and the presence of internet technology and IT-based solutions make it almost inconceivable that there should not now be available a simple and cheap variant of the swipe card arrangement, with or without cards, which would enable sub-post offices, with or without direct connection to the Horizon project and perhaps personal computer-based instead, to deliver cheaply and effectively the benefits and pensions that the Department of Social Security wishes to deliver at about the same cost as was originally envisaged.

I suspect that the way in which the DSS has traditionally gone about business precludes an approach that would work. However, the Minister is not at the DSS but the Department of Trade and Industry. He has the chance, through the Post Office, to adopt a modern solution that uses the technological revolution. The costs of installing remote computer networks have fallen not by half or a quarter but by perhaps 90 per cent. in the past five years. Whatever it would have cost then, it must be vastly less now.

I apologise for repeating the cri de coeur, but if the Minister will just give himself a little more time, personally take charge through the Post Office and remove from the hands of the DSS the means of implementing the changes on a cheap, cost-effective basis, we can get over the problem. We can find a way through that will preserve our networks and a system that enables people who are vulnerable and not particularly sophisticated to collect their benefits over the counter in existing sub-post offices throughout our land. Everyone will then be very happy and I promise the Minister that I meant what I said this morning in Westminster Hall. I will be the first to construct a statue to his memory if he manages that.

6.32 pm

This is an important day for the future of the post office network, because hundreds, if not thousands, of people have travelled to the House to put their case. That was not stage acted: in the fine tradition of democratic lobbying, it was an endeavour with a serious point and purpose. Those people were not just representing themselves—a fact to which the three million signatures on a petition handed in this morning readily attest. I congratulate all of them and hope that they have travelled safely from far and wide.

We have initiated this debate, not for the first time, because we have been leading on this issue and we shall continue to press the Government for the answers that they refuse to give. It is high time that they listened hard and answered in detail. Perhaps the starting point for that should be the debate, which I commend to hon. Members on both sides of the House as compulsory reading, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in the Westminster Hall annexe this morning. My right hon. Friend spoke in detail and with devastating effect.

The Government's policy simply does not add up. They say that they want to protect the post office network, but they intend to rob it of its income. They then speak with certainty only of issues irrelevant to the problem that they are causing. We will not let them get away with that.

We have had a lively debate, and many hon. Members have brought their experience to bear. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), even though he spoke from the Government Benches, was spot on. He essentially said, "No income, no post offices," and explained that that would hit the poorest hardest. Many of his constituents will be very hard hit by the Government's policy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) was rightly worried about post office closures in his constituency. Indeed, there have been more than 500 up and down the country since the general election. Let me be honest about the earlier figures. In the 18 years preceding the general election, there were 2,568 post office closures. Let us put that figure on the table. It is not 3,000, as the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. I doubt whether he will come back to the House and correct the figure. I am afraid that, if he did that on each occasion, it would become too habitual a duty.

The call is for the Government to be more practical. I think the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) must be a deeply confused person. She says that post offices do not want subsidies. She is right. They want incomes. She was unable to explain to the House where those incomes would come from.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a second. The established income risks disappearing—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Lady will only listen, I have already said that I would give way. Post offices' established income risks disappearing before any new income appears on the scene.

I have made it clear where the income will come from. We need new business for the Post Office, including banking facilities. I mentioned the words "a people's bank". It is no good doing as the Conservative party would and relying on benefits work. That would leave post offices to wither on the vine. The Government are trying to do something about it.

The hon. Lady—like many of her Government's Ministers—has to realise that wishful thinking does not constitute a properly delivered public policy. Although she may have an idea that there should be a new income flow, until the Minister can describe the detailed way in which it will happen, her wishful thinking will count for nothing.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said it all. I sympathise with him in choosing not to name all his sub-post offices. I, too, have more than 100 villages in my constituency of Rutland and Melton and many of them face a dire predicament. As my right hon. Friend says, the trickle of closures is becoming a flood and the anticipation of problems in the future is causing a big problem now. The income of post offices does not stand to be replaced by credible alternatives, and we need to know that it will be.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not rehearse all the arguments put by other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I would like to get to the kernel of the debate. Let us dismiss all the irrelevances that have crept in. Of course automatic teller machines will change the pattern of some cash collection, but they are not a solution and there are problems for people who do not want to receive their money in units of £10 or who simply cannot, and who need every single penny to which they are entitled. Indeed, there is the problem of charges. The Government may put 75p on the pension, but if £1.50 disappears in ATM charges, that ain't much of a solution either.

Privatisation is also a red herring. This is not a debate about ownership. It is a debate about the income that will accrue to those institutions that are already in private hands and will determine whether they are able to survive. It is a question not of ownership but of income. Only parliamentary discipline stops me expressing quite how irrelevant I feel privatisation has become to the debate.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must press on.

Let us concentrate on the one crucial issue to which we need answers from the Minister this evening—the income that individual sub-post offices will either continue to enjoy or be denied. This is all about income. If the Minister gives us decent answers on that issue alone, we will be satisfied with his response. It is the crux of the matter. Under the policy that the Minister is gradually implementing, the vast post office network—roughly 19,000 or more post offices—may suffer a loss of income of between 40 and 60 per cent. In practical terms, the Government are replacing a guaranteed Government-sourced income, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, with an uncertain, commercially negotiated income. Not only will that income be uncertain but it will be one of which the Government intend to wash their hands.

As the Minister's letter to every hon. Member said:

The amount that subpostmasters will receive will depend on the contracts that the Post Office Groups strike with banks and on negotiations between the group and the NFSP. These are commercial matters and it would not be appropriate for the Government to become involved.

However, it would be appropriate for the Government to tell the House and—more important—all those who have risked their money and dedicated their lives to the preservation of a widespread Post Office network what that income will be. Where will it come from? How will those people be able to continue in business? In the present climate, they do not need a crystal ball to work out that they face a certain reduction in their income, with no certain plans for its replacement.

The Secretary of State refused point blank to answer questions on that detail. It is shameful that, whenever the right hon. Gentleman is asked a question, he obfuscates and diverts the argument to something that is wholly irrelevant—privatisation or the fact that people can withdraw cash, in full, without deduction. That is good—as far as it goes. However, if, when a person withdraws 100 per cent. of their entitlement, the agent or intermediary who is providing the service that delivers that money receives the square root of diddly-squat in return, there will not be a Post Office network through which to deliver 100 per cent. of benefits. The Minister smiles. He always enjoys my use of language—we had "scragging" in Committee; now we have "diddly-squat".

If the Post Office network does not have an income that is sufficient to maintain its commercial viability, there will be no network. The only issue that matters is what the income for the Post Office network will be following the implementation of the Government's policy. The Minister does not need to divert the argument; he does not need to talk about anything else.

Let me summarise the matter for the Minister's benefit, so that he will be under no illusions. We know that the Secretary of State has not had a good month. With his failure to answer our questions on this issue, things are getting even worse for him. I have a few specific questions for the Minister. What will be the income of the sub-post offices—be they in urban areas or in rural areas, such as those that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent? How will that future income compare with that which they currently enjoy? Much of their present income is derived from a Government source, of which the Minister has control. It does not derive from a commercially negotiated arrangement over which they have less control and which is bound to produce a lower amount. What will be the components of their future income? In the new Labour world, how will the Post Office network income be made up?

To follow up my question to the Secretary of State—who replied, in effect, "Don't worry, they will all have a reasonable income"—what is a reasonable income? How much lower will a sub-post office's income have to be before the Secretary of State, in all his wisdom, would consider it unreasonable? What income does the Minister think is required to sustain a Post Office network of roughly the same size as the present one? How will the new arrangements be sufficient to replace the income that he is taking away from the network?

Given the activities carried out by post offices, and the services they deliver, does the Minister agree that income is much better than subsidy? I suspect that, in order to atone for much of what the Government know will happen, they will try to slew the arrangements away from income towards subsidy—I think that will come into next Tuesday's Report stage of the Postal Services Bill. They know full well that, if that is done, subsidy will wither on the vine in due course—away the network will go. If there is no income, there will be no post office: no income—no network. We need to know what the income of sub-post offices will be in new Labour's future world, when their policy is implemented. We want detail on that point.

Tomorrow is the Secretary of State's birthday. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that 18,000 birthday wishes are winging their way towards him—even as I stand here. I hope that he will give proper answers to all those 18,000 hard-working people. In the meantime, it would indeed be appropriate if the Secretary of State got his cards.

6.45 pm

This is the second debate on this issue today; the first was in Westminster Hall this morning, when I heard several constructive contributions. During this afternoon's debate, we were asked—at least twice—to read the Hansard report of the speech made this morning by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I commended the work of the right hon. Gentleman. I also pointed out that he was a politician of ability and effectiveness—that is obviously why he no longer sits on the Opposition Front Bench.

Furthermore, I noted that the right hon. Gentleman understood the arguments on this matter because the NFSP had held two previous, well-attended rallies at the House. As a member of the Communication Workers Union, I worked shoulder to shoulder with the NFSP on the Post Office Users National Council, so I know that the federation is a very effective organisation.

Those rallies were held in the early 1980s and the early 1990s; both were about ACT—as was the rally today. As this is an Opposition day debate, and as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the history of the Conservative party on this matter, we shall make the same point this afternoon that we made throughout this morning's debate: the Conservatives introduced ACT, for the first time, in the early 1980s.

The NFSP held a rally at which its members made several demands. First, they said, "No ACT." Secondly, on the back of the Rayner report—commissioned by the then Conservative Government—they said that pensions should not be paid fortnightly. Thirdly, they said that child benefit should not be paid monthly, but should continue to be paid weekly. The rally was most effective. The Government rejected the federation's arguments on ACT and on monthly payment of child benefit and went ahead with ACT.

The next rally was held in the early 1990s—when the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden held office—over the extension of ACT. Not only did the previous Government introduce ACT—they extended it in the early 1990s to cover benefits such as those for unemployment and disability. The federation argued against extending ACT and the right hon. Gentleman advanced many arguments—recorded in Hansard—in its favour.

The right hon. Gentleman argued that ACT was an especially effective and secure form of payment. He argued:

People are increasingly accustomed to receiving payment into their bank accounts: 70 per cent. of claimants have bank accounts, and many find payment into their accounts more convenient and safer.—[Official Report, 19 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 259.]

He advanced further arguments on the benefits of ACT.

As a result of that NFSP rally—in which I took part—the right hon. Gentleman introduced the well-intentioned benefit payment card. We can forget all the Conservative hype and all their poor attempts at political point-scoring. "Why did the benefit payment card scheme collapse? Why cannot we return to it?" was a question put by the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's questions this afternoon.

We tried hard to continue that system. The most instructive information available on the matter is in a report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which pointed out that, since 1 May 1997, the Labour Government had probably tried too hard to rescue the system—to pull the fat out of the fire. However, the Committee was extremely critical of that disastrous PFI—it was a turkey of a PIF. The Trade and Industry Committee made four points, on which we are still awaiting a report by the National Audit Office to the Public Accounts Committee.

However, the essential facts are as follows. The benefit payment card collapsed. We had to rescue the computerisation of the Post Office, and we have taken that forward. As a result, 5,000 post offices are already computerised, and by spring 2001 the whole network will be online under the Horizon system.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way in a second.

It is important that we should know, in this debate, where the Opposition stand on this issue; after all, it is an Opposition day debate. They need to tell us what they would plan to do. Would they have continued with a benefit payment card project that was three years behind, vastly overspent and heading for disaster? We have been told time and again that the issue of privatisation is irrelevant to the debate.

rose—

The issue of privatisation is extremely relevant, for the following reason. Conservative Members are still committed not only to privatising the Post Office but to breaking it up. As every sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress in the country knows, anyone who proposes ripping the Post Office Counters network away from the rest of the Post Office must be two foils short of an order book, because the Post Office depends on the Royal Mail for 24 per cent. of its income. Parcels returned to mail order companies create a major part of its income. Therefore, breaking up the Post Office is an essential feature of Conservative policy.

I give way to the hon. Member—I am sorry; the right hon. Member—for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).

The hon. Gentleman is right that the National Audit Office report will appear in front of my Committee in due course, but it will be some time before it does so. Will he undertake today to place in the Library immediately all the documentation relating to the costing, which we have heard amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds, of this PFI—I imagine that he meant PFI, not PIF, when he was speaking earlier—so that the whole House can be aware of the basis of this £100 million overcost now instead of, perhaps, in nine months' time, when my Committee considers it?

I do apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, the National Audit Office has access to papers that the Trade and Industry Committee was entitled to see on a confidential basis, and that means that that report is extremely important.

The Opposition still labour under the misapprehension—this is crucial to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—that the Post Office Counters network is in the private sector. It is not. For the absence of doubt, let me explain to Opposition Members that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have sunk £1 billion of their own money in in total, as private business people, subcontracting to a publicly owned organisation, driven from the centre in terms of policy, and actually driving forward a system where there is already cross-subsidy, so that the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are not in control of the arrangements for subsidising post offices, or for cross-subsidising post offices, which is an essential element of keeping half the network open.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that twice in previous debates I have asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in turning the Post Office into a publicly owned plc, he would guarantee that the Government, if they continued in office, would never sell shares in that plc. Will the hon. Gentleman now continue that debate by guaranteeing to the House that that will never happen?

The hon. Lady knows full well that we have made it quite clear on the face of the Postal Services Bill that any move to privatise the Post Office by any future Government would need primary legislation, which would have to pass through the House.

Guarantee.

We are looking for a public sector solution. The problem with the Conservative party is that it was driven by dogma; it could not see any solution other than privatisation. It was for those reasons that the Conservatives suggested breaking up the Post Office.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way one more time.

Given the time, may I respectfully ask the Minister now to answer the questions that I asked him about the kernel of the debate—questions about the future shape of the income?

The hon. Gentleman thinks that he has struck the kernel of the debate. I consider that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and other Conservative Members did so. I think that, if anyone did, it was the hon. Member for South Devon—[HON. MEMBERS: "East Devon."] I apologise. I believe that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), and Labour Members, struck the core of the debate.

The core of the debate is the question, "How do we modernise the Post Office, equip it for the 21st century, attract new work into the business and then ensure a successful future for the post office network?" We shall not solve this problem—and the previous Government would not have solved it—by using the benefit payment card, which was a swipe card. It was an interim measure. The Post Office had said that it wanted to move on to smartcard technology. The contract was for only eight years, concluding in 2005, and there is every evidence that whichever Government were in power would be moving to ACT following that eight-year contract.

There was a problem in the early 1980s, and there was a rally in the 1990s, when sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses had to come to the House because of the problems that ACT was causing. We shall not solve this issue until we find a way forward that both ensures that there is a proper future for the Post Office in a modernised, computerised network and resolves the dilemma about how we can cause people to visit post offices to collect their benefits and pensions in an automated network.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No; I am not giving way any more.

We are not saying that ATMs are the answer to the problem that has been suggested by Conservative Members. However, we are saying that, in a network of 18,500 post offices, the fact that 3,000 ATMs are now being installed where there were fewer than 200, will be a great help to the rural economy. We are not suggesting that we move to ACT, then look to modernise the network and then look to attract new work. We say that the first step, by 2001, is to computerise the network, the second step is to attract new work and the third step is to move to ACT.

We have had a very important opportunity today to debate the real issues that face the future of sub-postmasters throughout the country. An argument was made about the income of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. One of the aspects of the Post Office's being a publicly owned service is that, every year, there is a negotiation between the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the Post Office to determine the unit payment per transaction. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton left out the part of my letter in which I pointed out that, currently, the figure negotiated with the banks was 17p. There is no reason whatever why that should change under the arrangements that we are proposing.

Furthermore, about 10,000 post offices do not depend on the transactions at all; they receive a minimum floor payment as part of a publicly owned Post Office's commitment to keeping post offices in rural areas. That does not depend on income.

The future lies in the Horizon project, and in the performance and innovation unit study. We have been criticised because the PIU has taken four months to produce a report; the previous Government were reviewing the Post Office between 1992 and 1997 and still did not come up with a response, and it cost £1.6 million of taxpayers' money.

The PIU report meets some of the points made by Members on both sides of the House, in that it will look across Government at ways in which we can utilise an under-utilised network, promote an under-promoted network and find new ways to attract people to come into the Post Office that do not depend on the constant battle against ACT, to which people are moving in increasing numbers, year by year. We can bring back network banking to rural areas. We can provide a modern Government service through local post offices. The very fact that the move to ACT is taking place in 2003–05 has galvanised the Post Office, the Government and everyone else into action, to see how we can bring new work into the Post Office. At the end of that, we guarantee that any benefit recipient or pensioner who wants to receive the payments in cash, in full across a post office counter and weekly—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded us this afternoon—will continue to be able to do so. That is the future for the Post Office network.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided Ayes 139, Noes 364

Division No. 163]	[7 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Gale, Roger
Amess, David	Garnier, Edward
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Gibb, Nick
Artuthnot, Rt Hon James	Gill, Christopher
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Baldry, Tony	Gray, James
Beggs, Roy	Green, Damian
Bercow, John	Greenway, John
Body, Sir Richard	Grieve, Dominic
Boswell, Tim	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Hague, Rt Hon William
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Brazier, Julian	Hammond, Philip
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hawkins, Nick
Browning, Mrs Angela	Heald, Oliver
Butterfill, John	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Cash, William	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Horam, John
	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hunter, Andrew
	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Collins, Tim	Jenkin, Bernard
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Johnson Smith,
Cran, James	Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Day, Stephen	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Duncan, Alan	Lansley, Andrew
Duncan Smith, Iain	Leigh, Edward
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Letwin, Oliver
Evans, Nigel	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Faber, David	Lidington, David
Fabricant, Michael	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Flight, Howard	Loughton, Tim
Forsythe, Clifford	Luff, Peter
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fraser, Christopher	McIntosh, Miss Anne

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Spicer, Sir Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Spring, Richard
McLoughlin, Patrick	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Madel, Sir David	Steen, Anthony
Malins, Humfrey	Streeter, Gary
Maples, John	Swayne, Desmond
Maude, Rt Hon Francis	Syms, Robert
May, Mrs Theresa	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Nicholls, Patrick	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Norman, Archie	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Townend, John
Page, Richard	Tredinnick, David
Paice, James	Trend, Michael
Paterson, Owen	Tyrie, Andrew
Pickles, Eric	Walter, Robert
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Waterson, Nigel
Prior Dravid	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Randall, John	Whittingdale, John Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Wilkinson, John
Robathan, Andrew	Willetts, David
Robertson, Laurence	Wilshire, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Ruffley, David	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
St Aubyn, Nick	Yeo, Tim
Sayeed, Jonathan	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Shepherd, Richard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Soames, Nicholas	Mrs. Eleanor Laing and
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Mr. Keith Simpson.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ainger, Nick	Buck, Ms Karen
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Burden. Richard
Alexander, Douglas	Burgon, Colin
Allan, Richard	Burnett, John
Allen, Graham	Burstow, Paul
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Butler, Mrs Christine
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Cable, Dr Vincent
Ashton, Joe	Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Atherton, Ms Candy	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Atkins, Charlotte	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Austin, John	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ballard, Jackie
Banks, Tony	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barnes, Harry	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Barron, Kevin	Cann, Jamie
Battle, John	Caplin, Ivor
Beard, Nigel	Casale, Roger
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Caton, Martin
Begg, Miss Anne	Cawsey, Ian
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Chaytor, David
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Chisholm, Malcolm
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Clapham, Michael
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Bennett, Andrew F	Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Berry, Roger	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Blackman, Liz	Clelland, David
Blair, Rt Hon Tony	Coaker, Vernon
Blears, Ms Hazel	Coffey, Ms Ann
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Cohen, Harry
Borrow, David	Coleman, Iain
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Colman, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben	Connarty, Michael
Brake, Tom	Cooper, Yvette
Brand, Dr Peter	Corbett, Robin
Breed, Colin	Cotter, Brian
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Cousins, Jim
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Cox, Tom
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Crausby, David
Browne, Desmond	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cummings, John	Hughes, Simon (Southwatk N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)	Humble, Mrs Joan
	Hurst, Alan
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Iddon, Dr Brian
Dalyell, Tam	Illsley, Eric
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Darvill, Keith	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampsteaa
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Jamieson, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jenkins, Brian
Davidson, Ian	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Denham, John
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Donohoe, Brian H	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Doran, Frank	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dowd, Jim	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Drew, David	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Keeble, Ms Sally
Edwards, Huw	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Kemp, Fraser
Ennis, Jeff	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Etherington, Bill	Khabra, Piara S
Fearn, Ronnie	Kidney, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Kilfoyle, Peter
Flint, Caroline	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Flynn, Paul	Kirkwood, Archy
Follett, Barbara	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Foster, Don (Bath)	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Laxton, Bob
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Lepper, David
Fyfe, Maria	Leslie, Christopher
Galloway, George	Levitt, Tom
Gapes, Mike	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Gardiner, Barry	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Gerrard, Neil	Linton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian	Livsey, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Godman, Dr Norman A	LJwyd, Elfyn
Godsiff, Roger	Lock, David
Goggins, Paul	Love, Andrew
Golding, Mrs Llin	McAllion, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	McAvoy, Thomas
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McCabe, Steve
Grocott, Bruce	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Grogan, John	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Gunnell, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McDonnell, John
Hancock, Mike	McFall, John
Hanson, David	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	McIsaac, Shona
Harris, Dr Evan	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Harvey, Nick	Mackinlay, Andrew
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Healey, John	McNamara, Kevin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	McNulty, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	MacShane, Denis
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Hepburn, Stephen	McWalter, Tony
Heppell, John	McWilliam, John
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hinchliffe, David	Mallaber, Judy
Hoey, Kate	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hood, Jimmy	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hope, Phil	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hopkins, Kelvin	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hoyle, Lindsay	Martlew, Eric
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Maxton, John

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Short, Rt Hon Clare
Meale, Alan	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Singh, Marsha
Miller, Andrew	Skinner, Dennis
Mitchell, Austin	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Moffatt, Laura	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Moore, Michael
Moran, Ms Margaret	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
	Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Snape, Peter
	Spellar, John
Mountford, Kali	Squire, Ms Rachel
Mullin, Chris	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Stevenson, George
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Stinchcombe, Paul
Norris, Dan	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
O'Hara, Eddie	Stringer, Graham
Olner, Bill	Stuart, Ms Gisela
O'Neill, Martin	Stunell, Andrew
Organ, Mrs Diana	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Osborne, Ms Sandra
Palmer, Dr Nick	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pearson, Ian	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pendry, Tom	Temple-Morris, Peter
Perham, Ms Linda	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pickthall, Colin	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pike, Peter L	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Plaskitt, James	Timms, Stephen
Pollard, Kerry	Tipping, Paddy
Pond, Chris	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Pound, Stephen	Touhig, Don
Powell, Sir Raymond	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Primarolo, Dawno	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Purchase, Ken	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Tyler, Paul
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Vis, Dr Rudi
Rapson, Syd	Wallace, James
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Walley, Ms Joan
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Wareing, Robert N
Rendel, David	Watts, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (CoV'try NW)	Webb, Steveo,
Roche, Mrs Barbara	White, Brian
Rogers, Allan	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Wicks, Malcolm
Rooney, Terry	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Rowlands, Ted	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Roy, Frank	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Ruane, Chris	Wilson, Brian
Ruddock, Joan	Winnick, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Wood, Mike
Ryan, Ms Joan	Woodward, Shaun
Salter, Martin	Woolas, Phil
Sanders, Adrian	Worthington, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad	Wray, James
Savidge, Malcolm	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Sawford, Phil	Wyatt, Derek
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Barry	Tellers for the Noes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Mr. Greg Pope and
Shipley, Ms Debra	Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question,That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided:Ayes 310, Noes 167.

Division No. 164]	[7.14pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ainger, Nick	Darvill, Keith
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Alexander, Douglas	Davidson, Ian
Allen, Graham	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ashton, Joe	Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Atherton, Ms Candy
Atkins, Charlotte	Dean, Mrs Janet
Austin, John	Denham, John
Banks, Tony	Dobbin, Jim
Barnes, Harry	Donohoe, Brian H
Battle, John	Doran, Frank
Beard, Nigel	Dowd, Jim
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Drew, David
Begg, Miss Anne	Edwards, Huw
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Ennis, Jeff
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Etherington, Bill
Bennett, Andrew F	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Benton, Joe	Flint, Caroline
Bermingham, Gerald	Flynn, Paul
Berry, Roger	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Blackman, Liz	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Fyfe, Maria
Borrow, David	Galloway, George
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Gapes, Mike
Bradshaw, Ben	Gardiner, Barry
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Gerrard, Neil
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Gibson, Dr Ian
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Browne, Desmond	Godman, Dr Norman A
Buck, Ms Karen	Godsiff, Roger
Burden, Richard	Goggins, Paul
Burgon, Colin	Golding, Mrs Llin
Butler, Mrs Christine	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Grogan, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gunnell, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Cann, Jamie	Hanson, David
Caplin, Ivor	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Casale, Roger	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Caton, Martin	Healey, John
Cawsey, Ian	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Chapman, Ben (WirralS)	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clapham, Michael	Hepburn, Stephen
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Heppell, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
	Hinchliffe, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hood, Jimmy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hope, Phil
Clelland, David	Hopkins, Kelvin
Coaker, Vernon	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cohen, Harry	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Coleman, Iain	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Colman, Tony	Humble, Mrs Joan
Connarty, Michael	Hurst, Alan
Cooper, Yvette	Iddon, Dr Brian
Corbett, Robin	Illsley, Eric
Cousins, Jim	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cox, Tom	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Crausby, David	Jamieson, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Jenkins, Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cummings, John	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Norris, Dan
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Olner, Bill
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jowell, Fit Hon Ms Tessa	Palmer, Dr Nick
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pearson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pendry, Tom
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Perham, Ms Linda
Kemp, Fraser	Pickthall, Colin
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pike, Peter L
Khabra, Piara S	Plaskitt, James
Kidney, David	Pollard, Kerry
Kilfoyle, Peter	Pond, Chris
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Pound, Stephen
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Powell, Sir Raymond
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Laxton, Bob	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Lepper, David	Primarolo, Dawn
Leslie, Christopher	Purchase, Ken
Levitt, Tom	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Rapson, Syd
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Linton, Martin	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Lock, David	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Love, Andrew	Rogers, Allan
McAllion, John	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas	Rooney, Terry
McCabe, Steve	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rowlands, Ted
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)	Roy, Frank
	Ruane, Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain	Ruddock, Joan
McDonnell, John	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McFall, John	Ryan, Ms Joan
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Salter, Martin
McIsaac, Shona	Sarwar, Mohammad
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Savidge, Malcolm
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sawford, Phil
McNamara, Kevin	Shaw, Jonathan
McNulty, Tony	Sheerman, Barry
MacShane, Denis	Shipley, Ms Debra
Mactaggart, Fiona	Short, Rt Hon Clare
McWalter, Tony	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McWilliam, John	Singh, Marsha
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Skinner, Dennis
Mallaber, Judy	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Martlew, Eric	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Maxton, John	Snape, Peter
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Spellar, John
Meale, Alan	Squire, Ms Rachel
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Miller, Andrew	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mitchell, Austin	Stinchcombe, Paul
Moffatt, Laura	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Moran, Ms Margaret	Stringer, Graham
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Taylor, David (NWLeks)
	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mountford, Kali	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mullin, Chris	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Timms, Stephen
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Tipping, Paddy

Touhig, Don	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)	Winnick, David
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)	Wood, Mike
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Woodward, Shaun
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Woolas, Phil
Vis, Dr Rudi	Worthington, Tony
Walley, Ms Joan	Wray, James
Wareing, Robert N	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Watts, David	Wyatt, Derek
White, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan	Tellers for the Ayes:
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)	Mr. Clive Betts and
	Mr. Greg Pope.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Garnier, Edward
Allan, Richard	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Amess, David	Gibb, Nick
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Gill, Christopher
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Gray, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Green, Damian
Baldry, Tony	Greenway, John
Ballard, Jackie	Grieve, Dominic
Beggs, Roy	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Hammond, Philip
Bercow, John	Hancock, Mike
Body, Sir Richard	Harris, Dr Evan
Boswell, Tim	Harvey, Nick
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Hawkins, Nick
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Heald, Oliver
Brake, Tom	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Brand, Dr Peter	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Brazier, Julian	Horam, John
Breed, Colin	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Burnett, John	Hunter, Andrew
Burstow, Paul	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cable, Dr Vincent	Jenkin, Bernard
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Johnson Smith,
	Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cash, William	Key, Robert
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Clappison, James	Kirkwood, Archy
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
	Lansley, Andrew
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Leigh, Edward
Collins, Tim	Letwin, Oliver
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Cotter, Brian	Lidington, David
Cran, James	Livsey, Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Loughton, Tim
Day, Stephen	Luff, Peter
Duncan, Alan	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Duncan Smith, Iain	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Evans, Nigel	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Fabricant, Michael	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Fallon, Michael	Madennan, Rt Hon Robert
Fearn, Ronnie	McLoughlin, Patrick
Flight, Howard	Malins, Humfrey
Forsythe, Clifford	Maples, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Foster, Don (Bath)	May, Mrs Theresa
Fox, Dr Liam	Moore, Michael
Fraser, Christopher	Moss, Malcolm
Gale, Roger	Nicholls, Patrick

Norman, Archie	Tapsell, Sir Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Taylor, Ian (Esher S Walton)
Page, Richard	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Paice, James	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Paterson, Owen	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pickles, Eric	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Prior, David	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Randall, John	Townend, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Tredinnick, David
Rendel, David	Trend, Michael
Robertson, Laurence	Tyler, Paul
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tyrie, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Wallace, James
St Aubyn, Nick	Walter, Robert
Sanders, Adrian	Waterson, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan	Webb, Steve
Shepherd, Richard	Whittingdale, John
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)	Whitney, Sir Raymond
	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Soames, Nicholas	Wilkinson, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Willetts, David
Spicer, Sir Michael	Wilshire, David
Spring, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Steen, Anthony	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Streeter, Gary
Stunell, Andrew	Tellers for the Noes:
Swayne, Desmond	Mrs. Eleanor Laing and
Syms, Robert	Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the fact that the Government is committed to a national post office network and is taking steps to secure this; welcomes the Government's moves to plan the introduction of automated credit transfer; welcomes the Postal Services Bill which will enable the Post Office to modernise, so building up new business for the network; welcomes the investment of £500 million to ensure the network is computerised, so enabling a successful and modern network to emerge; welcomes the Government's introduction for the first time of criteria for access to Post Office services; welcomes the commitment to give benefit recipients the choice of having benefits paid in cash via a post office even after the switch to automated credit transfer is complete in 2005; and applauds the work of the sub-postmasters and postmistresses and condemns those who make their lives harder by talking down the network.

Asylum Seekers

We now come to the next motion, and I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7.26 pm

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the United Kingdom should continue to offer a safe haven to genuine refugees in fear of persecution; is concerned that the right to claim asylum in the United Kingdom is at present subject to widespread abuse; believes that the large proportion of unfounded asylum claims harms the interests of genuine refugees who are fleeing from persecution; notes that in 1999 there were over 71,000 claims for asylum in the United Kingdom, compared with fewer than 30,000 in 1996; further notes that the backlog of unprocessed applications stands at over 103,000, double the levels of 1997; further notes that the vast majority of asylum applicants are refused and are neither granted asylum nor exceptional leave to remain; further notes that fewer than 8,000 failed asylum seekers leave the United Kingdom annually as a result of Government action; deplores the 'soft touch' message sent out by the Government and condemns the Government for its failure to address the root causes of the present crisis; supports the abolition of cash benefits for asylum seekers but deplores the Government's incoherent and ineffective attempts to implement new arrangements for their support and the continued burden on local authorities; and calls on the Government to implement common sense solutions, including the increased use of detention and more removals of failed asylum seekers, to discourage bogus applications and address the current crisis, which is causing great concern to the people of the United Kingdom.

I preface my remarks by briefly expressing the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She had been looking forward with relish to the debate, but a throat infection has silenced her in a way that Labour Members have failed to do over the past three years—and will continue to fail to do.

In the three years since the Government took office, the number of people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom has more than doubled, from 26,640 in 1996—the last full year of the Conservative Administration—to 71,160 in 1999. That means that last year the number of asylum claimants in Britain was roughly equivalent to the electorate in an average parliamentary constituency. The backlog of cases awaiting a decision from the Home Office has almost doubled, from 57,405 in 1996 to 102,870 at the end of 1999. I therefore make no apology whatever for the Opposition's decision once again to choose this subject for debate.

The truth is that the crisis over asylum policy is now arousing anger and resentment among our constituents and, if Labour Members are honest, among their constituents as well. People are angry about the transparent abuse of this country's long tradition of giving asylum to genuine refugees, and they are indignant that our asylum system is overwhelmed by bogus applications from people who are intent on evading our immigration controls.

What would the hon. Gentleman say to my constituent who came to my advice surgery on Monday with his wife and daughter and told me that he had made an application in 1993, under the Conservative Government, and his wife had made an application in 1994, also under the Conservative Government, and neither of their cases had yet been resolved? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the policies introduced by his Government were responsible for at least some of that delay of six or seven years?

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my introductory remarks, he would have heard me say that under the three years' stewardship of asylum policy by the Government whom he supports, the queue and the number of applications have doubled. Despite all his lectures to me across the Chamber, he cannot escape from the fundamental truth that while his Ministers have had stewardship of this area of policy, the problem that he described has been getting much worse.

The anger and resentment of our constituents do not, I believe, spring at all from feelings of racism or xenophobia among the people whom we represent. Most people in this country are willing to welcome men and women who are genuinely fleeing for their lives. They are willing to give such refugees the rights to education, health treatment and family reunion granted by the 1951 convention—rights which in practice pretty well match those given by this country to its own citizens.

Most of our countrymen and women well understand the positive contribution that various groups of refugees have made to British life and British culture over the centuries. I cite the Ugandan Asians who fled Idi Amin in the early 1970s as perhaps the most recent example of such a group.

There is also widespread public understanding that the great majority of applications for asylum are indeed bogus, and that the negligence and chaotic mismanagement by the current crop of Home Office Ministers have brought about a state of affairs that is unfair to genuine refugees. The very people whom we have both a moral and a legal duty to assist, and whose cases should be determined quickly so that they can be accorded the rights to which they are entitled under international law, are instead left to shuffle along in a queue with almost 103,000 other case.

rose—

I give way first to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the average processing time is now down to 13 months? It was last down to 13 months in 1990. At no point during the 1990s was the processing time down to its present level. At the time of the last election, for applicants who had come in before 1993, the waiting time was 65 months. That is entirely down to the appalling mismanagement under his party in government.

I am always delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of staff in the Home Office, whose efforts begin to make progress at times, despite the handicap of having to cope with the mismanagement of the Ministers to whom they report. I must tell the hon. Lady that at the current rate of decision taking, it will still take roughly five years before the Home Office can eliminate the backlog which the Ministers whom she supports have allowed to develop.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I join him in paying tribute to the staff of the immigration and nationality department. If he is so fond of their work, why did the previous Government offer redundancy to several hundred of them, an act which caused the disruption in the service?

The hon. Lady will refresh her memory after the debate. She will discover once again the fact that at the time the Labour Government took office, both the backlog of applicants and the number of applicants were falling dramatically, as consequence of the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Conservative Government were getting on top of the asylum problem. The current Government got in and the problems began to get worse.

If the Conservative Government were getting on top of the problems, why was the delay 20 months at the time of the general election, whereas it is now down to 13 months?

The Home Secretary can take no pride in a backlog that has risen from 50,000 cases to 103,000 cases during his stewardship of the Home Office.

The hon. Gentleman must answer the question. If the position was so good in 1997, why was the time that it took to deal with the backlog 50 per cent. longer than the corresponding time now—20 months then compared with 13 months now?

The number of people waiting has doubled. If we examine the number of decisions taken during the past year, we find that until the last couple of months, the number of decisions was desperately low, at a time when the number of applications was rocketing. As regards decision taking, the Home Secretary was failing even to keep pace with the number of applications coming in.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Everyone in the House knows that issues to do with race, immigration and asylum excite real fears. Is it responsible to pretend that the challenge that we perceive from thousands of asylum seekers coming in has everything to do with the failings of the present Government, and nothing to do with the civil war that has been raging across the Balkans over the past three years?

I intend to deal with that point slightly later in my speech. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will respond to her point when I come to that passage.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and then I will make some progress.

I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman repeated again a moment ago the argument that the vast majority—those were his words—of those who came were bogus asylum seekers. How then does he explain the fact that of the decisions made last year, according to the official figures, 36 per cent. were recognised as refugees and granted asylum, and 11 per cent. were granted exceptional leave to remain, so that even before appeals were turned down, 47 per cent. were accepted?

How does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that the cost per household suggested in the Tory local election manifesto is £160, whereas the accurate answer is £24? Is that not just exaggeration to pander to prejudice, as Tories regularly do?

I shall try to be generous to the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal first with his point about the figures for last year. If he looks more closely at the statistics for 1999 published by the Home Office monthly, he will see that between April and July 1999, when the Kosovo crisis was at its height, and before the United Nations suspended its evacuation programme in July and it became safe for people to begin to return home, there was indeed a very large influx to Britain and other western European countries of people from Kosovo who were fleeing ethnic cleansing there. That accounts for the statistic that he gave for the year.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the subsequent months of 1999, he will find that the pattern that I described, where the overwhelming majority of applications for asylum in this country were found to be without foundation, was resumed. In fact, for the last month for which the Home Office has published figures, the refusal rate was back up to 90 per cent. of the total.

I am trying to be fair to the hon. Gentleman. There was a particular reason in three or four months in 1999 why a greater than usual number of applicants were accepted as genuine, but there has now been a reversion to the pattern that has been maintained over many years.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's other point. I am quite happy to give him detailed accounts of the costs to local taxpayers of support for asylum seekers, but it comes pretty rich from the Liberal Democrats to start denouncing members of other political parties for exploiting the race issue. It is only few years hence, as I recall, that leaflets were distributed by the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats which were deliberately designed to exploit that issue. We read in this morning's newspapers that in Islington they have been up to their old tricks again.

With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should go and preach his sermons to his own party members before he comes and preaches them to us.

The present state of affairs is unfair to genuine refugees, and it is unfair to British taxpayers and British local authorities. They are bearing the costs of supporting claimants and their families. I am not talking just about Kent or the London boroughs, although they have borne the brunt; complaints have been received from Liverpool and Glasgow city councils, and Northamptonshire county council has unearthed £425,000 of alleged fraud on the part of people involved in housing asylum seekers under the dispersal scheme.

When confronted with what is going on and with public anger, the Government have two main excuses, both of which we have heard from Labour Members today. The first consists of blaming their predecessors. We expect that from the Government, because it is the most convenient substitute for a good argument and sound evidence, but after three years it has begun to wear thin. Let us look at the Government's own targets. Let us consult, for example, their 1998 White Paper entitled, somewhat humorously, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer". If we turn not to the headline but to the annexe—the bit that we are not meant to read in any detail—we find their targets for future years.

Let us look at the Government's published target for asylum decisions during 1999–2000: it is 59,000. When we look at the number of decisions that have actually been made, add up the monthly decision totals from the Home Office's bulletin, and add to that the total of 9,000 which the Home Secretary gave us in answer to oral questions on Monday, we find that the Government are going to undershoot their published target by some 9,000 or 10,000. That is not successful or responsible stewardship of asylum policy.

Let us now look at the published target for asylum seeker support. The target for expenditure in 1999–2000 is £350 million. What was the outcome? Well, asylum seeker support has gradually become more expensive as the financial year has progressed. In a written answer on 2 November last year, the Minister of State predicted that the £350 million figure would rise to between £450 million and £490 million; but today, in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald the Government published a figure revised upwards yet again, to no less than £597 million. When we add that projected figure for the current year to the expenditure that the Government have undertaken since coming to office, we find that, in the three years of their stewardship, no less than £1.5 billion of public money has had to be spent on asylum seeker support.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me again.

If the House had been ill advised enough to accept the amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 that was backed by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), it would have cost £500 million a year to restore income support, in addition to what we are spending already. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?

I say that the hon. Lady should look at the record again. She will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said repeatedly that we were prepared to support a voucher scheme in principle, but that we lacked confidence in the Government's capacity to deliver a scheme that was capable of working effectively in the way the Government had promised. [Interruption.] We tabled our amendment when the Asylum and Immigration Bill came before the House. The Government did what they usually do when confronted with an uncomfortable debate: they introduced a timetable motion. As a result, not only our amendment on asylum seeker support, but 365 of 367 amendments that had been passed in the other place were not debated. [Interruption.]

Order. I think we have had enough sedentary interventions from both Back Benchers and Front Benchers.

As I was saying, 365 of 367 amendments tabled in the other place—mostly Government amendments, such was the chaotic nature of the drafting—were not debated at all by the House of Commons.

The Government's second excuse—here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—is that this is not their fault, because international crises have taken events beyond Ministers' control. Of course no Conservative Member would be silly enough to blame the British Government for the crisis in Kosovo, the actions of President Milosevic or the chaos in Somalia—although I find it interesting that, when an international crisis reaches a form of resolution, the Prime Minister usually tries to find some way of claiming credit for that success.

The question that I must throw back to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is this: how did countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, which were exposed to exactly the same international pressures as the United Kingdom, manage to reduce the number of applications during 1999, while—according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees—applications to the United Kingdom during that year rose by no less than 53 per cent.? Why has the United Kingdom now overtaken Germany as the country that receives more applications every month than any other nation in Europe?

Is this not one of the reasons? In our newspapers we see photographs of camps near Calais, for instance, housing hundreds of economic migrants who are waiting to get into the United Kingdom. How can it be possible, under the United Nations convention, for a country such as France to allow that to happen? Surely, under the convention, people should claim asylum in the first country that they reach. How can the spread of such camps be justified—camps for economic migrants seeking to come to the United Kingdom simply because they think that our benefit regime is more generous?

My hon. Friend makes his point well. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us an account of the representations that he has no doubt made to his French counterparts, and of the pressure that he has put on them to deal with those camps.

Many local authorities in London and elsewhere in the south-east are bearing tremendous burdens, despite the Home Secretary's recent and welcome move to extend the new support arrangements to Kent. Notwithstanding categorical assurances that the Government would be ready to introduce new voucher and dispersal arrangements from 1 April, the scheme seems to be hitting exactly the kind of trouble that Opposition Members predicted when the Asylum and Immigration Bill was before Parliament.

Last year, the Home Secretary told the House:

New support arrangements have always been due to come into force in April 2000.—[Official Report, 9 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 982.]

On 2 February this year, he said:

The full scheme will come into force from April 2000.…Dispersal will be on a no-choice basis as regards location.—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1065.]

There was no mention of phased implementation, and no hint that local authorities would still be obliged to support in-country applicants, who make up about 60 per cent. of the total. As I have said, we are prepared to give the Government support on a voucher and dispersal scheme, but nothing in the Government's record to date gives us any confidence that they are capable of making such a scheme work effectively.

May I put a couple of particular points to the Home Secretary? I hope that either he or the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), will be able to respond to them later in the debate. First, are Ministers prepared yet to use the powers that they have under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to designate reception zones in particular parts of the country and to take central control of the dispersal programme, which appears at the moment to be incoherent and ineffective and which has aroused considerable mistrust among local authorities—by no means just Conservative local authorities—in many different areas?

Before he leaves that point, does my hon. Friend recognise that the people of Kent feel very let down by the Government, who have failed to meet their financial commitment to Kent county council in the past financial year by £1.7 million, and who have failed and are failing to implement their programme of dispersal? Is the figure of 20,000 economic migrants whom the Government have failed to deport following decisions that they should not remain in this country remotely satisfactory?

The Government's record in defending the interests of the people of Kent and in upholding a reputable system for handling asylum cases has been deplorable throughout their three years in office.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. Secondly, a report from Sir Geoffrey Bowman to the Lord Chancellor was published in summary on the internet just this afternoon. It makes a number of disturbing claims about the likely future trend of judicial review applications in asylum cases. It is a serious review team. It is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Bowman and includes Lord Justice Simon Brown, Ms Anne Owers, director of Justice, and senior legal academics.

The summary of the conclusions of the report reads:

The new asylum support provisions, and the limitations of the appellate system set up to deal with them, are likely to increase substantially the number of applications for judicial review.

If that prediction is accurate, it will be a very worrying trend.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I hope that the Government will take urgent action to set that right. If the Press Association report of the review is accurate, the judge warns of an extra work load, which is likely to be somewhere between "substantial and a flood," and calls for urgent action to clear up the backlog before the autumn. If he is correct in his predictions, the time available to the Government to take corrective action is very limited.

I turn to the measures that we have proposed and which we urge the Government to accept. First, we need an increased use of detention. It is not some draconian or inhumane policy, but a system that is widely used by other European countries whose asylum problems are comparable with our own. Such a system, making greater use of reception centres, would deter bogus applicants and ensure that, when an application has been refused, the authorities know where the person is and can ensure his removal quickly from this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

Secondly, we urge the Government to establish a removals agency with power to arrest and to detain people—

rose—

Order. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House will not give way. That being so, Members should resume their seats.

We wish the Government to establish a removals agency with power to arrest and detain people who have no right to remain here. We must ensure that many more asylum seekers whose claim is rejected actually leave the United Kingdom. The Home Office admits that at least 20,000 failed asylum seekers have simply disappeared. Other estimates put that figure much higher. Allowing thousands of failed applicants to disappear sends out entirely the wrong message, as does taking no action against those who employ them illegally.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

In opposition, the Labour party denounced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 as racist.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. Labour said then that it would not implement our checks against illegal working because they, too, were racist. Two years on, they had an apparent change of heart. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), announced to the House:

Illegal working is a growing global problem.

He went on to condemn what he called the "sweatshop economy", and exploitative employers and racketeers. He spoke of considerable abuse. Any conversion is always welcome, but I fear that the tough words were not matched by determined action.

The Minister advocated a much stronger and tougher message, but he had to confess at that time that there had been

only one prosecution, which was very recent… The reason that we have not prosecuted more is that we were considering the issue carefully.—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 490-91.]

The Government considered; the Government thought: the Government reflected. What has happened?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been only one prosecution under the present Government, but will he confirm that, under the last Conservative Government, there were no prosecutions at all?

I must point out that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force for a couple of months before we lost office at the general election. The Minister and her colleagues have had three years to get their act together and to use those powers. She gave the game away, however. She told me in a written answer—she will probably recall it:

One prosecution has been brought thus far, in 1999.—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 676W.]

There we have it: one prosecution by June 1999; no more prosecutions by March 2000, nine months later—nine months after the Home Secretary and his Ministers had changed their mind about the powers in the 1996 Act because of what they believed to be systematic abuse and exploitation. So much for their commitment. So much for action. As on so many occasions, we see a Government who are all mouth and no delivery.

Does my hon. Friend find it absolutely unbelievable that the Minister of State should, of all people, complain about that? When she was the shadow Opposition spokesman for the Labour party, she wrote to The Daily Telegraph and said that a Labour Government would under no circumstances operate those provisions.

My hon. Friend may have given the House the explanation of why, despite all the slogans from Ministers, the powers are not in practice being used, but it is not the only occasion when the Minister of State has eaten her words. If she looks back at the record of the debates in 1992 on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, she will see that, on Second Reading, she denounced in the most vehement terms any provision for taking fingerprints from asylum seekers; yet she now not only has charge of the compulsory taking of fingerprints from asylum seekers, but is trying to pilot through a pan-European fingerprinting system and fingerprinting database for asylum seekers. She will have the opportunity later to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that she will be able to give the House a full and apologetic account of the contradiction between her words then and her words now.

This country has for centuries been a haven from persecution for refugees, and that is a tradition that and I and the Conservative party believe that we in Britain must continue to uphold. However, that tradition of hospitality is undermined by large-scale, systematic abuse of our asylum law. The Government—by their negligence, complacency and incompetence—have undermined public confidence in the law and betrayed the interests not only of the British people, but of the genuine refugees whom our law and international law have been developed to protect. The Government's record is dismal. I commend the motion to the House.

8 pm

I beg to move, To leave out from `House' to end and add

`approves the Government's comprehensive, integrated strategy to modernise the immigration and asylum system to make it fairer, faster and firmer; welcomes the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which will overhaul the inadequate legislative framework created by the previous Government and will replace the chaotic asylum support arrangements introduced in 1996 which have imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities; is astonished that the Official Opposition voted in the other place to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers at a cost of £500 million per year; approves the measures being taken to tackle the smugglers and traffickers who profit from illegal immigration; approves the new civil penalty for drivers and others who bring illegal immigrants to this country concealed in their vehicles; welcomes the substantial additional investment that the Government is making to increase the volume and speed of asylum decisions; congratulates the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on achieving record numbers of asylum decisions; and supports the Government's commitment to protecting genuine refugees while dealing firmly with those who seek to evade the control.'.

I express genuine sympathy with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and genuine sorrow that, because of her infection, she has not been able to take part in this debate.

As the House will know, few issues excite more controversy, or pose more acute dilemmas of principle and practice, than asylum. By the end of 1997, it was plain that the basic structures established by the previous Administration were unlikely to withstand the test of time. Therefore, in a White Paper in July 1998 I proposed a clear strategy for reform. That strategy was translated into law in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is the largest and most comprehensive reform of the system ever introduced in the United Kingdom.

Those reforms will ensure that this country honours our moral and international obligations to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. However, they will also ensure that we deal firmly with those who seek to use asylum as a means of evading normal immigration control. Our strategy is aimed at preventing and deterring unfounded applicants from entering the United Kingdom; speeding up the process once people are here; and dealing fairly and effectively with those who are accepted as refugees and those who are not.

First, let me deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). In all his criticisms of the system—the unacceptable delays, the burden on local authorities, the increased numbers of unfounded applications, the lack of powers to track down organised criminals and racketeers—there is one common theme. As we all appreciate, Conservative Members do not like us to remind them of that common theme—which is that all those problems are the direct result of a legal and administrative framework established and implemented by the previous, Conservative Government.

Every single aspect of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996—including the so-called "white list", which the hon. Member for Aylesbury did not mention once—has been operated by the current Government in advance of the radical changes that we are introducing in our 1999 Act.

Who was responsible for the 1996 Act, which created the system that the Opposition—in what I consider to be wholly ill-judged and inappropriate language—claim has made Britain "a soft touch"?

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Of course I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was none other than he who was responsible for that Act. I am very happy to give way to him.

The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the 1996 Act was working extremely effectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The figures show that, in 1996, the number of applicants fell by 40 per cent. and that the backlog fell by 12,000. That is what happened under that legislation—until the courts intervened, effectively to subvert the legislation's effect. Why did not the Home Secretary legislate immediately after the general election to give that legislation its true and original meaning, rather than wasting three years in which the problem has spiralled out of all control?

I shall deal with each of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points in turn. I am grateful for his notice of those points, which he gave in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. As I shall show, however, his Act failed.

Back in November 1995, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the prescience to anticipate the Act's failure. Indeed, he wrote a long article in the Daily Mail, which said in the headline: "The Home Secretary"—the right hon. and learned Gentleman—"warns that if his Bill fails, the number of asylum seekers will double in five years". His Bill did fail. That fact, more than any other, is why the number of asylum seekers has increased.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I am delighted to give way.

The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the point I was making in that article was that, if that legislation did not get through Parliament—it was under the most ferocious attack from none other than the Home Secretary himself—the consequence to which I referred in that article would happen. The Home Secretary had it within his power to give that legislation its original effect. Why did he not do that, instead of wasting three years?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.

rose—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Allow me first to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I shall be very happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what happened after the passage of the 1996 Act? I should be very happy to place in the Library the figures on what happened after introduction of his Act. At first, the numbers did decrease. They decreased also—to 22,370 in 1993—after implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which was supposed to solve the problem. However, after two years, the numbers had doubled. In 1995, to justify his proposals, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the House to speak of the relentless rise in numbers that had occurred under the 1993 Act—which had been introduced only two years before by the previous Government.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the numbers had decreased by 40 per cent. The numbers did decrease, but—I am delighted to place the figures on the Table and to give him a copy of them—they were increasing before he left office. Moreover, they would have continued to increase.

The whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim is based on false statistics, showing that the numbers were decreasing, when they were not. The numbers decreased briefly, as they had in 1993, but then they increased. He is now erecting—neither he nor Conservative Front Benchers have ever done it before, at least within my hearing—a whole fabric around the idea that, if only we had appealed the Court of Appeal's decision affecting local authorities, everything else would have worked.

One of the major failings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arrangements in the 1996 Act—he cannot complain that he was not warned about it; he was warned not only by Labour Members, but by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—was that social security cash benefits were to be continued for those who applied at the port of entry. That would ensure that they would continue to act as a major incentive for people to come into this country, whereas those who applied in-country, however genuine their application, were simply to be left destitute. That was the point. That was the policy. Those people were to get nothing.

Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman willed that end, he had neither the wit nor the guts to will the means to achieve it. In not one word or line of the 1996 Act did he seek to do what he knew, and was warned, that he would have to do: to amend the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Acts, so that local authorities had no responsibility to support those who had been left destitute.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I shall give way in a moment.

What then happened is that some applicants—at least a third of whom were genuine—were left destitute. If civilisation means anything, it means that we do not leave people destitute—unable to eat, with no accommodation whatever—regardless of the foundedness or unfoundedness of their claim. That was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy.

What happened next? Applicants—in the case of R v. Westminster city council and others ex parte M, P, A and X—appealed. The court at first instance, Mr. Justice Collins, said that Parliament had never, ever changed either the National Assistance Act or the Children Acts, and that, therefore, those duties plainly continued. That was followed by an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which said exactly the same thing.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman now asks why we did not appeal. As a matter of fact, the Department of Health, which took the lead on this, and local authorities—Hammersmith and Fulham, which is a Labour authority, and the City of Westminster, which is a Conservative authority—did appeal. They dropped their appeal only with the prospect of the new national asylum support system. It may have been three years later, but the consequence of rushing through legislation then, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman now suggests we should have done, would have been that 14,000 people who were receiving support from local authorities would have been literally—I am not exaggerating—thrown on to the street and left destitute without food, housing or warmth. So horrible was that prospect that, in my recollection, not once during the passage of what became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, did any Conservative Member move amendments to that effect, although they had every opportunity to do so. I do not recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself proposing that until now.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I shall give way in a moment, as I always do, but first let me deal with the canard about the numbers rising.

The second factor connected to the rise in numbers is Dublin—not the city but the Dublin convention on sharing responsibility for asylum seekers across the EU. I was made sublimely aware of that convention when I took office in May 1997. It turned out that it had been signed seven years earlier by Mr. David Waddington, the then Home Secretary. It was extremely convenient to the previous Administration that it did not come into force until October 1997. However, it is law and it is binding on us.

Before the Dublin convention came into force, effective gentlemen's agreements with France and Belgium enabled us to return within days applicants who could and should have applied in those countries. We are constantly asked why we cannot send back people who are the responsibility of another EU country. I wish that we could, but the Conservative Government stopped us doing that when they scrapped the gentlemen's agreements and instead imposed the Dublin convention, which has led to huge bureaucratic delays and the right of appeal for those who should have been transferred to third countries. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that is the truth.

The Home Secretary knows perfectly well, as he wrote to me about it only a few days ago, that the purpose of the Dublin convention was to facilitate the extent to which people could be returned to safe third countries within the European Union. The Home Secretary shares that objective. He has acknowledged that the Dublin convention is not working as it was intended. His Government have had more than two years, with all the goodwill that they claim to have won within the EU, to get the Dublin convention to work as it was originally intended.

That is the weakest of many weak points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made so far. Of course he is right to say that the intention of the Dublin convention was to facilitate transfers between different EU countries. Not even I would have assumed that the Conservative Government were so daft as to sign a convention with the intention of making it more difficult, but as often happened under the previous Administration, there was a huge gap between intention and reality. I was complaining not about the intention, but about the reality and the fact that they did not think it through, just as they did not think through the 1993 Act. They certainly did not think through the 1996 Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me why we sought to amend it. I shall tell him. The gentlemen's agreements were bilateral agreements, which could easily be changed and they had to be scrapped under the Dublin convention.

I have often wondered whether we should simply scrap the Dublin convention, as it is mind bending in its bureaucracy and the difficulty that it imposes on good immigration staff sending people back. However, unless and until we had the agreement of the other 14 EU member states, we would have nothing at all in its place. So we have to continue with the Dublin convention. I have chaired article 18 committees of amazing tedium because of the structure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman established in order to try to get changes under the Dublin convention. We continue in our attempts.

The third factor was the previous Government's decision to downsize the operation of the immigration and nationality directorate and to impose a freeze on recruitment, all in the vain hope that the binding contract with Siemens would produce early and beneficial results. Staff numbers were cut by more than 500 at a time when applications were rising. By the time the Conservatives left office, the delay of which they are so proud was 20 months.

The previous Government were warned about that, and not by us. I know that, these days, he is certainly not regarded as a hero in the Conservative ranks, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) was once an immigration Minister. On 11 December 1995, at column 748, he warned that the investment that the previous Government intended to put into the new system simply was not enough to ensure that they could process the applications.

Fourthly, on why the number of applications have risen, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aylesbury say that no one should be so silly as to blame the Government for the civil wars in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and a whole list of other countries. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman spotted that, but I might have been forgiven for thinking that I was to blame, even during Home Office questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman was complaining about the rise in the number of applications. Four countries—Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Kosovo—account for 31,000 of the 70,000 applications for asylum that we received in 1999. Applications from those countries have increased by more than 12,000.

This time last year, the Government were under pressure not to take fewer refugees, but to take more refugees. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's role in the Kosovo war, I might add that, had my right hon. Friend not shown the statesmanship that he did in leading the intervention against the Serbians, Europe would be facing not thousands but millions of refugees.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I understand his desire to put some verbal distance between my request that he give way and his assertion that tonight was the first time that he knew of the recommendations by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Is he willing to place in the Library the record of the meeting held between my right hon. and learned Friend, myself and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) in October 1997, in which every single remedy recommended this evening by my right hon. and learned Friend was mentioned? Unless the Government have a dishonest record of that meeting, he will find that all those recommendations and warnings were made then, but the Government took no action whatever.

That was certainly worth waiting for. I am delighted to place the minutes of that meeting in the Library. I am sure that there will be a queue a mile long of hon. Members waiting to read them.

They may be in for a surprise.

If the hon. Gentleman asserts that we should have put more than 14,000 people on the streets with nowhere to live, nothing to eat and no warmth, I am happy to give way to him again.

I am simply saying that the problems that were arising in October 1997, with the flood of immigrants from the Czech and Slovak Republics, had been drawn to the Government's attention by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. The remedies suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend tonight were mentioned at that meeting. It is a matter of record and I am delighted that the Home Secretary has agreed to place the minutes in the Library. The record, if it is honest, will show what was said at that meeting, and the Home Secretary should have known about it then.

There was not quite a yes or a no in that. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman mentioning Slovakia and the Czech Republic earlier. I took early action on Slovakia by the imposition of a visa regime. We have always made our position clear, as we have in respect of Ecuador, Colombia and several other countries, and we shall continue to do so.

This is a short debate, thanks to the fact that the Conservatives decided to shorten it by voting twice on their own motion, but I want to set out the actions that we are taking to tackle the problems. We are strengthening our immigration control the better to tackle those who abuse the system. The immigration service is recruiting at least 700 operational staff this calendar year—a 25 per cent. increase—and a further expansion is planned for early next year.

We are also giving immigration officers new powers. The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke about what I think he called a removal service, and suggested that we should give the officers powers of arrest. But for a new label on the door, we have done that: it is called the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Act contains all the additional powers of arrest that any officers require to secure the better removal of those who are here unlawfully.

A crucial part of strengthening control is something that the hon. Gentleman was eloquent about in his silence. Not once did we hear anything either for or against the imposition, which came into force at the beginning of April, of a civil penalty of £2,000 on hauliers who are found unreasonably to have clandestine illegal immigrants in the backs of their lorries.

We are against it.

The right hon. Lady, who has miraculously found her voice—I am very glad that I have been able to find a cure for her—and the hon. Member for Aylesbury owe it to the country, when they are setting out their plan for the immigration service and for tackling the problems, to say whether they will remove the penalty on hauliers who knowingly, recklessly or negligently have clandestine illegals in the back of their trucks.

Prior to implementation of the penalty 10 days ago, 2,000 or so people were being caught every month coming to the United Kingdom in that way. I am pleased to tell the House that the penalty is being used. Up to yesterday afternoon, notices of penalty under the legislation had been served in respect of 30 vehicles, three of which were dealt with in Coquelles in France, where the 12 clandestine entrants were returned to the French authorities. The right hon. Lady now says that we should not have that effective control, even operating in France. That is saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.

Two vehicles have been detained, one pending payment in respect of 50 clandestines found in the back. No one is telling me that one can drive a lorry containing 50 clandestines and not know that they are there. That lorry has been detained pending payment of a charge of £100,000. The whole country will be delighted and interested to know that the right hon. Lady is on the side of the truck driver with 50 clandestines in the back, and not on the side of the rule of law.

I share the Home Secretary's view that there needs to be control of vehicles so that people do not seek to come in in the back of lorries or hanging on to the undercarriage, but by what legal method can an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, Slovakia or Afghanistan, say, with family here get to Britain to make a claim?

Those who come through another European country—all those who arrive by road or sea must do that, unless my geography is completely inaccurate—should have applied in that country. Those who arrive by air, if they have not come from a safe third country, are our responsibility, regardless of whether they have broken immigration rules. That is how the system works.

The Home Secretary has been generous in giving way. While he is talking about whose responsibility the asylum seekers are, will he answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, as well as in an early-day motion signed by several Labour Members who are now in the Chamber, that secure race relations in this country must be on the basis of central Government taking full financial responsibility for asylum seekers rather than leaving it to a few local authorities?

That is exactly the purpose of our national asylum support system. We did not believe that it was fair on a few local authorities, such as the London boroughs, Kent and the Medway unitary authority, to have those responsibilities, and that is why we are relieving them of them.

The figures show that we have reimbursed Kent every penny of the expenditure that is the responsibility of the Home Office. I accept, as I said on Monday, that there is £700,000 in dispute for unaccompanied minors, who are at present the responsibility of the Department of Health. I cannot make an absolute promise, but I hope that it will be possible properly to resolve that dispute. I accept that, subject to the issue of unit costs, which will always have to be a matter for examination, central Government should of course accept responsibility for what is a national, not a local problem.

When we came to office, an asylum decision took 20 months and the number of staff was going down, not up. By contrast, we are investing heavily in the casework system, and 300 caseworkers have been recruited, doubling the number. Altogether, there has been a 27 per cent. increase and 1,400 more staff have been taken on in the immigration and nationality directorate. In March, more than 10,000 asylum decisions were made—another record, and four times the monthly average for the last three months of last year.

The problem of multiple appeals was left completely untouched by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. People could appeal against a decision, go to the tribunal and go to judicial review, and the moment a removal direction was issued they could appeal against it—three more stages—and then they could appeal against a deportation action. There was not a line in either the 1993 or the 1996 Act to deal with that.

Under the 1999 Act, under provisions coming into force on 2 October, there will be one-stop appeals. In the recent Ben James decision, the chief adjudicator said:

This case underlines in a very acute way the necessity for the implementation at the first possible opportunity of the provisions contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act … in relation to one stop appeals.

In respect of the case, which had been going on for 14 years, he went on to say:

it is very unlikely that—

had the relevant section been in force—

this claim for asylum, which took many years to investigate and try, would ever have got off the ground at all.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the numerous appeal rights have, rightly, been curtailed—with the widespread approval of those who have traditionally supported the claims of asylum seekers—places a real responsibility on us, as we make decisions faster, to make decisions of the best quality and to ensure that those fast initial decisions are accurate?

Yes. Not only have we taken on more staff, but at Croydon and the other offices a huge effort is being devoted to ensuring greater consistency of decisions. In addition, the immigration appeal tribunal has been upgraded. It is now presided over by Mr. Justice Collins, a High Court judge of considerable experience. I commend him and all the adjudicators and staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as in the Home Office, for all the work that is being undertaken to ensure that the system is properly joined up and that higher-quality decisions are made than in the past.

Of course, we also have to remove people from this country as quickly as possible. Removals have not been as fast as they should be, not least because of the huge delays that have taken place. It is the delays in the system, more even than the total number waiting in the queue, that fundamentally lie behind the problems of removals. That said, 7,100 failed asylum seekers were removed in 1997 and, despite the difficulty of Dublin, that has been increased to 7,650 last year. Much better regional enforcement capacity is being established. An increase in the use of charter flights is being developed. The Oakington processing centre is operational and detention space is being expanded.

One of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and which has been a theme of this debate is the new system of asylum support. We had to introduce a new system, not least to remove the burden on authorities such as Kent and those in London. The national asylum support system started its work on 3 April. All new port applicants are now on the system. As I told the House on Monday, it will apply to all new in-country applicants in Kent from next Monday and will be rolled out to the rest of the country soon.

The new system replaces cash social security benefits and local authority provision with an offer of vouchers for food, clothing and essentials with a small cash top-up and one offer of accommodation outside the south-east. The package of support will ensure that no asylum seeker is left destitute, and will relieve the unfair burden that has fallen on councils in the south-east of England.

Somewhat defensively, the hon. Member for Aylesbury said that there was no place for racism or xenophobia in the discussion of asylum and immigration. I take him at his word, but I have to say that it is impossible to read some of the documents that the Conservatives have produced, including their manifesto and a press release from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), without forming the view that they have an agenda other than that of solving the problem of asylum in this country.

In a news report in the Colchester Evening Gazette, the hon. Gentleman claimed that Essex taxpayers were having to pick up a bill for nearly £700,000 thanks to bogus claims, which equated to 90 new police officers locally. That report was based on a press release that the hon. Gentleman had issued, which claimed that asylum now cost London taxpayers £180 million a year, which was £63 per household and the equivalent of 5,000 new police officers. Throughout, it implied that local taxpayers were having to pay that amount, when the truth is—it is even half-admitted in the small print of the press release—that every penny is reimbursed by the Government wherever the unit costs are being met. Even if there is some argument about the unit costs, the difference on the most generous estimates costs £1 per local taxpayer per year.

Will we hear an apology for such propaganda, which is peddling a big lie? Given the signature that the Leader of the Opposition appended to the statement by the Commission for Racial Equality about the need for everybody to avoid inflammatory language and inflammatory actions, I say to the Conservatives that such stuff as that press release is reminiscent of the big lie. It is put out not because it is true, but because it is untrue and designed for one purpose only—to stir up anxieties where none should exist.

I am sorry to say that we have heard all this before. It is not as if the Tory party has an unblemished record on the issue of race and immigration. The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned the Ugandan Asians and some of us are old enough to remember the sort of stuff that emanated from the Tory Opposition in the 1960s, time and again. We do not have to look in the crystal ball, because we can see it in the book. In 1995, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—[Interruption. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) looks perplexed by the reference to the Ugandan Asians, but that subject was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

The Conservatives let them in.

I am talking about the Kenyan Asian legislation in 1968. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that it is a point of order.

Is it in order for the Home Secretary to say that the Conservative party was racist over the Ugandan Asians when it was the Conservative party which let them come into this country and protected them at the time of their deepest fear?

Those are matters for debate and nothing to do with the Chair.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised the matter, and I was referring to what happened in the 1960s, which some of us remember. Some of us also remember Smethwick and the fact that the Tory party could not bring itself to vote for the race relations legislation in 1965. We also remember something much more recent. In 1995, in an absolutely desperate article about how the Conservative party could win the next election, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, when he was head of the Conservative research department, said:

Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992, and again in the 1994 Euro election, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.

That was the true policy of the Conservative party and the policy that it is continuing with the manifesto that it has just issued, which talks of asylum seekers "flooding" our country, in words reminiscent of a nastier age.

This is a disgrace.

It is a disgrace, and the Conservatives should know that, although the hon. Gentleman has a better record than most of his party. Talk of flooding is wholly inappropriate, and such ill-judged language—

If it is so inappropriate, why did the Attorney-General use the word?

I would like to see the context in which the Attorney-General used the word. He certainly did not use it in the context of a party manifesto. I now do not know why the right hon. Lady is pleading illness. She has been muttering from a sedentary position and now she seems to think that she can have the luxury of making interventions when she did not even move her own motion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I wish to bring my remarks to a close.

Talk of "flooding" is wholly inappropriate, and such ill-judged language, whoever uses it, is plainly outside the statement of the Commission for Racial Equality, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees pointed out.

To use the issue of asylum to play the race card is a disreputable act for any party. Those who are tempted to do it should stop doing it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald laughs about that, but she has come very close to doing so.

Conservatives seek to exploit the asylum problems of this country but they have refused to take any action to control unscrupulous advisers. They have failed to support our action. Indeed, they voted against our action to deal with clandestines coming in on the backs of lorries. However, while they simply and cynically seek to exploit the system, we seek properly to deal with it. We will not let the Conservatives deflect us from building a firm but fair immigration system that is worthy of this country's traditions and of its citizens' trust.

8.39 pm

Although this subject is extremely controversial, it is much better to have a debate where we can seek to establish the facts than not to have the debate and allow propaganda to be peddled, as it has been in recent weeks.

We last debated the issue on 2 February. Unusually, for reasons that the House may remember, the amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled on that occasion was selected by Madam Speaker. It ended by calling on the House to support the agreement made last year by the three main parties and the nationalist parties, which had been proposed by the Commission for Racial Equality, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Refugee Council. The specific wording of the amendment and the declaration was that we should

not…use problems in the immigration and asylum systems in ways which could damage community and race relations.

As we try to deal with what is a challenge to this country and to every other country in western Europe and many countries beyond, I hope that it is appropriate to start by reminding all colleagues of what in our name our leaders signed up to only a few months ago.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall do so shortly.

As the Home Secretary rightly said, these are difficult issues that we share with other countries. It is ridiculous to suggest that the growth in the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom—as in other countries in western Europe—is anything to do with the actions of the host countries. It is to do with the actions that have been taking place on our continent and throughout the world, of which everyone is aware.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. If the hon. Lady will let me get going, I shall give way in a moment.

As we deal with how to have an immigration policy and honour our asylum agreements in the context of international obligations, we must seek to ensure that we do nothing to add to the prejudice that already exists in this country in relation to people who come here, often with nothing, from other countries and who have no previous link with the UK.

The line that the hon. Gentleman is taking is fully supported by Labour Members. We are against all forms of racism and xenophobia. However, will he bear in mind that when he says his good words in the House they are not necessarily echoed by a number of Liberal Democrat associations outside Parliament? What the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), said about one or two of those associations is well known to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that much in mind. The line that Liberals take in this place is not necessarily the one that a number of Liberal activists take outside it.

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly appropriate point. Sometimes people stray the wrong side of the line. It happened in the previous Parliament and we were clear in condemning it in the House. My then leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), condemned it, and the matter was dealt with. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall not try to pretend that there is not an issue. As far as I can tell, the issue arises occasionally in each party at grass-roots level throughout the country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way on that point. We must be careful that we give leadership. It is for us to do so. If we give the right leadership, it is up to our parties to follow it. If they do not, we must make clear what is acceptable and what is not.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No. I wish to make some progress and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

No, I will not give way.

Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said that he will not give way. That should be enough.

It is often said that the test of a civilised country is how it treats its homeless, its destitute and the less advantaged. That is true. In some ways, however, the better test of how civilised a country is, is how it treats the stranger at its gates. In many ways, it is by how we respond to such issues as these that we shall be judged in the international community.

I represent a constituency in the east end of London. Although I deplore the tone of much of the debate, some of us would take the hon. Gentleman's pious note a little more seriously if we did not have experience of the ruthless way in which some Liberal associations exploit race issues.

The hon. Lady makes an understandable point, and I do not condemn her for making it. I give her an undertaking, on behalf of my party, that we will seek to deal with any matter in our party that other people are concerned about. I hope that other parties will do the same.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have already taken two interventions.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm himself.

Liberal Democrat Members will show leadership. I am concerned tonight with establishing facts and how to proceed, but I also want to deal in particular with the leadership of the Conservative party. The hon. Members involved are behaving disgracefully, and they deserve to be condemned. As the Home Secretary rightly said, they do not merely seek to pander to prejudice, they positively misrepresent facts in order to do so.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is necessary to correct the language used by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and his grotesque distortion of statistics. He said that the vast majority of asylum seekers last year were bogus. The fact is—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that interventions have to be brief. It sounds to me that he is making a speech.

He is only giving the numbers.

Order. We need only one Deputy Speaker in the Chamber at a time—and this is a good Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury will know that, in 1999, 54 per cent. of asylum seekers were given protection, so is not what he said a grotesque distortion that will incite racism in this country?

I believe that it was. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is right about the figures, but—despite all the variations in the world situation—the average over the past decade is that about 40 per cent. of applicants each year have succeeded at point of application. It is absolutely untrue to pretend that the vast majority of asylum seekers, either last year or over the past decade, have been "bogus"—to use a word that we prefer not to use.

In tabling our amendment, we wanted to express how we see the issue in the world context. This country is worried about the numbers of people applying to come here, of whom there are between 20,000 and 70,000 a year. About 1 per cent. of all the people in the world who apply for asylum come to this country. Although many of the very poorest countries put up with huge numbers of people coming to their borders, there are those in Britain—one of the richest countries in the world—who seem to believe that we cannot manage to deal with the applications that come our way. Given the hugely greater challenges in central Africa and elsewhere, that attitude undermines our belief in ourselves and our obligations to others.

In Europe, we consider that the best solution is for the European Union to deal with the challenges at its borders. I hope that member states will work much more effectively to achieve a pan-European solution. For example, some EU countries positively want more people to go and live in them because of their employment prospects and age profiles.

Will the Home Secretary say how people can come here legitimately to seek asylum? I hope that he will accept that that is a proper question. If they cannot come by lorry—or even by aeroplane, in many cases—how can we fulfil our international obligations? There must be a legitimate way in which people can come here. If such a way exists and is known to exist, those who come here can be dealt with appropriately—more appropriately than those who scramble here illegally, or who are carried here illegally in vehicles that belong to other people.

The Tory election manifesto said that racketeers are flooding Britain with asylum seekers. We reject that, and do not believe that that is happening at all. We are not being flooded, in general or in particular, and it is not right to describe most of the people who come here as bogus. I say that because, until people have their case determined, it is not possible to know whether they are valid applicants. We cannot pre-judge applications. Each case must be judged on its merits. Some people who may have their cases turned down have come here because their life chance in their home country is hugely worse than it would be here.

Of course, some people may try it on; there are people who want to abuse and exploit the system. However, many people come here because they think that Britain is a good place to come to and they can succeed here. They want to follow in the tradition of hundreds of thousands of people who have, over the years, been received in this country, made their home here and made a huge contribution.

Many of us across the House are representative of families who have come from many parts of the world because of persecution or economic reasons. If we believe that we do not benefit from such an addition to our original native culture, we are doing ourselves and our international community a grave disservice.

Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have fallen into the habit of talking about economic migrants in negative terms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that economic migrants are the engine of great cities such as London and New York? Economic migrants, whether they are from Ireland, the Caribbean, Pakistan or West Africa, have helped to build London.

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. If those who think that it is wrong for people to seek to come here and better themselves thought about the number who leave this country every year to better themselves somewhere else, they would realise the hypocrisy of that position. The world benefits from people being able to move to where there are greater opportunities.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me press on for a moment.

There is another valid point that the Home Secretary made about the Conservative party with which I agree. I say this not just to the leader of the Conservative party and the shadow Home Secretary but to the shadow Minister for London as well. It concerns inaccurate figures. A press release set out, borough by borough, the alleged cost to people.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have said no. It has been suggested that the annual cost per household of so-called bogus asylum seekers is £160. I have the manifesto here. The figures are not only wrong for the reason given by the Home Secretary, because most of the money is reimbursed, but because figures, confirmed by the Treasury, and given in answers to me and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), show that the cost per household is about £24. That is the cost of the system per year, but it has been exaggerated sevenfold.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not for the moment.

We have to address the way forward, given these challenges. We must address whether it is right to keep the voucher system, which my colleagues who dealt with the relevant measure consistently opposed. The test of the system is whether it is cheaper or more expensive as well as whether it is right. We have seen no figures showing that the voucher system will be cheaper. If it is not cheaper, the case for a segregating system cannot even be made on economic let alone moral grounds.

Oxfam has severely criticised the voucher system and the argument has been made in reverse by others. Not only do people have vouchers which distinguish them from the rest of us by not allowing them the same facility to buy food or clothes, they cannot even get change, in many cases, when they hand in the voucher. Oxfam says that it will not take the vouchers because it is degrading to contemplate accepting a voucher that is worth more than what it pays for. Some of the commercial organisations that take vouchers regard the system as a revenue-making exercise.

If the voucher system is to stay, will the Home Secretary and his Ministers kindly revise it so that change can be given? In that way, the system might at least have the confidence of organisations such as Oxfam.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

The Home Secretary asked how we would deal with arrangements on arrival. [Interruption.] It is a fair question, and we could have a perfectly proper debate on how to provide adequate accommodation. The Liberal Democrats assume that most asylum seekers are not criminals—[Interruption.]

Order. On the Benches furthest from me, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) seems to be making an awful lot of noise. We cannot have that when an hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chamber.

The majority of asylum seekers are not criminals, and we cannot assume that people will disappear simply because they have come to the UK. People should be treated decently and humanely when they arrive. Only when there is cause to believe that they will break the law should liberties that they could otherwise expect to enjoy be removed.

We have criticised the Government as well as the Tories, but they are not in the same league. In the run-up to this week, there often seemed to be a danger that Ministers were beginning to adopt the tone or the language of the Conservative party. Our consolation came on Monday when the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that the race card should never be played. From now on, I hope that the agreement by Ministers that words such as "bogus" will not be used will be adhered to in all circumstances.

Criticisms remain of the system inherited by the Government. That system was not just left, but largely put in place, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who sought to change the system's administration, introduced an untried computer system and took staff away at the same time. All that led to the problems of 1997. That was the Tory legacy, and the Conservatives have absolutely no reason to be proud of it. They left our immigration arrangements in dire straits.

Since then, the appointment of case workers has been slow. The Public Accounts Committee made it clear that it took a long time before adequate extra funds were put into the kitty. Will the Minister of State tell us what additional resources are now available for case workers? It costs about £400 to process an application, and £1,400 a week to keep a family. What additional resources will be provided so that the backlog of cases, which is adding to resentment, which in turn allows people like the Conservatives to pander to prejudice, can be considerably reduced?

No Minister should suggest that any application will be prejudged. The Home Secretary remembers my criticism of him on that. I understand his response, and, of course, the hijackers of the Afghan plane had to be dealt with under the criminal law, but there was, to put it gently, at least a hint that he had taken a view, and he cannot do that and simultaneously honour our international obligations.

Another unhelpful set of remarks was reported by the press when it picked up on aggressive begging. I asked Westminster city council, which keeps ethnic records, how many beggars arrested last year had come from abroad. The answer was 20 per cent. We must not misrepresent people by suggesting that as they are asylum seekers or immigrants, they must be criminals too. People who have come here as immigrants are probably no more likely to commit crime than any other societal group. A police officer told me the other day that if we put 700 single police officers in such a building on £40 a week with nothing to do, we would have far more trouble out of them than we have from the asylum seekers in a building not far from here on the other side of the river.

The dispersal arrangements still seem to be shadowy, to say the least, and unsatisfactory in almost every respect. The Minister has an obligation to explain how many contracts have been entered into. My hon. Friends and I have consistently made the case that the idea of dispersal and of sharing the burden is reasonable, but only if people are sent to an appropriate place that has services and facilities and that is the sort of community in which they can settle. There is no sign that that has happened, but unless it does, bussing people around the country will have the same unsatisfactory consequences as one of the exercises of sending people to Glasgow so far.

It is a cause of considerable anger and frustration that those who have borne the brunt of the costs to date—the local councils—are still significantly under-resourced and have not had their full costs met. The figure for unmet costs is about £17 million. The local authority associations are still making the case. The Home Secretary made a comment about Kent on Monday. I understand the system, and that a tariff was set. However, as long as local councils are asked to pay bills for something that at all times should have been a national responsibility, there will always be the possibility of irresponsible people making mischief and causing trouble.

We hope that in the days to come and especially in the run-up to the local elections, the Conservative party will back off its dangerous approach. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in her criticism in particular of the Conservatives and less so of the Government last week, has suggested that it would be helpful if a meeting was held with her in the near future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of our party, and I have accepted that we should have such a meeting, and we informed her representative today. I hope that Ministers will be willing to meet her representative again and that the Conservative leader and the shadow Home Secretary will do so too. I hope that they will go soon to see the people who are criticising them.

I hope that the Conservatives will realise that it does their party no credit to present our country as one that, when it deals with asylum seekers and refugees, in large measure deals with people who have no case and no claim to be here. Our country can afford to give our people good health, good education, a good police service and good pensions, but we can also afford to look after those who come to seek our help. Of course we fair system, but we must also have a system that lives up to our best aspirations and traditions. We have been in danger of going far away from that in recent months.

9.3 pm

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the way in which Britain has received people who have fled from other countries. My parents were such people. They were able to flee from eastern Europe, leaving most of the rest of their families behind to be slaughtered in the holocaust. I therefore want to say right away how bitterly I resent the cheap remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in likening capitalism to what the Gestapo and Hitler did to the Jews, homosexuals and all the other people who were murdered by the Nazis. Such a person is not fit to stand for public office, let alone be elected to it.

I have sat through immigration debates in the House for some 30 years, and there is none that I have approached with greater revulsion than the debate tonight: a debate in which the Conservative party has once again—as it always does when it wants to grub around for shoddy votes—played the race card. Last Monday the shadow Home Secretary, who has suddenly found her voice, besought my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to use the word "bogus" in the context of the issue that we are debating this evening. I am ready to use that word, because "bogus" is the ideal epithet to describe the Tory pretext for this trumped-up debate tonight. Asylum poses problems—as all hon. Members who represent multicultural constituencies are aware. However, for the Tories to say that there is a crisis, as they do in their nasty motion, is bogus. They talk of a crisis, but yesterday, the leader in The Times stated:

at no point can it be fairly said… that the system was really "out of control". In proportion to population, Britain ranks but ninth in Europe in terms of asylum-seekers… There is some evidence that the backlog is at last shrinking. The time taken to decide whether to award asylum has been reduced by seven months and record numbers of claims are being processed. A vast expansion in the provision of full-time adjudicators… and the creation of a new tribunal centre with 12 courts should further cut the backlog.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. Many Members want to speak, so I do not want to take up more time than I need to.

If there is a problem, it was inherited from the Tories—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary illustrated in his extremely powerful speech. The Tories' legislative framework prevailed for three years until we introduced the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Tories dealt with none of the genuine abuses.

Unlike my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—through the 1999 Act—the Tories did nothing whatever to crack down on unscrupulous consultants and solicitors who actively encourage bogus applications for their own financial gain. I draw attention to the crooked and larcenous activities of Abdullah Azad's self-styled welfare centre in Manchester, which cons suckers out of huge sums. For example, Azad is refusing to repay my constituent Mrs. M. Mahmood of 5 Iqbal close £1,000 that he conned her into lending him to pursue a case that was solved by my contacts with my right hon. Friend—as he will be aware because we corresponded on the matter. I call on the Greater Manchester police to investigate the fraudulent activities of this leech—this bloodsucker.

Most people believe that, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was a Home Office Minister, all she did was chain up pregnant women in prison. However, she has a record on immigration, too. In a debate on the Asylum and Immigration Bill in 1995, she told the House:

The deterrent effect of our measures, by reducing the number of people who will try to take advantage of our system, should lower the number of persons who are lawfully resident and who also have to be looked after while applying for asylum.—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 793]

If there had been one word of truth in that bogus claim, her so-called crisis would not exist.

In October 1996, the right hon. Lady made another wholly bogus claim. In a written answer, she stated that the measures taken by the Tory Government would

strengthen our immigration control and… greatly reduce the incentives for those seeking to enter or remain unlawfully in the United Kingdom… The Government believe that it is wrong that people who are admitted to this country on the basis that they can provide for themselves or who are here illegally should receive benefits paid for by the taxes of lawful residents. The measures we have now taken and the work currently in hand will see that they do not.—[Official Report, 24 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. I W.]

If there was the slightest truth in the right hon. Lady's words, we should not now be facing the problems that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is trying to solve.

In addition, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) blamed my right hon. Friend for passing defective legislation. It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who passed defective legislation and who signed up to a defective convention. All that happened was that my wicked right hon. Friend did not put right what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and David Waddington got wrong in the first place.

Far more contemptible than anything done by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, is the approach of the Leader of the Tory party. We all know that, for too many years, it has been the practice of the Tory party to exploit racial and religious prejudice for vote-grabbing purposes, as I know from my constituency. In one election in which I stood, the Tory candidate published a leaflet intended for Muslim voters, saying that I was a Zionist, in order that my religion should deprive me of the votes of people of a different religion. My Muslim constituents were far too sensible to fall for that.

In 1978, during a by-election campaign—she did it deliberately—Margaret Thatcher, when leader of the Conservative party, said:

People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.

The Tories were up to it then, just as they are up to it now.

The present leader of the Conservative party said that, under him, things would be different, and he wandered aimlessly and foolishly around the Notting Hill carnival, believing that such patronising and condescending activities would assure black and Asian people that the Tories were not really racialist. However, this week he has launched the local government manifesto, which talks of

bogus asylum seekers… flooding into Britain.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) sacked Enoch Powell from the shadow Cabinet for arousing racial prejudice when Powell spoke of rivers of blood. Enoch Powell spoke of rivers; Mrs. Thatcher said "swamped"; The Conservative leader today says "flooding". They have a preoccupation with liquids in connection with immigration policy.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup sacked Enoch Powell from the shadow Cabinet for arousing racial prejudice. It now seems that it is a qualification for being appointed to the shadow Cabinet is to arouse racial prejudice. If Tory Members challenge my words, let me quote to them what one of their very, very few black candidates—John Taylor, who stood at Cheltenham, and who is now in the House of Lords—said on 27 September 1995. This is their man, not our man. He said:

The Tory party think giving a few cocktail parties for Asian millionaires is race relations.

The Tories are still up to it today. The Hindujas know that they are always welcome at Conservative central office—but the Hindujas have more sense. Mr. Taylor continued by saying that the Tory party

alienate ethnic minorities by pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crackdowns on immigration.

That is what the Tories' man said five years ago, and it is as true today as when he said it, because it is still happening.

Three days ago, in The Sunday Times, Mr. Mohammed Khamisa, a Conservative activist and a Conservative councillor, wrote an article headed:

What's black and blue and rejected all over? A Tory for 20 years, Mohammed Khamisa wants to be an MP, but the party does not seem to want him. Is race the reason, he asks.

He writes in his article:

Having applied for the position of Conservative candidate for 13 safe and marginal seats… I have not even been offered an interview by any of the local Tory associations.

This is the same racist Tory party which Enoch Powell represented, which Margaret Thatcher represented, which the present Leader of the Opposition said he did not represent but which the present Leader of the Opposition is now embodying as much as any of his worst predecessors did.

The Government's record on asylum is praised by ethnic minorities in my constituency—where there is a high proportion of ethnic minorities. At every advice surgery that I hold, genuine refugees come to see me who my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has treated with generosity and humanity. At my last advice surgery, there was a little boy of 14, a Kurd, who had come to the United Kingdom across Europe last year on a false passport and had been let in to join his brother, another Iraqi Kurd.

The problems that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned can be solved in very many cases. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is good and decent and generous, and he is admired in my constituency among Libyans, Algerians, Liberians, Somalis and people of many other nationalities who owe their presence in this country to him. Major Wellington from Sierra Leone has praised my right hon. Friend for what he has done for his family. My right hon. Friend has good policies for genuine applicants, but he is rightly wary of potentially invalid applications of the sort fostered by Azad. My Asian constituents know the difference—they really do.

The Government do not yet have a perfect record on anything, including this issue, but they do have a creditable record on asylum seekers, while the Tory party shows itself again and again in its true, nasty colours. The House should chuck out this nasty and dishonest motion.

9.15 pm

The last time I followed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in a debate on these issues was on 9 November 1999 when we considered the Government's Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Then, there was much common ground between us, but I fear that there may be less tonight.

Four weeks ago, I spent several days investigating the impact of the large number of asylum seekers in my constituency. Of course, that was not the first time that I had done that, but on this occasion I visited the two reception centres outside my constituency that are run by Kent county council. I talked to the police, the education authority, and the social services department of the county council, and I visited Dover eastern docks in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). Since then, I have had further meetings on the subject.

A number of constructive suggestions emerged from those meetings. I have passed them on to the Home Secretary and I shall refer to them later in my remarks. There is no doubt that the presence of large numbers of asylum seekers in a community the size of the town of Folkestone has a considerable impact. We have, I am happy to say, so far at least—we must be cautious about such matters—avoided in my constituency the outbreaks of violence that occurred elsewhere last summer. I am proud of my constituents and of the way in which they have behaved.

There is a natural tendency in such debates to concentrate on the national statistics. We heard them from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), so I shall not take up the House's time by repeating them. However, when I went to Dover, I was given the figures for that port. I was told that, whereas 2,142 people had applied for asylum there in 1997, the number had last year increased almost fivefold to 10,347. In addition to that, the number of clandestine entrants applying for asylum there went up tenfold, from 851 in 1997 to 8,878 in 1999.

Why has that happened? The answer is not in doubt. The Government and their apologists sometimes pretend—the Home Secretary was at it in Home Office questions on Monday—that it is all the result of forces outside their control and that there was nothing that they could do about them. If that is so, one is bound to ask: what was the point of the 1999 Act? Do they expect it to have no effect on the numbers seeking asylum in the United Kingdom? Do they expect an increase in numbers over the next three years comparable to that which has occurred over the past three years? Of course not. They hope and expect that their measures will reduce the numbers; that is the point of their legislation.

When we debated the 1999 Act on 9 November, I remarked, when I followed the right hon. Member for Gorton, on the extent to which we had, at last, established some common ground between the two main parties at least on the objective of policy in this matter. That objective is to deter undeserving applicants for political asylum, so that applicants genuinely entitled to asylum and genuinely fleeing persecution can have their claims dealt with speedily and effectively and can be given the asylum to which they are entitled.

When we introduced legislation to achieve that objective, we were accused of racism; when the Government did it, they were legislating responsibly. Never mind, we should always welcome the penitent sinner. However, penitence has been long delayed; the Government have wasted three years.

During those three wasted years, the Government have done nothing to tackle the problem. That is why such an explosive rise in numbers has occurred. Yet the Government had the means to deal with the problem; they needed only to remedy the effect of the intervention of the courts on the operation of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.

How?

I note the hon. Lady's question and I shall reply to it and the Home Secretary's point in a moment.

Before the courts intervened, the 1996 Act succeeded in bringing the problem under control. The only requirement was a short Bill, which made it clear that Parliament had never intended to place on local authorities the burdens under which they have suffered since the courts' intervention. If the Government had introduced such a measure, the Conservative party would have supported them. The remedy was at hand.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman got up first; I shall give way to him in a moment. The remedy was available, but the Government chose to do nothing for three years.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reiterate his arguments from 1996—that before their case had even been considered, people who claimed asylum should be left destitute? If he argues for that, I do not understand how any member of the Tory party can claim to uphold this country's traditions of giving sanctuary to people.

I dealt with that point fully when we considered the 1996 legislation; I shall tackle it again now. However, when the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) use words such as "starving" and "destitute", they should be aware of the effect of this Government's legislation.

As I understand it—I am sure the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—anyone who has the temerity to apply for judicial review to challenge the decisions of the authorities on applications for asylum will be deprived of all support. To use the language of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, that person will be left to starve, and left destitute. I shall explain—

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

No, I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point, Let me explain the crucial distinction between those who apply for asylum at the port, and who would have been entitled to benefit under the 1996 Act—I do not apologise for that—and those who apply in country. When those who genuinely flee persecution and come to this country to seek sanctuary and ask for asylum arrive at the port, surely their first action is to say, "I have been persecuted. I want asylum. Will you grant it to me?"

Those who apply in country fall into very few categories: those who enter the country illegally, or those who arrive on false pretences. For example, they may claim to be visitors, and say that they have the means to support themselves and that they do not intend to apply for asylum. The Home Secretary was wrong to say that the 1996 legislation made no provision for in-country applicants to receive benefit if they applied for asylum. The legislation provided for the genuine cases.

For example, if people came from a country where circumstances had changed since their arrival in this country, they would be entitled to benefit. We therefore provided for those deserving cases. However, we told those who entered the country on the pretence of visiting, claiming that they had the means to support themselves and assuring the immigration authorities that they did not come to apply for asylum, that they could apply but that they were not entitled to financial support from the taxpayers of this country. That was the distinction that we made.

If we accept for a moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reason why people find themselves in that position, is he saying that the Conservative party's view is that the punishment for it should be to make asylum seekers and their families hungry and destitute?

It is not a question of punishment; it is a question of the circumstances in which taxpayers' money should be used to support people in that position. The Home Secretary says in his current legislation that taxpayers' money should not be used to support any asylum seeker who has the temerity to apply for a judicial review. We took the view that taxpayers should not be obliged to support those who do not apply for asylum at the first opportunity when they arrive in this country and who do not say, "I am fleeing persecution and I want refuge," but who enter the country on a false pretence and then expect to be supported by British taxpayers. We said that that was not acceptable.

On the question of whether, under present legislation, people may be destitute, I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one or two of us disagreed with the Government on that point and voted against the measures. Will he remind the House what were the relative acceptance rates for asylum claims in country and at port when he was Home Secretary? For much of that period, the rates of acceptance for in-country applicants were higher than those for applicants at port.

The rates varied a good deal at different times and that may have had more to do with the way in which the claims were dealt with than with whether or not people were genuinely fleeing persecution.

I am sure that during his time as Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have noticed that there were people in this country who had entered it entirely illegally, and when a terrible disaster, such as a civil war, struck their home country, they applied for asylum. Is he saying that in those circumstances, he would have argued that they too should have been left destitute?

I dealt with precisely that point, as did the legislation. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady, who is muttering from a sedentary position, is entirely wrong. The legislation expressly provided for a change in the circumstances of the country concerned, such as a revolution. Obviously, such events occur, and the legislation recognised that and provided for that. The hon. Lady is right to make that point, and we dealt with it properly and justly in the legislation.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's thesis seems to be that it is obvious to him that people came to this country because money was a draw. If that had been the case, his draconian legislation would have caused the number of people applying in country to decline to zero, but there was only a very slight decrease in that number in the period before the appeal. In this case, just as in the case of his claims about the increasing number of asylum seekers in Dover, his figures are misleading—

Order. The hon. Lady's intervention is far too long. She will have to learn to make short interventions; then she will be able to get away with them.

The overall numbers declined by 40 per cent. in 1996, which was a greater decline than even I had expected. That was a tribute to the success of that legislation.

The Government have, belatedly, introduced their own legislation. As I have said before, I hope that it works, for the sake of my constituents, of genuine refugees and of the integrity of the asylum system, but I have no great confidence that it will do so. One of the curious provisions of the new arrangements, as I understand them—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and I may be wrong—is that if an asylum seeker applies for judicial review of an adverse decision under the Act, he loses all right to financial support.

rose—

Let me finish the point—then I shall be very interested in what the Minister says.

That sounds bold and draconian, but the Government have been obliged to make an exception. If the appeal is brought under section 65 of the 1999 Act, on the ground that a provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been infringed, financial support will continue to be available.

What is the logic of that? Why should a challenge based on the proposition that a provision of English law is being breached lead to a withdrawal of financial support, when a challenge based on the proposition that the European convention on human rights is being breached does not have the same consequence? How can the Government justify that inconsistency? I look forward to the Minister's explanation, now or in the course of her speech at the end of the debate.

That is not the only example of the trouble that the Government have stored up for themselves with the introduction of the so-called Human Rights Act 1998. However, it is an example that is likely to bring home the unforeseen consequences of that Act in a particularly conspicuous and unfortunate way.

I said earlier that I would return to the constructive suggestions that were put to me by my constituents and others last month. Some of them, which I have passed on to the Home Secretary, came from Superintendent Chris Eyre, the commander of the police district that includes both Folkestone and Dover. He put forward a number of ideas, including a proposal to improve the sharing of information about asylum seekers between other agencies and the police.

I wrote to the Home Secretary about that on 13 March, and he replied, undertaking to consider these matters. I should be grateful if the Minister told us when she winds up the debate whether any progress has been made.

More recently, I put to the Home Secretary some proposals made to me by hauliers in my constituency. They suggested that an area should be provided in Calais to which drivers could take their vehicles immediately before they embarked on the ferry, so that the vehicles could be checked there by immigration officers. They also suggested that the presence of immigration officers on board the ferries, particularly in the hold, would have a deterrent effect on the activities of asylum seekers who get into the lorries at that stage of the journey—in the hold of the ferry. I hope that the Home Secretary will give sympathetic consideration to those suggestions.

The problems that we have been debating this evening are the problems of the past three years. They are the problems, as I have demonstrated, for which the present Government are responsible. Their attempts to shuffle off the blame on to others have been wholly unconvincing. Their record deserves to be condemned.

9.32 pm

I begin by reminding the House that this country has a legal responsibility under treaty to asylum seekers—all asylum seekers. Until each individual's case has been given proper consideration, it is not possible to know who is bogus and who is not.

I remind the House, too, that asylum seekers are people, with human fears, hopes and motivations. If politicians on both sides remembered that, we might in time arrive at a workable system of dealing with the challenge of the rising number of refugees and asylum seekers. Too often in the debate, on both sides, we speak about asylum seekers as though they were some sort of inanimate object—the burden, the problem, the flood or the swamp. However, they are people.

In communities like mine, asylum seekers live side by side with us and their children go to school with ours. Of course we cannot be expected to take in economic migrants outside the law, and of course we cannot be expected to take in people whose asylum cases are proved to be unfounded, but it is no coincidence that of the three Back-Bench speakers in the debate, each is the child of economic migrants.

The House would do well to remember the contribution of generations of economic migrants, whether from eastern Europe, Pakistan, the Caribbean, Somalia or Kosovo, who have contributed to making London the great international city that it is. We would have a better and more constructive debate if we put the issues in that context.

The occasion of the debate is the monumentally unscrupulous attempt by the Conservative party to use the issue of asylum to grub for votes in the forthcoming local elections. It is the tragedy of the Opposition that they have no other issue, and it is a tragedy for the parliamentary system that they form such a pathetic Opposition. It falls to a few Labour Back Benchers to do what we can to rectify the problems.

As I have said, the occasion for this debate is a monumentally unscrupulous attempt to exploit the issue of asylum. In the public mind and in political discourse, race, immigration and asylum are inextricably linked. It is totally dishonest to claim that it is possible to raise the issue of asylum, to use the big lie on asylum and to stir up people's fears on asylum, and yet not to be playing the race card. In the public mind and in public debate, the three issues are linked.

My constituency probably contains more asylum seekers per square mile than those of most Members who are present tonight. I do not claim to be naive about public fears and, in some instances, public antagonism towards asylum seekers; but, just once in a while, it falls to politicians not merely to look at the latest leader in the Daily Mail or the latest finding of a focus group, but to offer leadership on an issue.

Asylum is a difficult issue. I find it distressing when people who were themselves economic migrants come to my advice surgeries peddling the latest nonsense from the tabloid press about asylum. It is much easier to play that game—to play along with those fears and misapprehensions—but the right and responsible course is to discharge our responsibility as a Government as efficiently and fairly as we can, and to offer leadership in the public debate. The Conservative Opposition have failed dismally to offer the right leadership and, whether the general election takes place next summer or in the summer of 2002, they are proceeding inexorably to defeat. Trawling in the gutter for votes on the asylum issue will not help them in the long run, or even in the short run.

As I have said, this is a difficult issue, and there are practical questions to be considered. As Ministers know, I have raised those questions with them in season and out of season. I am taking a great interest in how their system of support unrolls, and in what steps they are taking to deal with the administration of the immigration and nationality directorate in Croydon.

My hon. Friends do not need to be reminded that the biggest incentive to the making of unfounded claims is delay. I fully accept that unfounded claims are a problem: indeed, I have probably seen more people who have made such claims than many other Members. Although my hon. Friends have devoted considerable energy to dealing with the problem of delay and have taken important steps in that regard, I believe that more can be done.

During the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999, we were promised that the processing time for asylum claims would be reduced to two months, and that the time taken to process a claim and an appeal would be reduced to six months. I want an assurance that we are moving towards those targets. It helps no one if people must wait for years for their claims to be resolved, and it helps the communities in which they live least of all.

There are long-standing and systemic administration and management problems in Croydon. They date back to some time ago during the years of Tory government, but they still exist. The way in which Croydon is managed, the attitude of staff and some of the inefficiencies in the system repay close and continued attention. We can have the best legislation and the best intentions in the world, but the directorate in Croydon will defeat them.

Let me raise a minor point that people working in Croydon raised today. Despite all the effort that is being put into resolving cases, there is still a problem. When a case worker has made a decision on a case, that decision is passed to other staff to endorse and send out. However, because of staff shortages, there is a huge backlog of cases on which a decision has been taken, but not sent out. Colleagues will say, "How does that matter?" I will tell them: the delay in dispatching means that asylum seekers whose cases have been resolved positively cannot claim benefit, sort out their housing or whatever the need is.

I should like more detail on the staff who have been recruited in Croydon. How many specialist asylum case workers are there? How many clerical workers are there? Many of the problems in Croydon go back years and are to do with staffing, management and organisation.

As I say, I will watch with interest how the system of vouchers and forced dispersal unrolls, but I could not let the opportunity pass without expressing the concern of many people that asylum seekers who use vouchers will not receive change. That is why Oxfam is refusing to co-operate with the system. I could not let the opportunity pass without expressing the concern of many people that asylum seeker mothers will not be able to obtain toys for their children with those vouchers. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that point.

I do not doubt the good intentions of my colleagues, but forced dispersal has never worked. It did not work in relation to the Vietnamese or to the East African Asians. I wait with interest to see whether the system of forced dispersal will work in the coming months and years.

The asylum issue is emotive. In many ways, it is easy to get cheap applause in sections of the press and cheap support from members of the public on the issue. People ring my office every day to complain about their housing and what the Labour Government have not done. As the debate heightens among politicians, people are increasingly ringing my office to complain about asylum seekers. I put it to Members on both sides of the House that, when politicians take a lead in talking about asylum in a certain tone and manner, they let loose a type of debate that, in the end, is often impossible to control and is not conducive to good race relations in this country.

Many of the problems to do with the immigration and nationality directorate are quite complex and involve the organisation and management of the system. I give my hon. Friends credit for their good intentions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not in the Chamber to hear it, but his speech was the best that I have heard him make on the asylum issue. It put the Conservative Opposition in their place, where they belong.

The issue will not go away because it presents a challenge to many of our communities and because there are those of us in the House—the children and grandchildren of economic migrants—who will not allow a political debate to pass that takes a tone that seeks to denigrate people who are living in and contributing to our communities and who are helping to build a Britain in the 21st century that we can all be proud of.

9.43 pm

The debate has been good in parts. Good points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the attempt to smear the Conservative party on the issue of asylum, particularly by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), was beneath their normal standards. [Interruption.]

It is important—it has always been recognised throughout the House, in all parties—that refugees who are in fear of persecution should have a safe haven in this country. They come here because they know that this country has essential freedoms and has safety under the law. During the past 100 years, people have come from across the world to this country for safety. The Conservative party was in power for 75 of those 100 years, standing up for the rights of refugees and the international obligations that we have towards refugees. [Interruption.] We shall therefore not take lessons from hon. Members from other parties about standing up on behalf of refugees—[Interruption.]

Order. The Chamber is now full. Some hon. members have not heard the debate, but are shouting from a sedentary position. It is unfair that they should do that.

As other hon. Members have said, one of the United Kingdom's other strengths—apart from standing up for individual freedom—is economic freedom. Consequently, the United Kingdom is wealthy and provides social protection. Consequently, economic migrants come here looking for a better life. It is difficult to criticise them personally for that, but we are a small country and cannot afford to take every economic migrant who wants to come here. Even the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington accepted that we cannot take every economic migrant who comes here.

Every economic migrant who comes to this country and chooses to make an unfounded claim of fear of persecution damages not only the system, but the position of real refugees—those who are in fear of persecution, who want their claim to be dealt with quickly and who do not want to have to wait years for a decision, with uncertainties and delays hanging over them. It is therefore right that we should have a system that not only attempts to find the genuine refugees who are in fear of persecution and assists them, but makes it difficult for those who are economic migrants. That was the previous Government's policy.

One cannot argue with the arithmetic, which is that, in 1996—after introduction of the measures so ably described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who had responsibility for them—the number of asylum claims decreased by 40 per cent.

What has happened since then? Although we heard a lot of sanctimonious priggishness from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was fiddling the figures, the trend has been clear. Since 1996, there has been a build-up in the number of applications, and ever more of them have been bogus. That is the trend. In 1998, for example, 71 per cent. of claims were refused. In 1999—because of special circumstances in Kosovo—54 per cent. of claims were refused. However, in the final quarter of 1999, 80 per cent. of applications were refused.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I should like to make a bit more progress. I have very little time to sum up, because of the lengthy speech of one of the hon. Lady's colleagues.

In January 2000, 87 per cent. of claims were refused. The trend, therefore, is that ever more bogus applications are being made.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not; I do not have sufficient time.

We now have a backlog of 103,000 cases. It is simply wrong to say that such an increase in applications—as we have heard, there has been a fivefold increase in Folkestone and Hythe—should be ignored and should not be treated as a crisis. This country has occasionally to face such issues, and we must speak plainly. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should not be able to call it a crisis or to say that a doubling in the number of asylum cases is not a serious matter.

Why has it happened? We have had the Government's amnesties. We have had the failure to make employment checks. We have had abolition of the safe country list. We have had the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

I should like quickly to quote to the Home Secretary comments by the Immigration Service Union—by those who have to deal with the provisions of his 1999 Act. They said:

The proposed measures are an acknowledgement by the Home Office that it has abandoned the struggle to prevent illegal immigration—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 455.]

They went on to talk about some of the problems:

the criminals who are making vast amounts of money out of bringing people here to make applications are adapting their procedures to meet what we do.

That echoes some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Gorton.

The hon. Gentleman complains about criminal racketeers. Does he therefore welcome the fact that we have impounded a lorry and are expecting a fine of £100,000 in respect of the driver bringing in 50 clandestines?

I do not welcome the fact that innocent lorry drivers are being penalised by the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]

Order. We do not have much time before the vote. It is not good that I keep having to intervene in the debate, but I cannot allow shouting across the Chamber.

How can the Home Secretary say that he favours human rights and then support an offence that hits the innocent and guilty alike?

We do not apologise for talking about racketeers. The Immigration Service Union, which deals with these matters, talks about those criminals—as did the right hon. Member for Gorton. We do not apologise for talking about a flood of applications if the flow becomes an inundation. The Attorney-General spoke about floods of potential asylum seekers. Everyone with any sense knows that we have to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers. The Home Secretary himself has tabled motions in those terms in the past. Lord Janner, who is certainly no racist, has spoken about the need to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have all talked about bogus asylum seekers.

We are trying to make a case that the people support—that we should be plain and frank in our language and explain what the problems are. As the Opposition, we are carrying out our constitutional duty, which is to give advice. Our advice is that the Government should put an end to the amnesties and make greater use of detention in cases involving safe countries. We believe that there should be more removals, tougher enforcement of sanctions against illegal employment and better international co-operation.

Finally, in this country we hold our freedoms dear. They include the freedom to speak our minds—free speech. I for one, and my colleagues in the Conservative party, are not prepared to be gagged by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey or anyone else.

9.53 pm

That was an absolutely extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). First, he clearly was not listening when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we were still operating the so-called white list. I expect that he will be in very deep trouble with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who only recently admitted that the only amnesty that there had been in this matter was under the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman is certainly in a bit of trouble there.

There have been some very good speeches this evening. Unfortunately, they have not come from both sides of the House. I particularly commend the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He rightly reminded us that many right hon. and hon. Members have the privilege of being in the Chamber today because of Britain's asylum system. I count myself among that group of people.

My right hon. Friend quite rightly referred to the contribution that refugees have made to this country, not only over the decades but over the centuries. Last week I had the privilege to meet about 20 refugees. They are doctors who want to give their services to this country. We have a duty to make sure that when we give people refugee status or indefinite leave to remain, we integrate them fully in our communities, where they can keep their own cultural and religious identities, and offer them that passport to make the fullest possible contribution to society.

We need to restore credibility to the system. We want a system in place whereby we honour our international obligations to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. We want to speed their cases and ensure that people are not kept hanging around for years and years. That is essential.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about rapid decision making. We have taken on hundreds of new asylum decision makers—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made this point—and they are there expressly to tackle the backlog of cases.

My hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) call for the debate to be conducted in appropriate language and promise that he would give leadership in that. Is she aware that Susan Kramer, the Liberal Democrat candidate for mayor of London, described the voucher system as like pinning yellow stars on Jews in Nazi Germany? Does she—

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go on so long. It is unfair.

I have seen the quotation, and as a Jewish person I take comparisons with the holocaust very seriously indeed. It is very regrettable that those comments were made.

The greatest threat to the genuine asylum seeker and advantage to the criminal facilitators who prey on vulnerable people is to have a slow system. That is why we are investing in the immigration and nationality directorate and ensuring that the 1,200 posts that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald put in place and that were lost are restored.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington rightly said that she wanted to monitor the situation closely. We will do that. I want to ensure that we have all the proper processes in place. That is very important. The record number of decisions made is a real tribute to the staff. She also asked about toys. I am grateful to her for allowing me to place on record the point that of course those who are in receipt of vouchers can use them to buy toys.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

There is absolutely no doubt that much of the increase in the number of clandestine illegal entrants has been organised by facilitators and criminal gangs who seek to profit from the misfortune of others—jackals preying on very vulnerable people. What do the Conservatives do? Absolutely nothing. They voted against the civil penalty. It was the only part of the legislation in which they took any interest.

We have spoken of the fines imposed and of the lorries that have been impounded. When 50 people are found in a refrigerated lorry, are we to assume that the driver does not know about it? Who are the only people in the country who are prepared to defend that practice? The Conservatives. They try to talk tough but they also try to exploit the situation.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 351.

Division No. 165]	[9.59 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Grieve, Dominic
Amess, David	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Hague, Rt Hon William
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Hammond, Philip
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hawkins, Nick
Baldry, Tony	Heald, Oliver
Bercow, John	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Body, Sir Richard	Horam, John
Boswell, Tim	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Hunter, Andrew
Brazier, Julian	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Butterfill, John	Jenkin, Bernard
Cash, William	Key, Robert
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Clappison, James	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lansley, Andrew
	Leigh, Edward
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Letwin, Oliver
Collins, Tim	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Lidington, David
Cran, James	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Loughton, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Luff, Peter
Day, Stephen	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Duncan Smith, Iain	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Evans, Nigel	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Faber, David	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fabricant, Michael	Madel, Sir David
Fallon, Michael	Malins, Humfrey
Right, Howard	Maples, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	May, Mrs Theresa
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Moss, Malcolm
Fox, Dr Liam	Nicholls, Patrick
Fraser, Christopher	Norman, Archie
Gale, Roger	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Garnier, Edward	Ottaway, Richard
Gibb, Nick	Page, Richard
Gill, Christopher	Paice, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Paterson, Owen
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Pickles, Eric
Gray, James	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Green, Damian	Prior, David
Greenway, John	Randall, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John	Townend, John
Robathan, Andrew	Tredinnick, David
Robertson, Laurence	Trend, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tyrie, Andrew
Rutfley, David	Walter, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick	Waterson, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian	Whittingdale, John
Shepherd, Richard	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Soames, Nicholas	Wilkinson, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Willetts, David
Spicer, Sir Michael	Wilshire, David
Spring, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Steen, Anthony	Yeo, Tim
Swayne, Desmond	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Syms, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Taylor, Ian (Esher S Walton)	Mr. Keith Simpson and
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ainger, Nick	Cann, Jamie
Alexander, Douglas	Caplin, Ivor
Allan, Richard	Casale, Roger
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Caton, Martin
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Cawsey, Ian
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ashton, Joe	Chaytor, David
Atherton, Ms Candy	Chidgey, David
Atkins, Charlotte	Chisholm, Malcolm
Austin, John	Clapham, Michael
Ballard, Jackie	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Barnes, Harry	Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Barron, Kevin
Beard, Nigel	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Begg, Miss Anne	Clelland, David
Beggs, Roy	Coaker, Vernon
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Coffey, Ms Ann
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Cohen, Harry
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Coleman, Iain
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Colman, Tony
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Connarty, Michael
Bennett, Andrew F	Cooper, Yvette
Benton, Joe	Corbett, Robin
Bermingham, Gerald	Cotter, Brian
Berry, Roger	Cousins, Jim
Blackman, Liz	Cox, Tom
Blears, Ms Hazel	Cranston, Ross
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Crausby, David
Borrow, David	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Bradshaw, Ben	Cummings, John
Brake, Tom	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Brand, Dr Peter
Breed, Colin	Dalyell, Tam
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Darvill, Keith
	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Davidson, Ian
Browne, Desmond	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Buck, Ms Karen	Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Burden, Richard
Burnett, John	Dean, Mrs Janet
Burstow, Paul	Denham, John
Butler, Mrs Christine	Dobbin, Jim
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Donohoe, Brian H
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Doran, Frank
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Dowd, Jim
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Drew, David
	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Etherington, Bill	Khabra, Piara S
Fearn, Ronnie	Kidney, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Kilfoyle, Peter
Flint, Caroline	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Flynn, Paul	Kirkwood, Archy
Follett, Barbara	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Forsythe, Clifford	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Foster, Don (Bath)	Laxton, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lepper, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Leslie, Christopher
Fyfe, Maria	Levitt, Tom
Galloway, George	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Gapes, Mike	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Gardiner, Barry	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Linton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil	Livsey, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Llwyd, Elfyn
Godman, Dr Norman A	Lock, David
Godsiff, Roger	Love, Andrew
Goggins, Paul	McAllion, John
Golding, Mrs Llin	McAvoy, Thomas
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	McCabe, Steve
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Grocott, Bruce	McDonagh, Siobhain
Grogan, John	McDonnell, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McFall, John
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hancock, Mike	McIsaac, Shona
Hanson, David	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Mackinlay, Andrew
Harris, Dr Evan	McNamara, Kevin
Harvey, Nick	McNulty, Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	MacShane, Denis
Healey, John	Mactaggart, Fiona
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	McWalter, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	McWilliam, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hepburn, Stephen	Mallaber, Judy
Heppell, John	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hill, Keith	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hinchliffe, David	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hoey, Kate	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hood, Jimmy	Martlew, Eric
Hope, Phil	Maxton, John
Hopkins, Kelvin	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Meale, Alan
Hoyle, Lindsay	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stetford)	Miller, Andrew
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Mitchell, Austin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Moffatt, Laura
Humble, Mrs Joan	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hurst, Alan	Moore, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian	Moran, Ms Margaret
Illsley, Eric	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Morley, Elliot
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Jamieson, David
Jenkins, Brian	Mountford, Kali
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Mullin, Chris
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Norris, Dan
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	O'Hara, Eddie
	Olner, Bill
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Palmer, Dr Nick
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pearson, Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Pendry, Tom
Kemp, Fraser	Perham, Ms Linda

Pickthall, Colin	Stincbcombe, Paul
Pike, Peter L	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Plaskitt, James	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Pollard, Kerry	Stringer, Graham
Pond, Chris	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pope, Greg	Stunell, Andrew
Pound, Stephen	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Powell, Sir Raymond
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Primarolo, Dawn	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Purchase, Ken	Temple-Morris, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Rapson, Syd	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigim)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Timms, Stephen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Tipping, Paddy
Rendel, David	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Touhig, Don
Rogers, Allan	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Rooney, Terry	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Rowlands, Ted	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Roy, Frank	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Ruane, Chris	Tyler, Paul
Ruddock, Joan	Vis, Dr Rudi
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Wallace, James
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Walley, Ms Joan
Ryan, Ms Joan	Wareing, Robert N
Salter, Martin	Watts, David
Sanders, Adrian	Webb, Steve
Sarwar, Mohammad	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Savidge, Malcolm	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Shaw, Jonathan	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Sheerman, Barry
Shipley, Ms Debra	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Singh, Marsha	Willis, Phil
Skinner, Dennis	Wilson, Brian
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Winnick, David
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Wood, Mike
	Woodward, Shaun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Woolas, Phil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Worthington, Tony
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)	Wray, James
Snape, Peter	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Spellar, John	Wyatt, Derek
Squire, Ms Rachel
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Tellers for the Noes:
Stevenson, George	Mr. Graham Allen and
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Questions accordingly negativated.

Questions, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursant to standing Order No. 31 (Questions on ammendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 169.

Division No. 166]	[10.13 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Beard, Nigel
Ainger, Nick	Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Alexander, Douglas	Begg, Miss Anne
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Beggs, Roy
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Ashton, Joe	Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Atkins, Charlotte	Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Austin, John	Bennett, Andrew F
Barnes, Harry	Benton, Joe
Barron, Kevin	Bermingham, Gerald

Berry, Roger	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Blackman, Liz	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Fyfe, Maria
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Galloway, George
Borrow, David	Gapes, Mike
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Gardiner, Barry
Bradshaw, Ben	Gerrard, Neil
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Gibson, Dr Ian
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Browne, Desmond	Godsiff, Roger
Buck, Ms Karen	Goggins, Paul
Burden, Richard	Golding, Mrs Llin
Butler, Mrs Christine	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Grogan, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Cann, Jamie	Hanson, David
Caplin, Ivor	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Casale, Roger	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Caton, Martin	Healey, John
Cawsey, Ian	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Chaytor, David	Hepburn, Stephen
Chisholm, Malcolm	Heppell, John
Clapham, Michael	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hill, Keith
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hinchliffe, David
	Hoey, Kate
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hood, Jimmy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hope, Phil
Clelland, David	Hopkins, Kelvin
Coaker, Vernon	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cohen, Harry	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Coleman, Iain	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Colman, Tony	Humble, Mrs Joan
Connarty, Michael	Hurst, Alan
Cooper, Yvette	Iddon, Dr Brian
Corbett, Robin	Illsley, Eric
Cousins, Jim	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cox, Tom	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cranston, Ross	Jamieson, David
Crausby, David	Jenkins, Brian
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaWeld)
Cummings, John
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darvill, Keith	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolvem'ton SW)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Davidson, Ian	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dean, Mrs Janet	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Denham, John	Kemp, Fraser
Dobbin, Jim	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Donohoe, Brian H	Khabra, Piara S
Doran, Frank	Kidney, David
Dowd, Jim	Kilfoyle, Peter
Drew, David	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ennis, Jeff	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Etherington, Bill	Laxton, Bob
Fearn, Ronnie	Lepper, David
Reid, Rt Hon Frank	Leslie, Christopher
Flint, Caroline	Levitt, Tom
Flynn, Paul	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Follett, Barbara	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Forsythe, Clifford	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Linton, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Rogers, Allan
Lock, David	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Love, Andrew	Rooney, Terry
McAllion, John	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McAvoy, Thomas	Rowlands, Ted
McCabe, Steve	Roy, Frank
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Ruane, Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain	Ruddock, Joan
McDonnell, John	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McFall, John	Ryan, Ms Joan
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Salter, Martin
McIsaac, Shona	Sarwar, Mohammad
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Savidge, Malcolm
Mackinlay, Andrew	Shaw, Jonathan
McNamara, Kevin	Sheerman, Barry
McNulty, Tony	Shipley, Ms Debra
MacShane, Denis	Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mactaggart, Fiona	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McWalter, Tony	Singh, Marsha
McWilliam, John	Skinner, Dennis
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mallaber, Judy	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Snape, Peter
Martlew, Eric	Spellar, John
Maxton, John	Squire, Ms Rachel
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Meale, Alan	Stevenson, George
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Miller, Andrew	Stinchcombe, Paul
Mitchell, Austin	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Moffatt, Laura	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Stringer, Graham
Moran, Ms Margaret	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Mountford, Kali	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mullin, Chris	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Timms, Stephen
Norris, Dan	Tipping, Paddy
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Touhig, Don
O'Hara, Eddie	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Olner, Bill	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
O'Neill, Martin	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Organ, Mrs Diana	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Vis, Dr Rudi
Pearson, Ian	Walley, Ms Joan
Pendry, Tom	Wareing, Robert N
Perham, Ms Linda	Watts, David
Pickthall, Colin	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Pike, Peter L	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Plaskitt, James
Pollard, Kerry	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Pond, Chris	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Pope, Greg	Wilson, Brian
Pound, Stephen	Winnick, David
Powell, Sir Raymond	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Wood, Mike
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Woodward, Shaun
Primarolo, Dawn	Woolas, Phil
Purchase, Ken	Worthington, Tony
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Wray, James
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Rapson, Syd	Wyatt, Derek
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Mr. Graham Allen and
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Heald, Oliver
Allan, Richard	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Amess, David	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Horam, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Baldry, Tony	Hunter, Andrew
Ballard, Jackie	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Bercow, John	Jenkin, Bernard
Beresford, Sir Paul	Key, Robert
Body, Sir Richard	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Boswell, Tim	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Kirkwood, Archy
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brake, Tom	Lansley, Andrew
Brand, Dr Peter	Leigh, Edward
Brazier, Julian	Letwin, Oliver
Breed, Colin	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lidington, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Livsey, Richard
Burnett, John	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Burstow, Paul	LJwyd, Elfyn
Butterfill, John	Loughton, Tim
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Luff, Peter
	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Cash, William	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	McIntosh, Miss Anne
	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Clappison, James	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	McLoughlin, Patrick
	Madel, Sir David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Malins, Humfrey
Collins, Tim	Maples, John
Cotter, Brian	May, Mrs Theresa
Cran, James Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Moore, Michael
	Moss, Malcolm
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Nicholls, Patrick
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Norman, Archie
Day, Stephen	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Duncan, Alan	Ottaway, Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain	Page, Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Paice, James
Evans, Nigel	Paterson, Owen
Faber, David	Pickles, Eric
Fabricant, Michael	Portillo
Fallon, Michael	Rt Hon Michael
Fearn, Ronnie	Prior, David
Flight, Howard	Randall, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Foster, Don (Bath)	Rendel, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Robathan, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam	Robertson, Laurence
Fraser, Christopher	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gale, Roger	Ruffley, David
Garnier, Edward	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
George, Andrew (St Ives)	St Aubyn, Nick
Gibb, Nick	Sanders, Adrian
Gill, Christopher	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Shepherd, Richard
Gray, James	Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Green, Damian	Soames, Nicholas
Greenway, John	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Grieve, Dominic	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Spring, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Steen, Anthony
Hammond, Philip	Stunell, Andrew
Hancock, Mike	Swayne, Desmond
Harris, Dr Evan	Syms, Robert
Harvey, Nick	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hawkins, Nick	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Whittingdale, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Wilkinson, John
Townend, John	Willis, Phil
Tredinnick, David	Wilshire, David
Trend, Michael	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tyrie, Andrew	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
	Yeo, Tim
Wallace, James	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Walter, Robert
Waterson, Nigel	Tellers for the Noes:
Webb, Steve	Mrs. Eleanor Laing and
Whitney, Sir Raymond	Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the Government's comprehensive, integrated strategy to modernise the immigration and asylum system to make it fairer, faster and firmer; welcomes the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which will overhaul the inadequate legislative framework created by the previous Government and will replace the chaotic asylum support arrangements introduced in 1996 which have imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities; is astonished that the Official Opposition voted in the other place to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers at a cost of £500 million per year; approves the measures being taken to tackle the smugglers and traffickers who profit from illegal immigration; approves the new civil penalty for drivers and others who bring illegal immigrants to this country concealed in their vehicles; welcomes the substantial additional investment that the Government is making to increase the volume and speed of asylum decisions; congratulates the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on achieving record numbers of asylum decisions; and supports the Government's commitment to protecting genuine refugees while dealing firmly with those who seek to evade the control.

Delagated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delagated Legislation),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr.Mike Hall.]

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 125.

Division No. 167]	[10.28 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ainger, Nick	Bennett, Andrew F
Allan, Richard	Bermingham, Gerald
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Berry, Roger
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Blackman, Liz
Ashton, Joe	Blears, Ms Hazel
Atherton, Ms Candy	Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Atkins, Charlotte	Borrow, David
Austin, John	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ballard, Jackie	Brand, Dr Peter
Barnes, Harry	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Barron, Kevin	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Beard, Nigel	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Browne, Desmond
Begg, Miss Anne	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Beggs, Roy	Buck, Ms Karen
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Burden, Richard
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Burnett, John
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Burstow, Paul
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Butler, Mrs Christine

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Godsiff, Roger
	Goggins, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Cann, Jamie	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caplin, Ivor	Grocott, Bruce
Casale, Roger	Grogan, John
Caton, Martin	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Cawsey, Ian	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hancock, Mike
Chaytor, David	Hanson, David
Chisholm, Malcolm	Harris, Dr Evan
Clapham, Michael	Harvey, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Healey, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clelland, David	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Coaker, Vernon	Hepburn, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann	Heppell, John
Cohen, Harry	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Coleman, Iain	Hill, Keith
Colman, Tony	Hinchliffe, David
Connarty, Michael	Hoey, Kate
Cooper, Yvette	Hood, Jimmy
Corbett, Robin	Hope, Phil
Cotter, Brian	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cousins, Jim	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cox, Tom	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cranston, Ross	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Crausby, David	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Humble, Mrs Joan
Cummings, John	Hurst, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Iddon, Dr Brian
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Darvill, Keith	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Jamieson, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jenkins, Brian
Davidson, Ian	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Denham, John
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Donohoe, Brian H	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Doran, Frank	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dowd, Jim	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Drew, David	Keeble, Ms Sally
Ellman, Mrs Louise Ennis, Jeff	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Etherington, Bill Fearn, Ronnie	Kemp, Fraser
	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Khabra, Piara S
Flint, Caroline	Kidney, David
Flynn, Paul	Kilfoyle, Peter
Follett, Barbara	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Forsythe, Clifford	Kirkwood, Archy
Foster, Don (Bath)	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Fyfe, Maria	Laxton, Bob
Galloway, George	Lepper, David
Gapes, Mike	Leslie, Christopher
Gardiner, Barry	Levitt, Tom
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Gerrard, Neil	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Gibson, Dr Ian	Uvsey, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
LJwyd, Elfyn	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Lock, David	Rendel, David
Love, Andrew	Robinson, Geoffrey (CoV'try NW)
McAvoy, Thomas	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McCabe, Steve	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rowlands, Ted
McDonagh, Siobhain McDonnell, John	Roy, Frank Ruane, Chris
McFall, John	Ruddock, Joan
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McIsaac, Shona	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)Ryan, Ms Joan
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Sanders, Adrian
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sarwar, Mohammad
McNamara, Kevin	Savidge, Malcolm
McNulty, Tony	Shaw, Jonathan
MacShane, Denis	Sheerman, Barry
Mactaggart, Fiona	Shipley, Ms Debra
McWalter, Tony	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McWilliam, John	Skinner, Dennis
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mallaber, Judy	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)Snape, Peter
Martlew, Eric Maxton, John	Spellar, John Squire, Ms Rachel
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Meale, Alan	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Miller, Andrew	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Moffatt, Laura	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Stunell, Andrew
Moore, Michael	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Moran, Ms Margaret	(Dewsbury)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Morley, Elliot	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Mountford, Kali	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mullin, Chris	Temple-Morris, Peter
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Norris, Dan	Timms, Stephen
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Tipping, Paddy
O'Hara, Eddie	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Olner, Bill	Touhig, Don
O'Neill, Martin	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Organ, Mrs Diana	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pearson, Ian	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Pendry, Tom	Tyler, Paul
Perham, Ms Linda	Vis, Dr Rudi
Pickthall, Colin	Wallace, James
Pike, Peter L	Walley, Ms Joan
Plaskitt, James	Wareing, Robert N
Pollard, Kerry	Watts, David Webb, Steve
Pond, Chris	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Pope, Greg	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Pound, Stephen	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	(Swansea W)
Primarolo, Dawn	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Purchase, Ken	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Willis, Phil
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Wilson, Brian
Rapson, Syd	Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Wood, Mike
Woodward, Shaun
Woolas, Phil	Tellers for the Ayes:
Worthington, Tony	Mr. Robert Ainsworth and
Wray, James	Mr. Graham Allen.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Lansley, Andrew
Amess, David	Leigh, Edward
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Letwin, Oliver
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Baldry, Tony	Lidington, David
Bercow, John	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Loughton, Tim
Body, Sir Richard	Luff, Peter
Boswell, Tim	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Brazier, Julian	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Browning, Mrs Angela	McLoughlin, Patrick
Butterfill, John	Madel, Sir David
Cash, William	Malins, Humfrey
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Maples, John
(Chipping Barnet)	May, Mrs Theresa
Clappison, James	Moss, Malcolm
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Nicholls, Patrick
(Rushcliffe)	Norman, Archie
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Collins, Tim	Ottaway, Richard
Cran, James	Page, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Paice, James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Paterson, Owen
Day, Stephen	Pickles, Eric
Duncan, Alan	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain	Prior, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Randall, John
Evans, Nigel	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Faber, David	Robathan, Andrew
Fabricant, Michael	Robertson, Laurence
Fallon, Michael	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Fight, Howard	Ruffley, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	St Aubyn, Nick
Fox, Dr Liam	Sayeed, Jonathan
Fraser, Christopher	Shepherd, Richard
Gale, Roger	Soames, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gibb Nick	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gill, Christopher	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Spring, Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Gray, James	Steen, Anthony
Green, Damian	Swayne, Desmond
Greenway, John	Syms, Robert Tapsell, Sir Peter
Grieve, Dominic	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hammond, Philip	Townend, John
Hawkins, Nick	Tredinnick, David
Heald, Oliver	Trend, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Tyrie, Andrew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Waterson, Nigel
Horam, John	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Whittingdale, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Hunter, Andrew	Wilkinson, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Wilshire, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Jenkin, Bernard	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Key, Robert	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Tellers for the Noes:
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Mr. Peter Atkinson and
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Petition

Village Post Offices

10.39 pm

The petition that I am presenting this evening is in the name of Thelma Budd of 9 Morgan quay, Teignmouth, Devon. It is signed by Mrs. Budd and a number of other members of the Teignmouth Townswomen's Guild, and it is to ask that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government not to carry through their proposals for automated credit transfer, given the threat that that poses to village post offices. The petition ends in the usual way.

To lie upon the Table.

Bail Hostels

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

10.40 pm

May I make it clear that I raise this issue in my capacity as the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and not in my capacity as a shadow Home Office Minister? It is necessary to say that, because some of the points that I shall make will touch on Home Office matters.

I thank the Minister of State, Home Office for being present, but he has drawn the short straw. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Security should have answered this debate. For rather obvious reasons, my speech will be a third of the length that I originally intended, and I hope that the Minister will not interpret that as a discourtesy.

I raise the subject because there is a bail hostel in my constituency. It suffers much from the fact that different rules appear to be applied by the Home Office and the Department of Social Security. I first become interested in the issue through a case that I raised with the Home Secretary in which a foreign national had been charged with a crime and remanded not in custody, but on bail. Unfortunately, the foreign national had no means of support and could not work because she had been tagged. That effectively restricted her during the hours that she was most likely to have been able to work. Residence at the bail hostel rather than anywhere else in the community, such as with friends, was a condition of her bail, but she could not obtain support while there.

The Home Secretary told me that the person concerned could not be evicted from the hostel for failure to pay rent but only for a breach of her bail conditions. However, in the same paragraph, he added that the bail hostel was entitled to make the payment of rent one of those conditions. If she did not pay it, she would be in breach of her conditions. She was therefore trapped by a very theoretical protection that did not, in fact, exist. Because she could not satisfy the habitual residence test, she could not obtain social security.

When I raised the case, I was approached by Kent probation and told about other anomalies that apply to bail hostels. For example, a disabled British resident with multiple sclerosis and in a wheelchair was refused disability living allowance on the ground that he was in custody and that the Department of Social Security regarded bail hostels as custody. However, according to the Home Secretary, bail hostels are not custody; they are alternatives to custody. Once again, there is an absence of joined-up government, and I do not say that to sneer, because many of the rules grew up under successive Governments and over a long time. They now contradict each other and urgently need sorting out.

The other issue that arose was rehousing from bail hostels. The Minister will be aware that one of the biggest factors in the prevention of reoffending is the ability to house people in stable accommodation. However, local authorities are unwilling to rehouse people from bail hostels and to count those evicted from such hostels as homeless within their territory particularly if they originated from elsewhere before they committed the crime.

I have several questions for the Minister. What are overseas embassies doing about foreign nationals who come here, break our laws and then turn to us for support that we do not give? We are, more or less, obliged to return such people to custody and that costs vastly more than remanding them on bail. Surely foreign embassies should take some responsibility for their nationals who are in that position. What are the costs of custody as opposed to keeping someone in a bail hostel? Is it not worth sorting the problem out for that aspect alone? Would it be possible to bill other Governments for any extra expenses incurred?

What is the position of British nationals in other European Union countries who encounter the same problem? Does it arise? If so, what is our attitude? If a foreign national—or anybody else—who is committed to a bail hostel has also been tagged, can the restrictions take some account of that and allow some hours for that person to find work?

10.45 pm

I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for raising important issues and I commend her on her fortitude in persevering with the debate while obviously suffering from laryngitis.

The right hon. Lady has written to my right hon. Friend about anxieties raised by a member of staff at Fleming house, which is an approved hostel in her constituency. The staff were worried about two residents who were foreign nationals. I understand that, because the residents did not fulfil the habitual residence test as set out in Department of Social Security rules, they did not receive any financial support from the Benefits Agency. That meant that the two residents were unable to pay the usual maintenance charge that all residents in approved probation and bail hostels should pay.

I want to stress at the outset that, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged, the bulk of her anxieties belong in the bailiwick and come under the remit of the Department of Social Security. I shall draw the matters that she has raised to that Department's attention, and ensure that she receives a written response.

There has been a recent change, about which the right hon. Lady may not yet know. From 3 April this year, housing benefit is no longer payable for approved probation and bail hostel charges. The Home Office has taken over responsibility for paying the element of the charge that would previously have qualified for housing benefit. That will join up at least some of her points.

If the cases of the right hon. Lady's two constituents had arisen after 3 April, they would have been tackled differently. Housing benefit would have been irrelevant because the Home Office now funds the hostels directly on the basis of a grant that is calculated on their occupancy rates. That has contributed greatly to solving the dilemma that several hostels faced.

There was always a concern that foreign nationals in the hostels would, through no fault of their own, be at risk of breaching the conditions of their residence and taken back to court. There was also a perceived disincentive to hostels to take on such foreign nationals, even though public protection and the best interests of the administration of justice demanded it. The change that occurred on 3 April has removed that supposed disincentive.

We are committed to the role of approved probation and bail hostels. They operate under the Approved Bail and Probation Hostel Rules 1995. As the right hon. Lady acknowledged, the problems originate in the actions of successive Governments. Nevertheless, they need to be tackled, and we intend to do that.

Placement in an approved hostel is intended to provide enhanced residential supervision in the community through a supportive and structured environment. The work of approved probation and bail hostels is often not sufficiently appreciated by the wider public or, indeed, by some in the profession itself.

indicatedassent.

I am glad that the right hon. Lady agrees, and that Members on both sides of the House are able to signify our appreciation of hostels' work.

Hostels are also intended to be a base from which residents can take full advantage of the community facilities for work, education, training, treatment and recreation. The right hon. Lady raised an important point about her example of a foreign national who, because she was tagged, was unable to work while living in a hostel and therefore had difficulty in making a contribution to the costs.

I have considered the matter, with the benefit of advice from the Department of Social Security, and I am told that existing jobseeker's allowance rules are sufficiently flexible to allow the vast majority of prisoners released under home detention curfew to meet labour market conditions. The conditions of being available for and actively seeking work, which are attached to the benefit, are considered on a case by case basis. European Union nationals are also in a more privileged position to gain access to work and to some benefits.

The right hon. Lady asked me about the position of our nationals in EU jurisdictions, and I shall take advice on that and write to her. We know that, where we have reciprocal arrangements with the country of origin of foreign nationals, it is possible for them to be repatriated during their period of home detention curfew and they can then be supervised in their own country for that part of their sentence, which they would otherwise have served in hostel accommodation on licence.

Although what the Minister said about people who have a tagging sentence is valuable, my point was more about people who are pre-trial and have to keep to their bail hostel during certain hours.

That certainly is more problematic, because the hours during which those people may be required to remain in the hostel can make it difficult for them to find employment or to continue with their usual work. It is certainly worth our while, as a society, seeking to ensure not only that our arrangements enable sentencers to be aware of the implications of their conditions for an individual's employability and capacity to take up benefit from a hostel place, but that the conditions are sufficiently flexible to enable the individual to take up employment. I shall certainly look into the matter raised by the right hon. Lady.

The right hon. Lady also asked me about the attitude of embassies and high commissions. My experience, which is probably similar to hers, is that attitudes vary from country to country, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and sometimes even from official to official within a particular mission over time. Some seem more understanding and more helpful than others.

My immediate answer to the right hon. Lady's question, then, is that the attitude varies, but in the main, overseas missions take a similar view to ours. If people offend overseas, their first port of call for financial assistance ought not to be their consulate. They should use their own resources. For good and understandable reasons, although consular officials overseas endeavour to be as helpful as they can, they try to do so with a close eye on the public purse, and on the need for people to bear responsibility for their own acts.

Nevertheless, it is important that foreign nationals in that position should be able to receive authoritative advice from the probation service or through-care prison officers about the likely attitude of their consular mission. I shall pursue the matter with the probation and through-care authorities in the Prison Service and explore the possibilities of our doing more in that area, and write to the right hon. Lady.

We want to ensure that the relatively small number of foreign nationals in bail hostels and approved probation hostels should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they are foreign nationals, and that the hostels should not bear an unreasonable burden as a result of the fact that there are foreign nationals among the people for whom they are responsible. We believe that with regard to housing benefit, foreign nationals resident in such hostels will no longer experience a financial shortfall to the extent that was possible before 3 April.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for enabling me to clarify, as far as I can tonight, the questions that she raised. It has been a short but useful debate, and I will ensure that the Department of Social Security responds directly to her by letter on the detailed points that more properly fall to that Department. I thank her for bringing the matter before the House, and wish her a speedy recovery.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Volume 348: debated on Wednesday 12 April 2000

House Of Commons

Prayers

Private Business

City Of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)

Oral Answers To Questions

Northern Ireland

Education Funding

Executive

Security

Fuel Tax

Prime Minister

Engagements

Points Of Order

Registered Fair Rents

Registered Fair Rents

Opposition Day

Sub-Post Offices

Asylum Seekers

Delagated Legislation

Immigration

Petition

Village Post Offices

Bail Hostels