Airports National Policy Statement

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to provide any further information that hon. Members require, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support today. As he will remember, when we first announced our provisional decision last year, I made my first visit to Newcastle airport. It is a very good airport, and the leadership there told me how this project would help them to develop their business and help the economy of the north-east. I will certainly look to provide extra information, but I would say that some of the detail will become clear further along the process. At the moment, the advice I have is that we are probably best to use the public service obligation requirements to guarantee that those slots are available. Of course, the airlines will have to be willing to fly them, but as I said a moment ago, in a more competitive market in which new entrants are able to compete—as they do all around the United Kingdom but not at Heathrow—we will see routes appear that should have been there a long time ago. They are not there now, but they will be in the future.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and completely support this decision, which has been a very long time coming. There will be efforts to try to delay the process, and he has mentioned the possibility of judicial reviews. What assurance can he give me that he and the Government will be absolutely behind this project, to overcome the hurdles and ensure that we meet the programme? The European airports are not going to wait, and we do not want to lose the opportunity that this will give us.

[Chris Grayling]

We have taken careful legal advice as we have been through this exhaustive process, and I want to pay tribute to my team at the Department for Transport for doing a fantastic job of assembling a vast amount of material for the House to study before the vote and to demonstrate the case that we are making today. If we are challenged in the courts, it is essential that we can demonstrate that we can make our case, but this is a matter for our elected Parliament. This House will decide whether I should designate the national policy statement, and I very much hope that that will carry weight as we go through the rest of the process.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords]

Paul Beresford Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). I can offer him the name of an extremely competent hypnotherapist who will help him through his flight problems, if he would like. With a special word, she will keep her fee to about half the normal one.

I support the Bill for all the positive reasons that everyone has given, but I have an additional personal reason for doing so. About two summers back, I was undertaking a parliamentary police course with the Met police. Late on one pleasant summer evening, I was a passenger in a Met police helicopter flying over Kingston, close to the Heathrow flight path. All of a sudden, the pilot shouted, “Duck, laser beam!” He swung the helicopter round through 90° so that the light could not come into the cabin, but before that had happened, unfortunately, the light had hit my left eye. The point has been made that this dazzles, but it does more than that—it damaged my eye.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) pointed out, these police helicopters have fantastic cameras. The film is put up on to a screen which, in effect, has the “A-Z” on it. We hovered around and guided two police cars, which were carrying four police officers. Two of them went in the front door of this individual’s property and two went over the fence at the back. They collected the gentleman with his laser beam—I am exaggerating when I call him a “gentleman”. It was just like the movies.

As this individual was collected by the police, another voice broke in over the air traffic radio. It was the voice of a pilot on an incoming Virgin jumbo jet, which presumably had hundreds of passengers on board. He said, “I have broken in to say thank you. It happens to us as we come into Heathrow time after time after time, and they don’t get caught.”

The following day, I attended a clinic at the Moorfields Eye Hospital, where I was informed that my eye had been damaged, but that it would heal. As I have said, these lasers do not just dazzle; they do damage to the eyes. Wherever someone is, if they are hit by one of these lights, they get their eye damaged.

I found it astonishing that anyone would be stupid enough to deliberately risk damaging another person’s eye, let alone that of a pilot in a plane or helicopter flying over a tightly built-up area such as Kingston. Additionally, I am amazed to find that police helicopters are targeted. I would have thought that people would have to be remarkably stupid to do that, particularly knowing that these cameras are there; the word “Police” is written right along the helicopter and this person must have seen it. So stupidity reigned, and that resulted in this person being collected.

Beyond that is a point that has been made several times: I am staggered that anybody would want to damage the eyesight of a pilot of a passenger plane running into Heathrow, as this Virgin plane was. As I said, there will have been hundreds of people on that plane, and if that idiot had targeted the pilots, he could have damaged the landing of that aircraft, with the potential loss of hundreds of lives.

I was not told the name of the individual, because I would have liked to have paid him a visit. On seeing the film—my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned this—he pleaded guilty, but the fine was not effective enough. The Bill will help to address that, so I have my own special reason for supporting it. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Will there be more speeches with such impact as the one we have just heard?

RHS Wisley/A3

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I offer special thanks to the Minister. I know from my own past experience that notice arriving on a Minister’s desk saying that they are answering the last debate of the week is met with a groan; he is smiling now, but there might have been a groan at the time.

As the Minister is aware, M25 junction 10 is where the A3 and M25 link. The growth of traffic on both roads is such that this is probably the busiest interchange in the UK; it has the highest accident record, I believe, and experiences frequent disruption and car jams in both directions on the A3, contributing to M25 jams. There are delays for miles around. As a main link between the south-east and London, the demand pressure on the A3 and the junction is growing and will continue to do so.

On the western border of the A3, just south of junction 10, is the world-famous Royal Horticultural Society Garden, Wisley. To those without a compass—or any understanding of a compass—it is on the left of the A3 after Ockham, just before the M25 as one drives to London. Access is currently off the A3, either directly if driving towards London on the A3, or via the Ockham roundabout. There is a slip road off the A3 to the entrance and a similar slip road on to the A3 on exiting. It is adequately, but not obtrusively, signposted.

I am sure the Minister is aware of the importance of the gardens. RHS Wisley is the United Kingdom’s centre of excellence for horticultural science, research and education. I am referring not only to the world-class high-standard horticultural education and research, but also the annual influx of 18,000 schoolchildren from over 450 schools and the 1.2 million of the general public who flood in annually. I suggest to the Minister that if he ever visits, he gets there and parks his car early, because he will walk for about half a mile to get in, such is the demand. I must declare an interest, as most of my family belong to the RHS and visit regularly. They find the miniature insects absolutely fascinating, and they tear around the garden and try not to fall into the pools and ponds.

Wisley is a grade II-listed park and garden of about 240 acres of historical and horticultural delight. It employs 400 full-time staff and about 250 volunteers. The RHS is a third of the way through a £160 million investment development programme; £160 million for a charity in this country is some programme. That will lift the number of full-time jobs at Wisley by 60 and the anticipated visitor numbers will lift to not far short of 1.5 million annually. That will bring an accumulated benefit impact locally of about £1 billion over 10 years.

Because of the garden’s location, there is no public transport and no realistic prospect of public transport. As one drives, or often crawls, along the A3 one could be forgiven for not knowing the gardens are next to the A3. The gardens and their ancient woodlands are buffered by a well-planted shield with over 500 mature trees, many, if not most, over a century old.

I accept that major improvements to junction 10 and the A3 are a necessity; that is glaringly obvious. The RHS accepts this, and Highways England engineers have been working on plans to sort the problem out. The plan that it appears most likely to favour, however, will hit Wisley gardens hard and dramatically. The buffer provided by all the trees will go, and the entrances and exits will be complicated, adding about 7.5 miles to the round trip per visitor car. I believe, as does the RHS, that this complicated entrance will be a deterrent for visitors. Just as the investment is expected to increase, and just as it is going to help to fund the attraction, the deterrence will come in. The need for direct access and exit from the A3 is obvious. The effect on local traffic through our local villages and surrounding countryside will be significant if the possible preferred plan goes ahead.

There has been considerable discussion with Highways England, which is still meeting and discussing the prospects with the RHS. That is very helpful. Indeed, Highways England has told me that it is not against what the RHS and I see as the required south-facing slip roads at Ockham, which would meet many of the problems. However —this is where the crunch comes for the Minister—that would apparently be outside the geographical perimeters of the current scheme: the A3 road improvement scheme. New funding would be required—compared with the size of the programme that we are looking at, which is not great—as well as a business case and further consultation with local authorities and perhaps landowners. It is a further problem, but it offers a solution that goes with the grain, rather than against it. A relatively small delay to produce a sensible scheme is better than blundering on and then looking back in time and asking why we did not do this right when we had a chance.

I was going to ask the Minister if I could bring a couple of RHS representatives to his office, but I have changed my mind. Better than that, I am inviting him to come down to Wisley to see it for himself. If necessary, I will personally drive him from his office, or better still—for a Minister in the Department for Transport—from the local station. We will arrange an on-site visit with free entry, a short tour with a photo opportunity, and a cup of coffee with an RHS bun. Actually, because it is an old charity of long standing, we will get some Victoria cream sponge sliced for him. Seriously, though, an on-site visit is the only way for him to put this whole problem in perspective. Looking at maps is not the same as looking at the trees. I want us to get this right for generations to come, over the next decades and running into the next century, bearing in mind that Wisley gardens have already been going for a century. I would hate my hon. Friend the Minister to be the one to be named by Wisley visitors as they ask why he did not get it right when he had the chance.

Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies)

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me surprise the hon. Gentleman by saying that I am the Minister who decided not to privatise the Prison Service, a decision which was described in my office by the Prison Officers Association as a victory. I hate to disabuse him, but I am not an inveterate privatiser; I am an inveterate improver of services.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging response to the urgent question. A number of operators work with Network Rail in both our constituencies and not only has the number of complaints dropped dramatically but, more importantly, there has been a positive response to requests for service changes from the constituents.

[Chris Grayling]

That is right. Two rail routes run through my constituency. One is run by South West Trains and one by Southern. We understand the issues on the Southern network, but I recently went to a public meeting on the edge of my constituency about the service provided by South West Trains and found an audience broadly full of praise for the operator. There have been a bumpy few weeks this autumn and some things have gone wrong with the infrastructure on the network, but there are many decent people on our railways who have been there for a long time, working hard for passengers, and we must always recognise that.

Airport Capacity

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We would be happy to meet Members who have regional airports in their constituencies. As I said earlier, this process needs to involve Members of all parties—and it will do.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to find out that I, too, support everything in his statement. This United Kingdom is open for business, and Heathrow is the doorway. He said he wanted to make Heathrow a better neighbour. The neighbourhood for Heathrow is considerable, and it includes the effect of stacking over areas that affect Gatwick—with a detrimental effect on people in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Civil Aviation Authority looks at airspace, it reflects on the opportunities to make Gatwick a better neighbour as well?

[Chris Grayling]

The modernisation of UK airspace will hopefully make all airports better neighbours. This is a system that has barely changed for decades, and it is certainly not designed for the current patterns of usage. We very much believe that we need to modernise the use of airspace in a way that reduces stacking, for example. I know, because my constituency adjoins that of my hon. Friend, that stacking certainly affects our area. This modernisation is better for passengers and better for people on the ground; and it will also save fuel and thus reduce carbon emissions.

Davies Commission Report

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being elected Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee; he has probably just shown us why. I am sure that that Committee, along with the Transport Committee and other Committees of the House, will want to look at these issues and cross-question both me and other people on their implications.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will not be too surprised to hear that I am fully supportive of Sir Howard’s position, particularly as I recognise the huge economic benefits of Heathrow over the somewhat weak plan for Gatwick. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on his points about speeding up the process? He was one of the Ministers responsible on HS1 and is now watching HS2 creep down the railway tracks. Once he has made his decision, which we hope will be the sensible decision for Heathrow, will he speed up the rest of the procedure, even if we have to remove, with a forklift truck, our friend who is currently Mayor of London?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think we are making good progress on HS2, but there have been delays on large infrastructure projects. I would like to see a consensus build on some of these issues, but it is very difficult.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

My research has shown that if we are committing to build a new railway line, the cost of building a fast one is not significantly more than building a conventional one. The majority of the costs come in building the cuttings, the bridges and all the other necessary infrastructure. Making a faster one costs a little more, but not a huge amount more.

If we merely expanded capacity on the west coast or east coast lines, we would have to do that at the same time as running existing services. Anyone who used the west coast main line during the previous upgrade will say what an absolute nightmare that is. Such an approach would not solve the problem of competing demands for use on the existing line between commuter services, freight services, non-stop inter-city services and stopping services. We cannot continually squeeze more and more capacity out of one line, as we will reach capacity and will be overly reliant on that line. That is why I accept the case for a new high-speed line.

I accept that the project is controversial and completely understand the fears of residents along the proposed line of route. There are justifiable concerns about disturbing the peace and quiet of the countryside, but I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look at what happened during the construction and planning of High Speed 1. The same concerns were raised, but since the line has opened there have been very few, if any, complaints.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I can certainly back up my hon. Friend’s point. I was on the Committee that considered the Bill and the line was going through the garden of England, and there was talk of devastation and horrendous things. Some of the complaints were justified, but many proved to be empty. It has worked.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I took the opportunity to visit the route of High Speed 1 and saw the noise mitigation measures that had been put in place. The noise of the trains is not much more audible than that of an A road or other minor piece of infrastructure.

Printed Photo ID Market

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be joined again by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I believe this is the second time we have been the last two standing prior to a recess—I apologise, but that is the way it is. I raised this issue on the Floor of the House earlier this year, and lurking in the background is the Minister who responded to that debate but who shall remain nameless. There has been some movement since I last raised the matter, and today’s Minister will be well aware of the widespread correspondence from many MPs across this House. I firmly believe that what is being proposed represents a fundamental misuse of public money to support the post office network—I have said that before and I continue to say it. The Government urgently need to address the situation, so that the private sector and the Post Office can be strengthened and can happily co-exist.

I want briefly to summarise to the House the background to this unhappy situation and to outline how the Government can and should intervene to allow private sector photographers and the whole post office network, not just the few, to thrive in an environment of co-existence. In 2009, the Labour Government decided to award a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract to provide identity pictures for driving licences to the Post Office. That was awarded without a business impact assessment or competitive tender. The contract took effect on 1 April 2010, when the Post Office started to capture ID pictures for the DVLA in about 750 urban high street offices using expensive Cogent equipment. Consequently, a large portion of the private sector printed photographic market has been removed and taxpayers’ money is threatening to undermine private sector jobs in the photographic industry. The contract will end next year, and the Government have just announced that the Post Office will provide the front office counter services—FOCS—for the DVLA, as a result of the tender launched this year. Of course, that will have a knock-on effect in respect of others moving into providing photographs, such as those for passports.

The majority of outlets in the photographic industry are dependent on the official printed ID photo market for their survival. For some retailers, ID photos can equate to about 60% or more of their annual revenue. The private sector professional photographic industry, represented by the PMA—it was known as the Photo Marketing Association—includes: Kodak Express; Fuji images; Snappy Snaps; outlets such as Photo-Me and Jessops; and more than 1,500 independent photographers nationwide. We can add to that the vast network of photo booths, which benefit many retailers, as they provide an additional income, and adorn some of the areas in the House of Commons. Interestingly, hundreds of post office and sub-post offices have been receiving millions of pounds for having these units in their establishments. It is estimated that the welfare and livelihoods of more than 5,000 professional private sector photographers who work on the high street and in other networks are at risk due to a taxpayer-subsidised body endangering private sector jobs. The headquarters of Photo-Me are in my constituency, in the village in which I live, and the company is looking at sacking perhaps 60 staff fairly shortly.

I am grateful to Photo-Me’s chief operating officer, Olivier Gimpel, who has, unsurprisingly, been pushing the point and ensuring I am aware of it. Private sector photographic industry representatives have been campaigning hard to mitigate the effect of the decision and have sought to work with the Government, the Post Office and the DVLA to find a workable solution. At a meeting between the photographic industry and the director of finance and strategy at the DVLA on 16 July, the DVLA made it clear that it wishes future ID pictures to arrive in a digital format. It proposes a solution that would see a photo retailer, studio or booth sending photographs directly to the DVLA, with the Post Office taking pictures, too. However, in order to guarantee work for the Post Office, as the front office counter service provider, the photographic industry has proposed a better and, I believe, higher quality and cost-effective scanning solution. That will not only meet the quality requirements of the DVLA but preserve jobs at the Post Office and ensure the survival of the private sector photographic industry. The Post Office would in future scan printed ID pictures and thus deliver a digital image.

Discussions between the DVLA and photo industry are ongoing, and following the July workshop it was proposed that another take place on 27 November, so I am hopeful. I know the Minister will want that to be a success and I share that sentiment. If the Post Office is asked to scan printed ID pictures it will guarantee work for all post offices in the future, not only those 750 branches that have had the expensive and large camera technology installed.

I, and I suspect many other hon. Members, will wish to see all our respective sub-postmasters benefit from a solution that allows them to enjoy the ability to scan printed photographs with inexpensive, easily operated and compact equipment in their little post offices. For example, I do not want my own Bookham post office or any Mole Valley post office to start complaining that potential customers have started to travel to Guildford to process ID pictures, as that is where the nearest camera is. It is miles away and not easily reached from many parts of my constituency. I want my local post offices to benefit from the market. In fact, all 11,800 post offices could.

The solution proposed by the photographic industry is best, wide-ranging and cheap and it would work. What matters is that the Post Office should be appointed as the FOCS, which has happened. It should not become a total substitute for the private photographer. My colleagues should understand that the proposed PMA solution would have a positive impact for the whole country and for 11,800 post offices, not just 750.

As a Conservative who wishes to see the high street and our private sector grow, I find it worrying that subsidised, expensive technology is marginalising private sector high street photographers and will demolish their market. They are, after all, small business people who have had the foresight to devise a solution that delivers the digital agenda, saves thousands of private sector jobs and provided virtually all post offices with guaranteed future work. It must be the nation’s choice.

I have to tell the Minister that I find it unacceptable that the DVLA has in the past sought to create unnecessary hurdles in an attempt to derail the solution. It appears to me that there was and perhaps still is an attempt simply to wave the problem to one side, which is why I am here tonight. In addition, the DVLA seems to be claiming that it is not prescribing how the picture should be taken and that the front office counter service is responsible for setting the method. I believe that it has been setting new and apparently random photo resolution requirements that do not appear to be in line with British or international standards but provide a hurdle that the outside private sector photographers could find difficult to overcome. I have asked the Home Office a written question on this matter and received an answer that is oblique, to put it mildly. I used to specialise in oblique answers when I was a Minister, but this one takes the prize.

To sum up, I want the Minister to appreciate five important points that I think will offer a solution. First, the DVLA wants digital ID images of a high quality. The photographic industry’s scanner solution provides that. Secondly, the DVLA front office counter service tender necessitates Cogent scanners. The photographic industry’s proposal will use those scanners and not require more spending, or the maintenance of expensive Cogent digital camera equipment. Thirdly, the DVLA wants photographs of a high quality that meet strict criteria. That is met by the printed ID pictures that are taken by photographic specialist professionals. Fourthly, the DVLA wants a paperless office at Swansea. I understand that in reality, from what I can pick up, the DVLA actually intends to keep paper records of applications, including pictures. The industry’s solution, however, would satisfy the paperless office desire.

Fifthly and finally, we as a nation must value our Post Office. The photographic industry’s solution will strengthen the relationship and will better support the many thousands of post offices. Many of these are suburban, or in my case rural, but do not and cannot be expected to host the expensive and large Cogent equipment. However, they can adopt, adapt and operate simple, much cheaper scanners. The industry’s solution will strengthen the Post Office’s future right across the UK.

I hope that the Minister will look at the matter very carefully in the next few days, and I would be delighted to have a meeting to discuss it with him because a short debate such as this does not allow an exchange of ideas and opinions. It is vital that we keep the industry moving.

Printed Photo ID Market

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am particularly delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) on the Front Bench, as he has been aware of correspondence from other hon. Members, as well as from me, on this matter, and an early-day motion. Although the subject looks obscure, it is of considerable importance to a number of MPs. Much of the correspondence has been between me and Department for Transport Ministers. As part of the complaint goes across government, I have initiated correspondence with Cabinet Office Ministers. To complicate matters, at least one letter from Ministers to me did not arrive.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, I am concerned that the Post Office is entering the commercial business of providing identity photographs for Government documents such as passports and driving licences. That is in direct commercial competition with the extensive UK printed photo ID market. In his reply tonight, I suspect he will repeat comments made in one of his letters, in which he states that

“the Department for Transport, in common with a number of other departments, has recent legal advice that suggests Post Office Ltd has to be treated fully equally with any other potential providers when bidding for government work, even though it is owned by the government. This is based on European Union Procurement Directives but since these are in place to promote competition and this is essential for us to maximise benefit to the public and customers, this is acceptable.”

If the Minister will permit me a slang phrase, may I say that I recognise that an argument on the directive is outside his portfolio and perhaps above his pay grade? Nevertheless, for me, this approach is an appalling creep back to the old days of the Callaghan Labour Government, when organisations owned by government or, even more so, by local government were able to bid for private sector work, often at a loss, supported by the taxpayer or the ratepayer, as it was in those days. Admittedly, this is narrower as we are talking here of bidding for Government work only.

I am seeking ministerial reassurance that as far as his Department is concerned there is no Post Office monopoly and the private sector can compete fairly for any contract with his Department in the UK printed photo ID market. In addition, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified why there must be a contract, which would obviously limit the outlets, particularly if the contract was won by the Post Office. Better still, in my opinion; there should be an open house on photo provision in co-operation with the Post Office to achieve the same ends.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the commercial market’s deep concern that it will be locked out of a huge business serving the public in the provision of photographs for driving licences, possibly for passports and other photographs that might be required by the Government.

The issue has been bought to my notice by Mr Olivier Gimpel, chief operating officer of Photo-Me. The company’s headquarters are in my constituency—indeed, in my home village—and every MP will be aware of the firm as its ID photo booth is situated in the same short corridor as the cash machines, which are effectively one floor below us now. Photo-Me is not the only firm to be deeply concerned about this issue. There are 7,500 outlets in the UK providing ID photo services to the public, which include 6,600 photo booths.

The provision of ID photos represents the core business of about 900 retail outlets, including retailers such as Photo-Me, along with firms such as Jessops, Snappy Snaps and Timpsons. In addition, there are uncounted numbers of independent photographic shops and photographers. I was astonished to find the size of the market for official ID photographs: approximately 5 million to 6 million a year for passports; 2 million to 2.5 million for 10-year driving licence renewals and other new driving licence applications; and about 1 million a year for foreign residents. The market is worth £45 million to £50 million a year and it is estimated that ID photo suppliers derive approximately half of their turnover from the official ID market.

As the Minister set out in one of his letters to me, in 2008-09 the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency faced the prospect of processing an additional 2.3 to 2.6 million 10-year renewal driving licence transactions, which could have required capital investment and scanning as well as 300 to 400 additional staff. As a result, the DVLA decided to supplement the existing paper channel with two further ways of renewing photographs to provide customer convenience and to contain costs. The first was the development of a web channel similar to that already used for first driver applications, taking photographs from the passport database, which, to me, makes eminent sense. However, the second was the extension by variation of the existing Post Office check and send channel by adding the capture of an image to the six-step transaction already undertaken by the Post Office, which meant that it was acting as a face-to-face intermediary of the DVLA and taking the ID photos. That would have required vast sums to be spent by the Post Office combined with training to provide a service that was already and is available from the commercial printed photo ID market.

The check and send service provided by the Post Office before 2010 was charged at £4 to each consumer, whereas under the new service it will cost £4.50 to have both the check and send and to capture the customer’s digital ID picture and digital ID signature electronically. In order to deliver the service, the Post Office is investing £42 million of our money over five years with Cogent, a firm that is supplying the equipment and maintenance. The new service is to be charged to the consumer, as I have just said, at 50p. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister is exceptionally quick with mathematics—it is part of an Army training—but to save him the strain, my reckoning is that to generate turnover equivalent to the investment made by the Post Office would need 84 million transactions over five years, 100 times more than the demand estimated by the Department for Transport.

In effect, we therefore have a taxpayer-subsidised organisation providing a loss-making service. What makes that even more obnoxious is that the so-called efficiency plans could well run at a loss at the expense of the private sector, particularly at this difficult economic time. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 jobs are under threat and that hundreds of high street stores face partial or imminent closure if we cannot find a means of co-existence. I hope the Minister can help us with that tonight.

I am focusing on the Department for Transport because I understand that a contract is to be launched on 6 March. UK printed photo ID companies want to be assured that they will be able to bid openly, for which there must be a requirement in the contract specifications that printed ID pictures that can be scanned into a digital format may be used. The ID photo industry does not want a Government-subsidised organisation in the form of the Post Office to win a contract and continue to lose money on the provision of that contract at its expense. Furthermore, I, and I guess most people in the House, do not wish to have such a service running at a loss at the taxpayer’s expense.

If the Minister cannot reassure me and therefore the photo industry, which will be watching his response carefully, I ask him to delay the contract so that there can be further discussions. If it is not inappropriate because of the Department’s timetable I would be grateful for an urgent opportunity to meet the Minister face to face, quietly at the table, with one or two people from the UK printed photo ID market to discuss directly the opportunity of opening this market and perhaps saving me and every other taxpayer the prospect of funding the kind of losing service that I would have expected from the previous Government but not from this one.