Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme Order 2007

I thank the Minister for explaining the order. The future of the Post Office, as he said, has been debated at some length in both Houses of Parliament in recent months. We should all be very sad that this great institution finds itself in its present great need of funds. We all understand that we have a network of post offices around the country that provides a valuable service—even, as the Minister said, a vital service—to people living in towns and the countryside, but that we also have an entity, at least in its current guise, that simply cannot survive without substantial subsidy. No one pretends that there is an easy solution. The order sounds comparatively simple; as the Minister said, it allocates up to £160 million to Post Office Ltd by subsidy. The underlying matters are more complex and we would like some information. First, is the payment of up to £160 million a one-off payment, with future payments to be debated each year; or, importantly by assenting to the order, are we agreeing that up to £160 million be paid to Post Office Ltd each year for five years? Secondly, as my honourable friend the Member for Wealden said in the equivalent debate in the other place on 27 February, the Government have talked of a package of £1.7 billion over the next five years. Assuming that the answer to my first question is that we are being asked to agree to up to £160 million per year for five years, I believe that that would account for up to £800 million in total. Can the Minister give us a breakdown of the remaining £900 million or more of the package and tell us how each bit will be used? Thirdly, my honourable friend asked specifically whether the redundancy packages proposed for sub-postmasters would come from the sum of up to £160 million per year or from elsewhere in the fund. As the Minister in the other place failed to address my honourable friend’s questions, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would try to do so here. Fourthly, given the brevity of the order, which simply provides up to £160 million to Post Office Ltd, perhaps I may ask specifically where that money is going. Fifthly, Article 2(2), under the heading ““Scope of the Scheme””, states: "““The Secretary of State may make payments to [Post Office Limited] under this Scheme in respect of the costs to the company of establishing public post offices””." The use of the word ““establishing”” seems an odd choice because it sounds like there are to be new post offices. I might have expected to see the word ““maintaining”” used in place of ““establishing””. Perhaps the Minister could explain this. If the Government delegate entirely these decisions to Post Office Limited so that it simply gives out the money with no specific knowledge of how it is to be spent, would they not be failing in their duty to taxpayers? Sixthly, how does this subsidy form part of an overall long-term strategy for the Post Office? What is that overall long-term strategy? Seventhly, has anyone who is appropriately qualified and independent of Post Office Ltd performed a thorough review to ensure that no stones have been left unturned to find alternative services which could be sold through the post office network? What, for instance, remainsthe blockage to the Post Office being freed up to offer the services of businesses that compete with Royal Mail, and free at least to hold packages for later collection by intended recipients who were out when delivery was attempted? That would avoid the nonsense of postal companies taking those packages all the way back to their depots. Lastly, given that a post office closed in rural villages is not, for the elderly and the poor, easily substituted for by one a few miles away, what plans do the Government have to deal with the problem of access for those people, who are often unable to drive or use the internet? The Minister in the other place referred to ensuring that nobody has to travel an unreasonable distance to a post office. What distance does the Minister consider unreasonable for someone who does not drive and who lives in an area where there is inadequate public transport? As I said when I began, we do not pretend that there is an easy solution to the problem. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to these questions and to those put by other noble Lords.