HC Deb 18 April 2000 vol 348 cc918-24
Mr. Alan Johnson

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 18, line 28, after "modifications", insert— 'and the Commission complies with the requirements of subsection (1A)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 to 9. Amendment No. 70, in clause 38, page 25, line 8, at end insert— 'and if a person objects to entry of anything in the register, he may appeal to the Secretary of State who may direct the Commission not to enter it.'. Government amendments Nos. 10 to 14.

Amendment No. 74, in clause 53, page 33, line 41, at end insert— '( ) The Council shall, in exercising its functions, have regard to the interests of—

  1. (a) individuals who are disabled or chronically sick,
  2. (b) individuals of pensionable age,
  3. (c) individuals with low incomes,
  4. (d) individuals residing in rural areas, and
  5. (e) individuals who are homeless,
but that is not to be taken as implying that regard may not be had to the interests of other descriptions of persons.'.

Mr. Johnson

I hope that hon. Members will find our amendments uncontroversial, but I ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 70 and 74.

The main purpose of amendments Nos. 1 to 8 is to introduce the change that I promised the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) when he withdrew a similar amendment in Committee. They will make sensible changes to the Bill. When the Postal Services Commission is able, under clause 27, to modify an enforcement order with the consent of the licence holder, it will now have to comply with the requirements of the new subsection that we are introducing. It will have to give notice of the proposed change to the Consumer Council for Postal Services, and must consider any representations that it makes. That will provide an additional chance for consumers' interests to be aired.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are minor technical measures. They are simply a matter of common sense, requiring all relevant parties to be given notice of the commission's decisions. Amendment No. 9 is a small consequential amendment to clause 38. It flows from the introduction of a licence modification procedure in Committee.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to clause 43 tackle an anxiety that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who we hope is now sitting up and eating his Scotch broth. Clause 43 currently requires the commission to keep under review and collect information on postal services in the United Kingdom and elsewhere… We agree that other European Community states, which operate under the same directive, are likely to provide especially useful comparisons and that there is merit in amending the clause to emphasise the commission's role in collecting and keeping under review information on the provision of postal services in EC member states.

Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 deal with another anxiety that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare raised in Committee. Clause 53 currently specifies that the council must have regard to the views of users in different areas when carrying out its functions in relation to the relevant postal services. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify that the council, in exercising its functions, should consider the interests of the specified groups of individuals.

I understand that the reason for amendment No. 70 is to ensure adequate safeguards to protect the affairs of individuals. That is a worthy objective about which we agree. However, we believe that clause 38 sufficiently protects the rights of individuals.

Mr. Page

The Minister was brutal to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), but it was unnecessary to go over the top and try to accommodate him by tabling one or two minor amendments. If the Minister is going to be rude to someone, he should stick to that and not try to make amends in such a mealy-mouthed manner. If he tells me that crawling is successful, I am prepared to crawl to advance amendment No. 70. However, I have a strange feeling that, no matter how I abased myself, I would not gain the Minister's approval for the amendment.

Amendment No. 70 seeks to amend clause 38 to ensure that information about anyone's commercial interests is not entered on the register that is available for inspection by the public. It would also grant the right to raise with the Secretary of State an objection to an entry on the register. I cannot understand why an individual's justifiable right to such provisions should be resisted.

The current proposal for protecting confidential commercial information from disclosure on the register of licence is inadequate. It could discourage potential postal operators from applying for licences. The White Paper published in July 1999 and entitled "Post Office Reform: A world class service for the 21st century" was often cited in Committee. It dealt with the regulator's powers to publish information. Paragraph 32 on page 28 states: The Regulator will have … a power to publish information for the benefit of consumers and in the interests of good regulation, subject to tests relating to substantial harm, including matters of commercial confidentiality and public interest. The need to protect commercial interests was further acknowledged in the White Paper in relation to the Post Office's five-year strategic plan, which states: The aim will be to report— to Parliament— once the Strategic Plan has been approved. That need was also acknowledged in the 12th report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which considered major acquisitions by the Post Office. The report states: We recommend the greatest possible degree of transparency compatible with genuine requirements of commercial confidentiality on this and future major purchases by the Post Office. Amendment No. 70 would make the Bill consistent with the detail of the White Paper. It recognises the importance to potential licence holders of protecting information relating to their commercial interests that may be disclosed to the regulator as part of the application process. It would encourage them to be more open with the regulator in the knowledge that their commercial interests would be protected. It would impose an express obligation on the regulator to secure the exclusion from the register of information that affected commercial interests.

However, amendment No. 70 would retain the provision's flexibility by continuing to allow the regulator to use discretion so far as is practical and enter in the register information that would be in the public interest. As a further safeguard, it would give people the express right to object to the Secretary of State about the entry of any item. That would complement his existing power to direct the regulator not to enter items. The amendment is perfectly fair. It would protect commercial interests and encourage those who make applications, as they would know that their commercial secrets would not be divulged. It would be of general benefit.

Mr. Drew

Can the hon. Gentleman give an example that would go to the Secretary of State, but would not go to the commission? I am struggling to think of one.

Mr. Page

I can understand the hon. Gentleman struggling; I listened to part of his speech and understand his difficulties. A commercial company may want to have certain details entered on the register, but not those of a marketing plan that it wished to introduce, an activity that it wanted to undertake to gain extra market share, or a method of delivery or operation. It might want matters such as potential ownership to be kept back. I can see no difficulty with that because such information might help the opposition and that would damage the company's interests.

Time is moving on, so I shall speak to amendment No. 74, which would insert the words: The Council shall, in exercising its functions, have regard to the interest of … individuals who are disabled or chronically sick … of pensionable age … with low incomes … residing in rural area, and … homeless … That matter arose in Committee in a slightly different form. For the life of us, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and I could not understand why the Minister refused to allow the Bill to cover the homeless—a vulnerable section of society that should be protected. As he has shown again this evening, he seems to have set his face against looking after the homeless.

In an age of improved communication, it is surely indefensible that the Government have not highlighted the homeless as one of the groups for which the council should have regard. The expansion of electronic communications means that the council should consider the interests of the homeless as much as it considers those of the others on that list, such as the elderly, the disabled or the chronically sick. Why not the homeless? That could be easily achieved by designating a post office box number so that they could receive mail at a sub-post office.

9.30 pm

The problem of homelessness is growing in importance because the Government have failed to tackle it. The most recent Government figures show that, in the past year, there were 105,900 priority homelessness acceptances. In a comparable period in 1997, the figure was still far too high, but it was 102,410, so there has been an increase of more than 3,000.

The measure could help the homeless to take a proper place in society. If one extrapolates the trend—I should like to think that the Government are trying to do something about it—it means that, every day under this Government, five more people are being forced into homelessness.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's compassion for the homeless, but if you are arguing for more to be done for the homeless than giving them a post code and somewhere to collect their mail, I could understand it. However, could you explain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Hancock

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman perhaps anticipates the intervention that I must make.

Mr. Hancock

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I should be grateful if the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) would explain the real benefit that he is trying to get for the homeless through that proposition.

Mr. Page

It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to drop into the debate, which has been taking place for a number of hours. He was in for a few minutes several hours ago. Frankly, if I have to explain to the Liberal Democrats the advantages of helping the homeless, we are in difficulty. As I have already said—I shall repeat for the hon. Gentleman very slowly—in this time of electronic communication, it must be of advantage that the homeless are able to have a post office box number for communication and to get advice and support from the Government, rather than using the insecure and inaccurate methods that exist at present. I would like to think that, when the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will be consumed with embarrassment that he has been so dismissive of that genuine attempt to help the homeless.

The Minister will know that this is not a one-off attempt, or something that has just been produced. We ran it in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening, argued far more eloquently than I have that the homeless should be included, yet the Minister seems to turn it down. I remind him that the Prime Minister promised that Labour would do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation. Surely, including the homeless in the Bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Alan Johnson

As I have said, we believe that clause 38 provides sufficient protection. Amendment No. 70 would undermine the commission's independence by substituting for its discretion what would amount to a formal mechanism for persons to appeal to the Secretary of State if they object to an entry, together with a power for the Secretary of State to direct the commission not to make an entry, if he so decides. Such a procedure would be an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the Secretary of State and would limit the discretion and independence of the commission without substantively increasing the protection of individuals. Regardless, clause 38(7) provides the power for the Secretary of State to direct the commission not to enter in the register anything that he considers would be against the public interest or any person's commercial interests. Inevitably, use of that procedure would also result in delays in getting information on the register, and in the register containing less up-to-date information than is appropriate in the interests of good, fair and open regulation. The presumption must be that entries are made, and that only in exceptional circumstances should an entry not be made. Provision for that is already made fully in clause 38.

As the appointed regulator of the postal market, with clear duties and daily responsibility for regulation, no body is better placed than the commission to weigh up the merits of an entry in the register and, in keeping the register, to decide what is in the public interest. The clause provides adequate safeguards, and I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) will not press amendment No. 74.

As for the hon. Gentleman's argument on homeless people, originally, the Bill required the commission to have regard in its work to certain groups of consumers. However, the point was clearly made that that requirement should be imposed also on the consumer council in doing its work. Government Amendment No. 14 provides for such a requirement.

Opposition Members have used that provision to revisit the argument about why homeless people should be grouped with those who are disabled or chronically sick, those who are of pensionable age, those who have low incomes and those who reside in rural areas. The Committee rejected the proposal not because it was hard-hearted or unconcerned about the perils of homelessness, but because, first, the list of those to whom our provision applies is not prescriptive. Moreover, the end of Government amendment No. 14 provides that the list is not to be taken as implying that regard may not be had to the interests of other descriptions of persons. Secondly, the groups that we have identified all have specific problems in receiving post office network services. Those problems have been communicated to us by various organisations and charities representing those groups. Therefore, for those who are disabled or chronically sick, there is the "articles for the blind" service, in which any item up to 7 kg can be sent free of charge anywhere in the world. Those who are of pensionable age sometimes have problems in collecting their pension from the post office network. The universal tariff is provided to ensure that postal services are accessible to everyone, including those who are on low incomes. Those who reside in rural areas have particular problems in receiving postal services.

We have had no reports of homeless people having problems with postal services. Neither Centrepoint, Shelter nor any of the other charities involved with the homeless have advanced the type of argument made today by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. They have not said that providing homeless people with a post office box number is part of the solution in assisting those who sleep rough on the streets, particularly the streets of London.

The Government's approach to a solution—on which I think there is a broad, cross-party consensus—is that the first step is to get homeless people off the streets, not to encourage a street life style. Many of those people have serious problems, whether it is with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or something else. If we are to tackle those problems, we have to get homeless people off the streets.

Anyone can have a poste restante address or a post office address. Moreover, once a homeless person is in a hostel, he or she will have a postal address at which he can receive benefits and other post.

As we said in Committee, we would not be assisting the homeless by including them in the Bill's provisions and by saying that both the commission and the council have a duty to provide postal addresses for the homeless. Such a provision would encourage a street life style and achieve precisely the opposite to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Therefore, as the Government said in Committee, the House can safely oppose the proposal without being seen to be cruel or heartless. The hon. Gentleman's arguments, both today and in Committee, simply do not stand up. I should be very surprised if Conservative Members pushed those arguments in a proper debate on how to tackle homelessness. We are addressing that in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman's comments were unimpressive. I urge the House to rejects amendments Nos. 70 and 74.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 18, line 29, at end insert— '(1A) The requirements of this subsection are that the Commission shall—

  1. (a) give notice of the proposed modifications to the Council, and
  2. (b) consider any representations made in accordance with the notice and not withdrawn.'.

No. 3, in page 18, line 30, after "requirements", insert "of this subsection".

No. 4, in page 18, line 34, leave out "The notice" and insert— 'A notice under subsection (1A) or (2)'.

No. 5, in page 18, line 37, leave out "publication of the notice'and insert— 'the giving of the notice under subsection (1A) or (as the case may be) the publication of the notice under subsection (2)'.

No. 6, in page 19, line 13, at end insert— '(7A) If, after giving notice under subsection (1A), the Commission decides not to make a final order or confirm a provisional order, it shall give notice of that decision to the licence holder concerned and the Council.'.

No. 7, in page 19, line 13, at end insert— '(7B) A notice under subsection (1A) shall be given by serving a copy of the notice on the Council and a notice under subsection (7A) shall be given by serving a copy of the notice on the licence holder and the Council.'.

No. 8, in page 19, line 14, leave out "A" and insert "Any other".—[Mr. Betts.]

Forward to