Low Pay

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for that intervention; I will be considering that point later in my speech. However, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that those on the lowest earnings will not gain a penny from further increases in the personal allowance. I can direct him to the research that the Resolution Foundation has produced on the subject. It has looked at the matter in detail.

There are also issues—I shall also come to this point later—about the effects that universal credit will have, particularly in relation to any future increases in the personal allowance. Sadly, given how the Government are designing the credit, what they give with one hand, they may be taking away with another, and that is an important consideration.

The hon. Gentleman has a good record on the subject. I am sure that is borne out of his own experience in his constituency, where 47% of part-time workers are earning less than a living wage. He is absolutely right to campaign on the subject—more power to him for doing so from the Conservative Benches.

As I grew up in Glasgow, the real life experiences of people paid less than £1 an hour for security work were a scar on my conscience and a powerful spur to action on poverty pay. The success of the minimum wage in raising pay rates for the most disadvantaged working poor households is shown by the fact that the Conservatives who opposed it, and the Liberal Democrats and members of the Scottish National party who did not vote for the legislation, now would not dare abolish it.

Indeed, several Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, including the Secretary of State and the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, who I am pleased to see in his place, claim that they want to build on the success of the national minimum wage. It is important that today we see precisely how the Government anticipate changing the remit of the Low Pay Commission to that end.

According to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics in response to a parliamentary question I recently submitted, the average gross median wage in Britain in 2012 was £405 a week, which is almost 7% down in real terms from 2010. For the low paid, the situation is even more desperate, given that higher energy, housing and food costs affect them with even greater severity.

More worryingly, the argument that having a job is enough on its own to lift a family out of poverty has lost much of its potency, because two thirds of the 3 million children living in poverty in this country today live in households in which at least one adult is in work. October’s rise in the main rate of the national minimum wage to £6.31 an hour was the fourth successive uprating below the rise in prices. The minimum wage has lost a fifth of its value in real terms over the past decade, and we must begin to reverse that.

Under-employment and the low-skilled, low-paid work that has been created in an increasingly hourglass-shaped labour market in the past few years have made the cost of living crisis worse for millions of the working poor. The Resolution Foundation has established that 4.8 million people, or one in five across the UK, earn less than the living wage rate set by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That figure is up by 1.4 million in the past four years alone.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether, to help all those on the national minimum wage across the UK—including 7% of the Welsh population, some 95,000 people, which is higher than the UK average of 5%—he will seriously consider why the cost of living has eroded the rises in the national minimum wage so quickly in the past two or three years and what he can do about that?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is right, and she speaks with great passion on behalf of her constituents. Some 57% of her constituents in part-time work earn less than the living wage, so she will be seeing on a weekly basis the real effects of poverty on the living standards of people in Llanelli.

Other analysis that I recently received from the ONS shows that in parts of the north-east of England between a half and two thirds of part-time workers are earning less than the living wage. In parts of Northern Ireland and the south and south-west of England, poverty pay among part-time employees is equally endemic. Even in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, more than two in every five part-time workers take home less than the living wage. With women more likely to be in part-time work than men, extreme low pay, particularly in the social care sector, represents not only economic injustice but gender inequality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course. As the Skills and Enterprise Minister, everyone would be amazed—I would not be doing my job—if I did not support that argument, which I do.

[Nia Griffith]

As has been rightly pointed out, whether with tax credits or universal credit, there is an issue about tapering. More importantly, there is also an issue about the public purse. Whatever the history—which, in my opinion, shows that when the national minimum wage was introduced, it was opposed by certain parties, so it had to be brought in at a compromise level—the issue remains that, unless we look seriously at raising the minimum wage at a faster rate, we will continually have to top up from the public purse.

Munitions Workers

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I speak as a member of the all-party group on recognition of munitions workers, which aims to obtain recognition for the many thousands of such workers, mostly women, who did dirty, smelly and dangerous work in munitions factories. I endorse all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who described the bravery of the women and men of the munitions factories.

I am grateful to my constituent Mr Les George, who has undertaken research into the local Royal Ordnance Factory at Pembrey in my constituency. He became interested because his mother had been a munitions worker there and narrowly escaped from explosions, the memories of which remained with her for life. Our parliamentary group has looked at some form of medal or veterans badge for munitions workers, like those for the Bevin boys or land-girls. In April, we will launch our fundraising campaign in Parliament for a permanent memorial to munitions workers in the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire. Mr George has prepared information for display on the former site of ROF Pembrey, and we hope that the county council will support recognition of the role of local people in the munitions factory.

The research has not been easy because of the secretive nature of such factories. Pembrey has a long history of manufacturing explosives: a powder works was established on the Pembrey Burrows as far back as the 1800s, and was known as the New Explosive Company of Stowmarket. Detonators, fuses and other explosives were produced on the site, which covered an area of some 150 acres, stretching along the Pembrey coastline. The factory employed almost 80 people, including young boys and girls. As the work was highly dangerous, employees were paid by piece work that enabled them to earn between 2 shillings and sixpence and 3 shillings a day. At the time, that was comparatively good pay, so there was a local shortage of people wanting to be domestic servants.

The industry was not without its dangers. A minor explosion occurred at the Pembrey Burrows site on 11 November 1882, but fortunately no one was injured. It prompted Sir John Jenkins, my predecessor as MP for the area, to ask a parliamentary question on Thursday 16 November, because the sheds apparently held well over the legal limit of 150 tons of material authorised under the terms and conditions of the company’s explosives licence. He asked the Secretary of State:

“If he is aware of the fact that about 300 tons of dynamite is stored in one room at Bury Port…within a comparatively short distance of the shipping…and of large works where hundreds of workmen are employed…?”—[Official Report, 16 November 1882; Vol. 274, c. 1533-34.]

Sadly, the following day there was a large explosion, causing the tragic loss of life of seven young workers—three males and four females, ranging in age from just 13 to 24. The noise of the explosion was so great that it was heard as far away as Pembrokeshire.

In 1886, the New Explosive Company of Stowmarket was taken over by the Nobel Explosives Company of Glasgow, which was owned by Alfred Nobel—the same man who, when he died, left most of his wealth in trust to fund several awards, one of which we know today as the Nobel peace prize. In 1914, with war looming in Europe, the then Secretary of State ordered and approved the construction of a new plant at Pembrey, with the Government bearing the full cost. It was agreed that the Nobel Explosives Company would be retained as administrative agents of the plant and that the 750-acre site would remain Government property after the war. The Pembrey plant was one of the first of more than 200 purpose-built TNT and propellant-manufacturing factories in the UK during world war one.

As the second world war approached, work started in July 1938 to build a new factory on the Pembrey site, with the Ministry of Works acting as agents. It opened in December 1939 under the control of the Ministry of Supply, as one of several explosives Royal Ordnance Factories making TNT. Unlike other factories, ROF Pembrey also made tetryl and ammonium nitrate. Production of explosives began in December 1939 and reached its peak in 1942, producing 700 tons of TNT, 1,000 tons of ammonium nitrate and 40 tons of tetryl each week. There was a complex arrangement of buildings, spread out over the 750-acre site and set among the sand hills. The magazines were carefully housed around the plant and were well camouflaged to avoid detection in case of possible air raid or sabotage. The site was self-contained, having its own water plant and a power station for electricity. In addition, the administrative buildings, canteen, doctors’ surgery, laundry, police barracks, library and other offices were grouped together at the main site. We can see how big it was.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, these factories were under constant threat of attack. Indeed, shortly after midday on Tuesday 10 July 1940, a single German bomber plane made a sneak attack on the factory and dropped about nine bombs just inside the main entrance gates. Tragically, 10 workers were killed outright or died later of their injuries, and others were injured, some severely. Serious though the bombing was, had it been a little later the casualties would have been much greater, as many men and women would have been on their way to the canteen for their lunch break.

Production continued at a much reduced scale after the war, except for a sharp upturn in the early 1950s, during the Korean war. One of the main functions of the site after the war was to break down large quantities of superfluous or obsolete ammunition. The TNT was melted out of the shells by jets of hot water, and taken to solidify on isolated stretches of sand, where it burned off. The bright glowing flames of burning cordite lit up the night sky, and could be seen for miles around; it was quite spectacular.

Workers in the explosive process units were easily recognised in the area because, as has already been pointed out, the skin of their exposed face and hands was tainted yellow. A stream running from the Royal Ordnance Factory and joining the sea on the west side of Pembrey was reddish in colour, as it had been tinted by the TNT from the factory. That was more noticeable at low tide—it was known locally as the “red river”—and, as the water was always warmer than the sea, locals regularly enjoyed swimming there during the summer months.

The Royal Ordnance factory is now closed and there is a country park on the site, which is on a spectacular piece of coastline. Although I am delighted that munitions workers were represented at the Cenotaph last year, we very much hope that, in the national memorial arboretum, in a medal for the individuals who are still alive, and in something in Pembrey, we will have a permanent memorial to the work done by munitions workers.

Exam Reform

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of language learning. Under the previous Government, the proportion of students who were studying modern languages at GCSE fell, but under this Government, it is at last beginning to rise. On Friday, I had the opportunity to congratulate the Lycée Charles de Gaulle on its bilingual extension, and 60 years of successful Anglo-French teaching. Later this year, I shall visit the first new bilingual primary free school, which is in Hove. The growth of language teaching as an integral part of an all-round academic education is central to what the coalition Government wish to achieve; it is an area where we diverge from the previous Government. Vive la différence.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The GCSE fiasco this summer showed the danger of rushing in change, so will the Secretary of State not only hold serious consultation with business but serious piloting of the type of question that can be tackled by the least able and also stretch the most able? That is a real challenge.

[Michael Gove]

I agree that it is important that we have the sort of questions in examinations that can simultaneously test the most able and ensure that all students feel that their hard work is recognised, but when the hon. Lady talks about examinations being introduced without sufficient consultation or thought, and refers to this year’s GCSE problems, I am afraid that was an examination designed by the Labour party, introduced by the Labour party and there are people—[Interruption.]

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, has misunderstood. We want to ensure that more and more of our children do better and better.

There are two poles in this debate, neither of which I am happy with. One pole holds that only a minority of about 20% or 25% will ever be able to pass academic qualifications—the A stream, the elite. The other view, which was incarnated in Labour education policy in the past, is that to ensure that a majority of children pass the qualifications, we need to make them less demanding. I reject both those views. I think that more children can succeed if we make our exams more demanding, because we have a higher degree of aspiration and ambition for all our children.

I understand why the right hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby and other Opposition Members find it so difficult to grasp this point. Sorry, he is an hon. Gentleman—there is no cap on his aspiration or ambition. They find it difficult because the only way in which they felt that they could succeed was to lower the bar. We believe that it is by raising the bar that we can deal with this issue.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, thank you.

We not only have a two-tier system in the split between foundation and higher tier GCSEs, over which Labour presided—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking about one of the more than 1,700 vocational qualifications. So he supports the engineering diploma being an equivalent. Does he support nail technology or horse husbandry or any of the others? Again, answer comes there none.

The hon. Gentleman says that there is nuance in his position. I say, rather than nuance, there is an absence of clarity, without which we cannot secure consensus. Does he believe that we should continue with foundation and higher-tier GCSEs? Yes or no? A simple nod would suffice. Again, answer comes there none, but we probably know what he thinks. When he was a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills in 2003, the “Excellence and Opportunity” White Paper said that:

“the GCSE has become a qualification at two levels: Level 2 (or grades A*–C) is viewed by the public as success, while Level 1 (or grades D–G) is seen as failure. For many young people achieving Level 1 is demotivating. Some young people prefer not to reveal that they have taken GCSEs than admit to a lower grade. This undermines motivation and discourages staying on”.

That was the view of the hon. Gentleman and his Department in 2003, but they took no action to deal with the problem. At last, 10 years later, the coalition Government are taking action to end the problem of failure, to ensure that we no longer have an examination system that is demotivating and to end a system that discourages staying on.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Secretary of State accept that with the foundation and higher-tier system there was always the opportunity for pupils to transfer, and there was always a motivation to try to drive pupils to get better than a D by getting a C? How will the new system of separating a CSE and an O-level examination allow a pupil to be pushed so that they can attain the higher level—the O-level qualification—if they have already started on a CSE syllabus, which is significantly different?

[Michael Gove]

I have to ask the hon. Lady where she has been for most of this debate. At no stage have we talked about separating children at the age of 14, and at no stage—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, who is an erstwhile colleague of ours on the Select Committee, but I am not proposing a return to anything from the past. What we must do is build an exam and qualification system that is fit for the future and reflects the new reality in which the participation age is 18, not 16. We must make sure that all young people can reach their potential at 15 to 16 and that if they have not done so by that point, particularly in key subjects such as English and maths, they go on to do so at 16 to 18 and beyond.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I am sorry, but I am running very short of time.

There is a bunch of complications in this two-tier system—for example, it applies to some subjects but not others, and there are even subjects for which students can enter one paper at foundation level and still score a grade B or A. There might be good reasons for all that, but one thing this system is not is clear. I understand the argument that all must have prizes, and in some ways that seems like a good thing, but it does young people no favours to kid them that the worth of the qualifications they are taking is greater than it really is. Instead, we must strive so that all merit prizes. We should aspire to the vast majority of children getting those key subjects aged 15 and 16, but as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), there must be the facility to return to them at age 16 to 18. One of the key points in the Wolf report was the lack of post-16 focus in our country compared with others on English and maths in particular—subjects that command a huge premium in the workplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I am certainly not against change. As a former teacher, examiner and Ofsted inspector, I spent a lifetime trying to raise standards of teaching and learning and to develop programmes of study that better prepared pupils for the modern world so that, for example, in foreign languages we moved on from talking about boys falling out of cherry trees to teaching children realistic phrases that they could use in business and leisure situations.

Did I detect the Secretary of State retreating from the position attributed to him in the press last week? Did he really say that he was not going for a CSE/O-level divide? I am not sure. I remember, though, that back in 1981, well before the GCSE was rolled out nationwide, I was piloting the 16-plus. That is because we believed very much in piloting things to see how they worked out and what the problems were. We were trying to put together two very different examinations, with a D grade being attributed to pupils of average ability. That is how we got to the system whereby the A to C grade was seen as the superior way of designating some children, with D to G grades for the rest, and with the foundation and higher papers. I make no apology for that; it is the history of how it came about. It is extremely difficult to set questions that will stretch a very able pupil but not prove to be complete gobbledegook, and a complete deterrent, to the very least able, and that was the point of having different papers. The key thing was that right up until March or April, pupils could move between the examinations that they were going to take in June. That was very important because it gave everyone an incentive to keep working the whole time and not to think, “Oh well, they’re only CSEs, so I don’t need to work so hard.”

I have serious worries about the introduction of a dual system. For example, in small subject areas such as music or a second foreign language, children of a larger range of ability are often taught in the same class. Will they now have to be taught two different syllabuses, or programmes of study, because one class will include the more able and the less able, with some going in for a CSE and some going in for an O-level? In smaller schools, that will affect not only small subjects but mainstream subjects. It may be very difficult to accommodate everybody. The teacher might have to run about trying to cope with two programmes of study at once, or perhaps some pupils will be discouraged from taking the subject having been told that they can do it only if they are capable of doing the O-level-type examination.

Dual entry could arise, because a child who might fail the more difficult O-level-equivalent exam would therefore do the CSE as well. A lot of money is already spent on examination fees, and dual entry is extremely expensive. As well as creating additional costs, it would place a lot of extra pressure on children and staff. There is a danger that children will suddenly not be given a chance to do the more difficult exam and be withdrawn because they might mess up the results. There would be the sheer disruption of introducing two completely new examination systems when there are many simpler and more effective ways of raising standards.

I do not understand the Secretary of State saying that people in this country do not re-sit English and maths, because they certainly do. When we go to any institution for 16 to 18-year-olds, we will find people making sure that they give every pupil the chance to get the A to C grades in English and maths that are so essential to their going on to their future careers or university courses. On international comparisons, it is not at the top end of the ability range that we do so badly in this country, but at the middle and lower ends. Creating segregated systems will do nothing to improve the morale of the middle-ability and less able pupil; in fact, it will do precisely the opposite.

As regards examination boards, the Secretary of State alleged that there had been some shopping around to find the system that provided the highest grades for the least effort. It is true that there has been some choosing of different programmes of study, perhaps because some are more inspiring or user-friendly to the pupil. I am not against having more than one examination board, but will the Secretary of State please confirm that we are not going to have separate examination boards for different subjects, which would be an examination officer’s nightmare? I also plead with him to allow some space for innovation. Having different examination boards has allowed us to innovate without a 100% roll-out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady will know that local citizens advice bureaux are funded by local authorities and that the Government have called on local authorities to play their part, as the national Government are playing their part, and to pass on funding to CAB services. Those services are very important and are valued, and we are looking to all local authorities to play their part.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

At a recent meeting I chaired, representatives from individual CABs and other advice centres from across the country gave the loud and clear message that the current uncertainty about the funding of advice services means that advice service centres are closing their doors, expert advice workers are being made redundant and vulnerable people will soon have nowhere to turn for advice. It is all very well the Minister’s blaming the closure of individual CABs on local government decisions, but those decisions are often taken in the light of extreme uncertainty about the future of other funding streams. His Government admits that there is much cause for concern, so why has he not sought an immediate moratorium on all cuts to Government funding streams for advice services for the coming financial year in order to allow time for a longer-term strategy to be developed?

[Mr Davey]

I am very surprised that the hon. Lady did not mention the £27 million that the Government announced last month for face-to-face debt advice. That has been strongly welcomed by citizens advice bureaux across the country, and I would have thought that she would have given us credit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

As I said in my initial response, funding for local citizens advice bureaux is up to local authorities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has made it clear that the voluntary sector, including citizens advice bureaux, should not be hit disproportionately. I hope the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the national bodies Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland have had their funding for next year maintained at current levels. I hope she will also welcome the announcement this weekend by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we will supply £27 million of funding for face-to-face debt advice next year.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the devastating impact that the cuts to legal aid will have on citizens advice bureaux across the country, leaving many people without the advice they desperately need. As the Cabinet Minister responsible for the citizens advice service, what action has he taken to ensure a coherent strategy across government to safeguard the full range of funding that the service receives from different Government Departments? At the moment, he seems to be abandoning the service, like the hireling shepherd leading out the injured lamb to be torn apart limb by limb by its predators.

[Mr Davey]

I do not think I have been promoted. However, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are taking a cross-Government approach to the funding of citizens advice bureaux. That is why the Department has been so strong in making sure that national funding for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which supplies technology and IT for all local bureaux, has been maintained, and I would have thought that she welcomed the extra money—£27 million—announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the weekend, for which she and others have been calling.

Independent Debt Advice

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this debate on the very serious subject of debt advice, and on the important work that she herself has carried out to highlight the devastating effects that debt, and worrying about debt, can have on people’s lives. I will not repeat the excellent comments made by hon. Members who have outlined the problem clearly.

The number of people seeking debt advice is increasing, and the statistics are alarming. In 2009-10, the CAB dealt with some 2 million debt issues. The main non- fee-charging advice agencies offering debt advice are the CAB, National Debtline, Consumer Credit Counselling Service and Payplan. The CAB and National Debtline receive no money from the credit industry, whereas the CCCS and Payplan do. Of the four agencies, only the CAB offers an intensive, personal counselling service on debt.

Citizens advice bureaux, as we know, are generally staffed by volunteers, most of whom are generalist advisers, with some paid specialist advisers. Specialist advisers deal with the most complex cases, but they also supervise volunteers who undertake simpler casework in the specialist’s area of expertise. In the majority of cases, when a specialist adviser is made redundant, the bureau concerned generally no longer offers an advocacy service in that advice area. The bureau cannot expect volunteers to carry on without that back-up. The CAB is a highly professional organisation that recognises the considerable risks of people proffering advice that they are not qualified to give. Without the back-up of specialist advisers, they know that they have to limit the advice they can offer to clients.

In many cases that may mean that generalist advisers can only give the client access to information about the options and procedures that he or she might pursue. Providing information for a client to follow is a path used by bureaux when a client considers themselves sufficiently articulate, literate and confident to proceed on their own. However, most debt advice clients who approach the bureau for advice feel unable to communicate effectively with their creditors. They need the advocacy that specialist advisers provide.

Bureaux do not offer debt advice in isolation. The client also benefits from benefit, housing and employment advice. At the CAB they know that they are not just dealing with a debt problem; they are dealing with a human being. A person has their own unique set of circumstances: work circumstances such as losing their job or being put on reduced working hours, or retirement or giving up work to care for a family member; or personal circumstances such as relationship breakdown, dependent children and so on. People may not initially present as debt cases, but it may become apparent in talking through their other problems that they have an underlying debt problem.

Citizens advice bureaux have a highly trained network of volunteers who understand what they are and are not qualified to advise on. They know that if a client has complex debt problems that they are not qualified to advise on, they can arrange for them to see the appropriately qualified member of the team. CABs have led the way in using volunteers but making sure that they have proper training, and that they are backed up by qualified teams. In that way, they are able to make the most of their volunteers and to offer real value for money.

As Dame Elizabeth Hoodless, who is retiring after 36 years in charge of Community Service Volunteers, said:

“We know we need to save money, but there are other ways of saving money without destroying the volunteer army.”

She used the example of libraries and pointed out that people may want to help in a library but do not want to run it. The same is true of the CAB: volunteers are happy to come along and carry out clearly defined duties for which they have been trained, but they know that they can be more effective because they can call on a team of professionals when they recognise that a problem is beyond their competence. They certainly do not want to run the business.

We all appreciate the idea of a one-stop shop; we yearn to simplify matters, and we recognise that people often find themselves in a Catch-22 situation and have to deal with several different agencies. One of the vital features of CABs is their ability to deal with the whole range of problems that a client may have. That is why taking away any one of their streams of funding will have such a serious knock-on effect.

Let us look at the overall funding of the CABs. First, there is huge input from local councils, which provide some 43% of the total income of CABs. We all know that councils are facing severe difficulties in planning their budgets for the next few years and that in order to protect their statutory services, they will look at all options, including cuts to funding for CABs and similar organisations in their area.

Then there are the cuts in legal aid. A cut of one sixth of the legal aid budget will mean that some £350 million out of £2 billion will be cut. That, too, will have a serious effect on CABs because of the franchise work that some bureaux do. It is completely incomprehensible that legal aid will be available for debt work only when a person’s home is at immediate risk. One does not need to be a specialist adviser to recognise that early intervention is far preferable, much cheaper and more effective.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, three of the four advice agencies have lost all their local government funding, and if the Green Paper goes through, they will lose 90% of their Legal Services Commission funding. Even services that the Government say they will protect will not be available because the advice centres will have closed, and areas such as my constituency will be advice deserts. There simply will not be any advice available to anyone in most parts of the country.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend vividly highlights a serious problem; that is exactly what will happen.

There will be cuts to advice on education, employment, family, housing, immigration and welfare benefits. Those cuts will have a direct impact on funding for CABs and their ability to provide a comprehensive service, but they will also have a direct impact on clients’ debt problems. If clients are unable to fight for the welfare benefits or extra provision for a special needs child to which they are entitled, they may be faced with a worsening debt problem.

Given the cuts to legal aid and to CABs through the withdrawal of the financial inclusion fund and local government funding, CABs will struggle, and many will close. The Government’s Office for Civil Society has a transition fund that will apparently provide grant funding to bridge any gap, at least in the short term, but it applies only to England, and it applies only to organisations with an income of between £50,000 and £10 million, which excludes some CABs. Can the Minister clarify whether any of the transition fund will be used for debt advice and, if so, how much?

What are the alternatives to organisations such as the CAB? How else can debt advice be delivered? Are the Government expecting the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and Payplan to deal with all the additional workload of clients who will no longer be able to go to a CAB? Those organisations receive funding from the credit industry, and although Payplan has considerably expanded its services in recent years, it is simply unrealistic to expect it to be able to expand quickly enough to deal with an additional 2 million cases a year. Moreover, it deals with debt; it does not deal with the full range of clients’ problems, which are often inextricably linked to their debt problems.

We have to ask the Government what alternative they propose. Is it debt management companies? The record and practice of many such companies gives rise to serious concern. In September 2010, the Office of Fair Trading told 129 debt management firms that they faced losing their consumer credit licences unless immediate action was taken to comply with its debt management guidance. The OFT found misleading advertising; in particular, firms fail to disclose that a fee is retained by the business. In fact, firms misrepresent debt management services as being free when they are not. That is serious, as clients already have enough difficulties without being exploited still further.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that meetings were sponsored at the Tory party conference by the very organisations that are perpetrating scams on our constituents?

[Nia Griffith]

I certainly share that very real concern, because not only is the advice not free, it is poor. The OFT found that front-line advisers working for debt management companies lack competence, and provide poor advice based on inadequate information. Not only is the client landed with having to pay a fee that is not made clear in the firm’s advertising, they are then poorly advised. Receiving poor advice on debt management is a serious business; it can cost the client considerable amounts of money.

Furthermore, the OFT also reports that there is low industry awareness of the Financial Ombudsman Service rules for resolving consumer complaints. Even with all the work that CABs and similar providers are doing at present, we currently have a situation where 129 companies that are not fit for purpose are trading on people’s debt problems.

What will happen to a CAB’s clients when the funding for debt advice is withdrawn? Some may not seek debt advice at all, perhaps because they do not know where else to go, or perhaps because they realise that debt advice companies will charge them fees and they worry, rightly, about being exploited and getting into yet more difficulty. Many will be driven to seek advice from debt management companies.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s actions suggest that the concept of the big society is, indeed, a big sham, and that the real message coming from them is that if someone is struggling with debt, they are on their own?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed I do.

People may not go to debt management companies because they realise that the advice given could be substandard, and that they will be charged fees and could end up in more difficulty, but many will be driven to seek advice from such companies, many of which have been shown to be doing a poor job. We could see a mushrooming of similar companies, out to profit from the loss of CAB advisers, and many more clients being charged fees for poor advice. No responsible Government should push forward policies that will allow that to happen.

What are the Government proposing as an alternative to the excellent work that CABs do? Can the Minister tell us how the proposed national money advice service will improve on the debt advice service that is currently funded by the financial inclusion fund and delivered through organisations such as Citizens Advice? Can he explain how clients who are currently being helped by CABs will be better served by the national money advice service?

Debt advice is a specialist area, and it is time-consuming and labour-intensive. No matter what expertise and computer programmes a debt adviser has, every client will have slightly different circumstances. It takes time to work through the problems, and for the client and adviser to discuss what the possible solutions might be and, when appropriate, for the adviser to arrange advocacy. Can the Minister explain what will happen to clients if the national money advice service is not up and running before CABs have to make their debt advisers redundant?

One of the problems for any new service is getting known and reaching the people who really need help. Citizens Advice is a well-established organisation—it is an established brand with a good reputation—and many people know that they can go to it to seek advice. People from all walks of life know where their local CAB is. Can the Minister explain how people will know about the national money advice service, and where they will go to access it? Can he explain the rationale for destroying an established service?

Given the economic outlook, with many more workers likely to lose their jobs due to Government cuts and the knock-on effects in the private sector, why does the Minister want to destroy a competent, independent, local, user-friendly service such as Citizens Advice and leave people bereft? At the moment, it is offering people very much needed and valuable debt advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I said that in the second part of my speech I would try to come to the specific measures the Government will take. I hope I will have time to do so.

The first of the six points of principle is that we want to ensure that the debt management regime means that those who can repay debt do so and those who cannot pay get appropriate debt relief. Debtors and creditors should benefit from a system that is clearer about expectations and provides good advice in advance; I will come to how that advice might be provided later. The picture painted by a range of hon. Members of an entirely haphazard system is not the Government’s intention and it would not help either responsible lenders or debtors. I understand that and it will inform what we do.

Secondly, we want to see empowered debtors accessing good quality preventive advice, as well as advice to deal with debt, to ensure that the most appropriate solutions are found for the debtor’s particular difficulty. Thirdly, some stakeholders have called for a review of the whole lending and borrowing landscape—a point that has been echoed today. I think such a wholesale review is necessary, and the Government will go about that.

Fourthly, we are told that some debtors and, potentially, their advisers, are confused by the array of choice. We heard today about independent debt advisers. We are aware of the issue, and I take the point about the OFT’s condemnation. Fifthly, it is important that we clarify the responsible options available to people rather than allowing a free-for-all in which the advice they receive is of varying quality.

[Nia Griffith]

What action is the OFT taking against the 129 companies?

[Mr Hayes]

I will deal with that specifically in the second part of my speech.

The OFT survey, as the hon. Lady said, points out that many players in the field are less than scrupulous, and that must be dealt with. Finally, we are looking for evidence on how the regime should work. We have called for evidence, and much has been received. I invite the hon. Member for Makerfield, who has expertise on this issue because she managed the CAB in St Helens, and others to play their part in the review.

On the specific measures, the House will know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been responsible for face-to-face debt advice on behalf of the Treasury for about five years. I am sure the House also knows that the financial inclusion fund, which provided funding for that project, was always due to close in March 2011. I understand the worry about the decline of face-to-face advice, which all contributions today seemed to reflect. Face-to-face advice must support online and telephone advice, and we will look at how to reinforce that.

Funding of £1 million has been confirmed for next year for the National Debtline, as has been acknowledged. We need further work on how to support some form of continued additional face-to-face guidance. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, to clarify as soon as possible, in a statement to the House, precisely how, when, why and whether that might happen.

Secondly, the Government are working with the Consumer Financial Education Body to provide better advice on debt. As hon. Members know, it will shortly be renamed the money advice service. It was set up to take over responsibility from the Financial Services Authority to promote understanding of the financial system and raise levels of financial capability across the UK. It is funded by a levy. We will launch the new service in spring. That preventive approach is critical to stop people getting into difficulties, with the results we heard about today.

The Government will also review the framework for financial services regulation. Two new regulators will replace the FSA: one focused on prudential issues with the Bank of England and the other on markets and consumer protection—the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority. We see this as an opportunity to improve how consumer credit is regulated and to create a simpler, more responsive regime.

As Members know, we have also launched our review of consumer credit and personal insolvency. It is taking an end-to-end view of consumer credit and personal insolvency, from the decision to borrow money through to how we support people in difficulty and help them to resolve their debts.

The feature that characterised most contributions to the debate was the CAB. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am very aware of its work. I visited the CAB in Spalding to discuss these issues. Indeed, one of the many virtues of our system of parliamentary representation is that Ministers are also constituency MPs. I heard what was said today about the CAB and its importance in providing not only debt advice, but a holistic approach to advice that reflects the connection between debt, well-being and the wider range of challenges that many people face.

Royal Mail Privatisation

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment but, to be honest, hearing her discussing the concerns about the future of the post offices was very reminiscent of the concerns felt by Opposition Members under the previous Administration. Our concern in opposition, when there were mass closures of post offices, was that the Government of the day had failed to recognise that such post offices were crucial to communities and were providing a social service as much as anything else.

I am delighted that both parties supporting the coalition Government are determined to ensure that post offices have a bright future. I do not share the hon. Lady’s concern about the future of post offices; they are far better off under the new coalition Government than they ever were under the previous Administration.

The hon. Lady made some points about universal delivery, but I am very heartened. It is important. The Government look on it as fundamental and will retain it.

Turning to post offices, we must remember that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office. In the grand scheme, that is not a bad position to be in. The Government subsidy to non-commercial post offices is currently £150 million, but I am pleased that it will increase to £180 million in the next financial year.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that a three-mile access criterion would be sufficient? In other words, as long as someone was within three miles of a post office, that would be acceptable. Is that the sort of network of post offices that she envisages?

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. Clearly, we need to have as good access as we can for every individual. Therefore, we need to look at a good service and a good distribution of post offices. The sort of figures talked about, and where we are now with the number of post offices, will give a good service. What I would like to comment on, and will come to in my contribution, is what more those post offices could do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

I hope that the Government will not react in the way that my hon. Friend fears. I share his concerns, however. What worries me—I hope that these fears are ungrounded—is that there may be silo thinking within the Government. Clearly, in these very difficult financial times, with Departments having to make huge savings, it must be very tempting for Ministers to go for the cheapest contract, but I hope that they will resist that temptation, that there will be joined-up thinking in the Government and that the Post Office will be given work because of the good service that it provides. I hope that that will be the case for social reasons and because of the access provided by having a network that is unmatched throughout rural Britain and on many of the islands in my constituency.

Let us consider other Government work. When I tour my constituency, as I do every summer, one bone of contention that keeps cropping up in the rural parts of it is vehicle excise duty. Vehicle excise duty can be renewed only in certain post offices. I understand that that is because the Department for Transport decided the number of outlets that it wanted. However, it means that people living in rural areas must go into the town if they want to renew their car tax at a post office. Clearly, the temptation, then, is to use the internet, and if people do that, the work is lost to the Post Office completely.

My understanding is that the computer system is the same in all post offices, so there seems to be no reason why vehicle excise duty cannot be paid in any post office. Again, I hope that the Minister takes that point away from the debate and has a word with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport, so that when that contract comes up for renewal, the restriction on the number of outlets can be removed.

I also want to refer to the BBC. As we all know, during the last Parliament, the contract for renewing TV licences was taken away from the Post Office and given to PayPoint. When Ministers are questioned on that, we just get indignant responses that the BBC is not part of the Government. However, it is a public body, and I hope that the Government are explaining to all public bodies the benefits of the Post Office and the Government policy of supporting the Post Office, and are encouraging the BBC and other public bodies to use the Post Office.

I was delighted with the commitment given during last week’s Report stage of the Postal Services Bill by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for postal services, that Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail would sign an inter-business agreement for the longest legally permissible period before they become separate companies. That is important to give post offices time to adapt to being part of a separate company from Royal Mail.

I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran about Royal Mail in the long run taking business away from post offices. I do not believe that supermarkets or other shops could replicate what the post office does. Post office staff undergo a tremendous amount of training. There is also the computer system. One of the hon. Lady’s fears was that in urban areas, supermarkets would take over the contract, but in rural areas the post office would be responsible. That would mean two separate computer systems and training other staff. I simply do not see that happening. As I said in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), I see no problem with post offices being located in supermarkets, but I simply cannot see the benefits to a privatised Royal Mail of having a different arrangement in towns compared with rural areas. Many post offices are located in supermarkets. In the towns in my constituency, that is the norm and I see no problem with it, but I simply cannot see a situation in which there would be separate arrangements in towns and villages.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned training, the quality of post office staff and the different reception that people may have in supermarkets and garages. Does he not think that it is precisely that type of thing that makes it possible for supermarkets and high street chains to undercut the price that the Post Office will probably be tendering at, and that therefore there is a real danger that the Royal Mail could switch to a cheaper option, which might be a much poorer-quality service? It may even be a loss leader for some of the big chains.

[Mr Reid]

I simply do not see that happening, because those organisations would have to develop a computer system and train staff. At the moment, in the towns in my constituency, the post offices tend to be located within supermarkets. I do not see any benefit to Royal Mail or a supermarket from developing its own system rather than encouraging a post office to be located in the supermarket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate on a very important topic. Her worries and concerns are shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, as we saw from the number who attended and participated on Report in the debate on the amendment to guarantee a 10-year inter-business agreement.

Post offices are at the heart of our communities and are well loved by the people they serve. Hon. Members will remember the postcard campaign lobbying MPs to keep the Post Office card account; many were contacted by more constituents on that issue than on any other, before or since. They received cards from constituents who used Post Office card accounts, and from people who did not have one but who realised the value of the facility to other members of the community and the account’s value to the post office network, because of the work it brought in, directly and indirectly, through increased footfall in post offices and increased business for the corner or village shop where the post office was situated.

Consumers and sub-postmasters alike recognise that any drop in post office business or footfall could have an impact on the economic viability of the post office or village shop. Yet the Government are complacent about the potential loss to the post office network of some 37% of its current business. The loss of all or even some of that business will inevitably mean a dramatic reshaping of the post office network on an unprecedented scale. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) has not explained that complacency. He has hidden behind some potential barriers, which he seems unwilling to try to shift and which may be more a figment of his imagination than a reality. I hope that the Minister will today be able to give us a better explanation for that complacency.

The Under-Secretary did not tell us, either in Committee or on Report, about any detailed work or discussions that have taken place to secure future Royal Mail business for the post office network. There are many ways in which that might be achieved, but I shall concentrate my remarks on three of them, namely the inclusion of a specific number of access points in the Bill, the inclusion of an inter-business agreement in the Bill and other ways of securing an inter-business agreement. In Committee, the Under-Secretary steadfastly refused to consider any mechanism to protect the post office network or the number of outlets where consumers can access post office services. One of the issues that we debated at length in Committee was including in the Postal Services Bill measures to guarantee the number and geographical spread of access points to postal services, which would guarantee the public a number of outlets across the country to post parcels or register letters. Without that guarantee of a specific number of outlets to serve consumers, there will be nothing to stop a privatised Royal Mail from drastically cutting the number of outlets, and limiting them to the larger centres only, whether through high street chains or part of the post office network.

[Mr Reid]

Under the Bill, Ofcom has a duty to ensure that there are enough access points to meet users’ reasonable needs. Surely that is the guarantee. The Post Office will either remain in Government hands or it will be mutualised, so the Government have a role there. The regulator has a role in ensuring enough access points—that is post offices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully, he will see that there is much flexibility in the Bill about what can be changed by the regulator and where things can be moved to, so the guarantee is not robust.

Returning to putting more robust access criteria in the Bill, if that does not happen consumers will have to travel much further to access Royal Mail postal services, and inevitably those who have least access to transport will miss out—those who do not have cars and those who are served by an infrequent bus service or by no bus service at all. A reduction in the number of access points would also have a negative impact on small businesses in rural areas that make frequent use of the parcel service and whose costs, both in fuel and time, would increase significantly if they had to travel many extra miles to use postal services. There is nothing to stop the Government including in the Bill that vital guarantee for consumers. Only a simple guarantee of a number of access points similar to the current number of post offices would ensure that consumers would continue to have access to the same sort of availability of counter services as they enjoy at present.

[Mr Reid]

Legislating for a specific number of post offices does not help, because they could all be moved into cities. The problem is writing the requirement for a spread of post offices into legislation. The previous Government’s access criteria could, as we know, be satisfied by closing 4,000 post offices, so the difficulty is writing the spread into legislation. No one—neither the official Opposition nor Back Benchers—tabled such an amendment on Report, because devising the formula is impossible.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions geographical spread, which is important. Provision should be made for it. Perhaps we should look to the Australian model. There it is guaranteed that 90% of the urban population will have a post office within 2.5 km; and almost unbelievably in such a large continent it is guaranteed that 85% of the rural population will have a post office within 7.5 km. If they can manage that in Australia, we could introduce a guarantee that is much more robust than what we now have. The irony is that, if Deutsche Post were to purchase Royal Mail, consumers here could have a reduced service, while they contributed to the profits of a company which must provide a specified number of outlets in its own country. In other words, we could have a poorer service here, while propping up a better service in Germany—a scenario we might associate more with 19th-century colonialism than modern Britain.

The Under-Secretary did not give convincing answers on Report about what exactly the legal obstacles are to the inclusion in the Bill of a guarantee of an inter-business agreement. He did not tell us about any legal precedents on which he was drawing, or what research his team has done on any relevant challenges in EU law.

The Under-Secretary has also failed to tell us about options outside the Bill itself. Currently both Royal Mail and the post office network are in public ownership. Both the chief executive and the chairman of Royal Mail speak favourably of the post office network. They recognise the respect it commands, the trust it enjoys in our communities and its value as a business partner. What, therefore, is preventing the signing of a new inter-business agreement now, while Royal Mail is still in public ownership? I am not now talking about a new clause in the Bill, but a new business agreement: an agreement that goes beyond the end of the current inter-business agreement, which could run out within a couple of years of privatisation, depending on the time scale, and that lasts for an additional 10 years. Has the Minister explored that possibility with Royal Mail? What would be the legal difference between an inter-business agreement with just a couple of years to run and one that was to last five or 10 years? Has he sought to capitalise on the warm words of Moya Greene and Donald Brydon about the post office network? Has he had any talks about an extended IBA between Royal Mail and the post office network?

I am sure that the Minister does not need to be reminded that Royal Mail is currently in public ownership. He must realise how serious the loss of business would be to the post office network. Even though any decision by Royal Mail to abandon the Post Office will be taken after privatisation, and therefore will technically not be a Government decision, he knows that the people of this country will not be slow to make the connection between the privatisation of Royal Mail and the demise of their local post offices.

The pity is that the Minister does not seem to want to take specific action. He seems to think that he can rely on warm words to guarantee Royal Mail business for the Post Office, but people are wary of warm words. There have been warm words about no rise in VAT and warm words about no increase in tuition fees—people are becoming very cynical about warm words. No shrewd business person would trust future business security to warm words. Surely, in his enthusiasm to privatise Royal Mail, the Minister has not overlooked the fact that it is currently in public ownership, and that he therefore has every opportunity to influence the way forward and to negotiate a longer IBA, here and now, before proceeding to privatisation.

Indeed, the Under-Secretary told us on Report that the Government

“as shareholders, will ensure that the commitment that Royal Mail made in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee—that it would conclude the longest legally permissible contract before separation—is fulfilled.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 357.]

I ask the Minister to enlighten us about what talks he or the Under-Secretary have had with Royal Mail about drawing up a longer IBA with the Post Office before privatisation. What was meant by the “longest legally permissible contract”? Is there a legal limit on such a contract? If so, what is it? As I said in last week’s debate, purchasers take over existing contracts and responsibilities in all sorts of takeovers, and such arrangements can be long-lasting.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) rightly questions what joined-up thinking has taken place on the subsidy. In our debate on the subsidy on 20 December, I said that the taxpayer is paying a large subsidy to the post office network, of which only 48% is necessary to continue the subsidy that Labour introduced to maintain the operation of the current post office network. We have been told that the remainder includes money to convert post offices to the post office local model, which involves paying the sub-postmaster by transaction, but that has been criticised by the Rural Shops Alliance, which questions why anyone would want to work longer hours for less income. It predicts difficulty in attracting new entrants to the post office local model; indeed, a similar pilot in Linlithgow ended with the shopkeeper saying that it simply was not worth his while to provide post office services.

Taxpayers will rightly ask what is the point of so much taxpayers’ money going into the post office network, particularly when they are seeing savage cuts in other services, and given that the Government are doing absolutely nothing to help secure the 37% of post office income that comes from the IBA with Royal Mail.

[David Mowat]

The Opposition continually talk about the IBA as if it were some kind of nirvana. Even with it in place, 7,500 post offices in the network are making a loss. At least the Minister has proposals on fixing that and on modernisation. Do the Opposition have any proposals other than the status quo?

[Nia Griffith]

Frankly, despite the Government’s fine words, the Post Office has no new Government contracts and no new streams of business, and it faces the possibility of losing all its Royal Mail business. Taxpayers will ask why they have to pay for that.

Taxpayers understand the idea of investment that brings returns and the value of business start-up funds, which can help to launch new businesses that subsequently stand on their own two feet, and they accept the need for some subsidy to make the network a truly nationwide service. However, if the post office network does not provide nationwide access to postal services or develop new business streams to improve its viability, the taxpayer may well ask what is the point of allocating £1.34 billion to the post office network. The taxpayer has every right to ask what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that the Post Office continues to do for Royal Mail business that provides 37% of its income.

In its recent report, the Scottish Affairs Committee stated that:

“we recommend the Government take a more proactive approach to facilitating a long and robust IBA, through removing any obstacles: practical, legal or otherwise that may exist. Ideally, a ten year agreement should be reached prior to any sale of Royal Mail. We understand that this may affect the marketability of Royal Mail, but it is essential to the sustainability of Postal Services in Scotland. It is in everyone’s interest”.

Members on both sides have stressed time and again the valuable social role of the post office, and the Government’s recent subsidy allocation suggests that it is a role worth paying for.

Will the Minister say whether concern about the marketability of Royal Mail is the reason for the Government’s reluctance to pursue a robust IBA? If so, does he consider potential diminished marketability to be a price worth paying when it comes to guaranteeing the future of 37% of the post office network’s business? What analysis have the Government made of the cost of a presumed lower price for Royal Mail with a robust IBA with the Post Office, and the cost of continued subsidy of the post office network? Once Royal Mail is privatised and possibly sold to a foreign owner without a long-term IBA in place, it will be too late to insist on one.

The Government will not be able to insist on Royal Mail using the Post Office. They will not be able to do what Lord Mandelson did. They have the chance here and now. I want to know whether they are going to take it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right that the Royal Mail needs to consider the interests of small and medium enterprises. Indeed, it is part of our approach in the Postal Services Bill to ensure that our new policy framework will do that. I hope that he will be reassured that experience of rationalising mail sorting centres has led to significant improvements to customer service.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain what guarantees he will give that a privatised Royal Mail service will continue to do business through the Post Office rather than looking for other outlets and perhaps leaving rural post offices in Yorkshire and elsewhere with very little hope of survival?

[Mr Davey]

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new role? I look forward to many weeks in Committee considering the Bill. She will know that there is an agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, called the inter-business agreement, and it is that agreement—not a Government guarantee—that decides that relationship. We expect and believe that that inter-business agreement will continue.