Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme Order 2007

I agree with almost all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. The approach taken by both the Minister and the noble Lord indicates the importance of this overall issue because we are considering an extremely important order—but one which is entirely straightforward. Were it not for the overall interest in the issue as a whole, clearly it would go through on the nod; and no doubt it would have done the same in the other place. However, we should not lose the opportunity this afternoon to highlight the serious problems that the order has been designed to deal with. Unfortunately the days are long since gone when steelworkers made redundant in the Midlands used part of their redundancy money to invest in the sub-post office network and then very effectively operated those offices for many years along many of the motorway corridors. Would that those days could return, but I think we all know that the current network with its 14,000 post offices and sub-post offices is no longer viable without government subsidy of the kind to which this order relates. I want to add two or three general points to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. First, government statistics have clearly demonstrated that, over large areas of the country, operating a post office or sub-post office business alone will not be commercially viable. In many areas of the country, no one appears to be able to run a viable commercial operation doing that. Therefore, for the post office network to survive, other activities must take place in those post offices and sub-post offices. The most successful sub-post offices are those with the most successful commercial operations going alongside the post office. Of course, that ignores the social function of a post office in many areas of the country. In many villages in this country, the post office is now the only surviving commercial operation in the village and for a number of people, especially the elderly, that building is a source of social cohesion in the village. Without their visit to the post office, many of the elderly will never see anyone else in the community in the course of a week. It behoves the Minister to indicate whether, in the distribution of that subsidy, the social function of the post office will be reflected. The second and final issue that I want to raise, which I touched on in a debate in the Chamber, is whether the Government are satisfied that sufficient creativity is going into how sub-post offices, in particular, can continue. I was very much encouraged by the section of the Minister’s briefing that referred to some imaginative ideas and hope that he can reassure us that in allocating subsidy, there will be some joined-up thinking across government departments. The Minister should be aware of various suggestions made by Age Concern for community use of post offices jointly with the post office network. There is concern that responsibility for making that happen will fall between the relevant Ministries: the DTI will clearly have to be involved but so should Defra, which can make small grants to assist such community involvement. Following the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will the Minister confirm that the Government will take into account possible cross-departmental initiatives to try to maintain the post office network?