History > 2006 > UK > House of Commons

2.15pm update

Thousands of post offices must go,

MPs told

Thursday December 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matt Weaver and agencies

Around 2,500 post offices will be forced to close, MPs were told today.

However, the government is attempting to head off any extra closures after it abandoned plans to withdraw the post office card account - a crucial source of revenue for post offices.

Announcing the plans in the Commons, the trade and industry secretary, Alistair Darling, said there was widespread recognition that operating the existing network of 14,263 offices was "unsustainable".

Mr Darling said the network had to be restructured to reflect the dip in business and losses of £4m a week - twice as high as last year.

He also announced plans to set up 500 "innovative" outlets for small, remote communities, including mobile post offices and services offered in village halls, community centres and pubs.

Mr Darling told MPs the government had abandoned its plans to withdraw the post office card account in 2010. He said the contract would instead be re-tendered and the post office network would be "well placed" to win it.

The number of closures announced today was less than some had feared, and the trade and industry secretary has attempted to minimise the losses by earmarking £1.7bn over five years to prop up the network.

The move came after widespread opposition to the prospect of closures, with a petition containing 4m signatures presented to the prime minister in October.

"The post office provides an important social and economic role, particularly for our rural communities and deprived urban areas," Mr Darling said.

"Post offices face a long-term challenge. Internet, email and text messaging have meant that people, young and old alike, increasingly use the phone or internet banking, cashpoint machines or direct debits to pay their bills.

"People are increasingly choosing to access services in different ways, resulting in some four million fewer people using their post office each week than two years ago."

The government also published new access requirements for post offices, which say 90% of the population should be within one mile of a branch. In rural areas, 95% of the population should be within three miles, with that distance doubling to six miles in remote areas.

The Department of Trade and Industry said 800 of the smallest rural post offices served only 16 people a week at a cost to the taxpayer of £17 per visit.

The closures are expected to begin coming into effect next summer and will continue for 18 months, reducing the size of the network to around 11,760 officers. Subpostmasters of offices forced to closed will get 28-month compensation package.

"This will bring fear and anxiety to people, often the most vulnerable, in every part of the country," the shadow post offices minister, Charles Hendry, said.

"It will destroy many good businesses, simply because the government does not have a long-term vision for the future of the post office network.

"The government needs to recognise that, if the local post office closes, often the last shop in the village closes as well ... a van for a couple of hours a week is no replacement for a post office open full time."

Millie Banerjee, who chairs the consumer group Postwatch, said the focus "should be on ensuring customers have access to post office services".

"We are pleased to see the government recognises the social and economic role of the post office network, but are disappointed that there is no further information on how the social role will be taken into account when considering a post office's future," she added.

The National Federation of Sub-postmasters said the plans were a welcome first step to arrest the decline of the network.

However, the organisation remained unconvinced that the announcement would draw a line under difficulties faced by post offices and bring about the goal of a sustainable national network.

"The package announced by the government today goes some way to creating the conditions which can, over time, create a viable network," the general secretary, Colin Baker, said.

"We bitterly regret the need to accept that some post offices will close, and it is a sad indictment that a programme of closures is better than the slow death of the entire network."

    Thousands of post offices must go, MPs told, G, 14.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/post/story/0,,1971834,00.html

7.45pm update

MPs reject call for Iraq war inquiry

Tuesday October 31, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Deborah Summers and agencies

The government tonight saw off an attempt by the opposition parties to force an inquiry into the Iraq war.

A motion tabled by the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties calling for an immediate investigation of the war was defeated by 298 votes to 273 votes - a majority of 25.

There were angry scenes in the Commons as the Tories - who supported the war - joined the other opposition parties in voting for an inquiry.

However with fewer than 20 Labour rebels thought to have voted against the government, ministers were able to avoid defeat.

In a bid to placate critics, the international development secretary, Hilary Benn, stressed at lunchtime that the government was not "ruling out" holding an inquiry in the future.

He told BBC Radio 4's World At One there had already been four wide-ranging inquiries into Iraq but added: "Of course, there are going to be lessons to be learned, and we're not ruling out further inquiries.

"The question for the House of Commons today is: is now the right time to pass a motion calling for an inquiry to be established now, when our troops are putting their lives on the line in Iraq supporting the fledgling democracy there, in the face of terrorism and those who are engaged in sectarian murder?

"We need to be absolutely clear that now is not the time to do that, and that's why I find it so inexplicable that the Conservatives, who have supported the military action in Iraq, should be indicating that it is their intention to vote in support of this motion."

The shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, told World At One: "It's very important that we get from the government a commitment today that there are lessons to be learned from Iraq and the appropriate way to learn those lessons is to have an independent inquiry at some point in the future."

The shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, said they wanted to put "pressure" on the government.

"The practical effect, if the motion were to be carried later today, is that the government would have to come back to the House of Commons with their own proposals for an inquiry at the appropriate time, and we would back them in doing so."

But Mr Hague dismissed concerns that committing to an inquiry would send a message of "weakness".

"It shows that we are a society that is able to learn and that's the great strength of our democracy," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"Debates took place in the House of Commons about military events at the height of the first and second world wars. People didn't say we mustn't ever debate these things because it might encourage the Germans."

Today's motion provided the opportunity for the first full debate on Iraq on the floor of the Commons since the invasion three and a half years ago, when Conservatives voted with the government in support of war.

The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, said this morning: "The idea is to restore parliamentary accountability over a war which has obviously gone badly wrong. We are stuck in a bloody quagmire in Iraq with no end in sight.

"If the government were to lose this debate, the prime minister's tenure would be measured in hours and days rather than weeks and months, but I think far more likely is the registration in the House of Commons of concern."

    MPs reject call for Iraq war inquiry, G, 31.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1935857,00.html

MPs' expenses claims hit record £86.8m

· Claims range from £50,000 to £175,000
· Critics demand more transparency over payouts

Friday October 27, 2006
Guardian
Tania Branigan, political correspondent

MPs received a record £86.8m in expenses and allowances last year - more than twice their total wage and pension bill of £38.4m - it emerged yesterday. They claimed an average of around £131,000, taking the total cost to around £200,000 per constituency, including salary package.

But individual claims ranged from under £50,000 for Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering, to almost £175,000 for Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk, thanks in large part to the Scottish MP's £45,000 claim for travel. It emerged yesterday that MPS are even allowed to claim 20p per mile if they cycle to work in Westminster. Tory leader David Cameron, who famously cycled to work followed by his chauffeur carrying his clothes, did not claim mileage in his total expenses claim last year of £135,700.

The latest parliamentary expenses report shows how £48.8m claimed by MPs was spent on staffing offices, with the allowance for a second home in London or constituencies accounting for £10.7m. MPs can claim for accommodation costs including mortgages, rent, utility bills and even furniture and TV licences. Cabinet ministers housed by the taxpayer claimed more than £115,000 under the allowance - including John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, who at the time had two state residences but claimed £2,500 more than education secretary Alan Johnson, who represents the neighbouring constituency, and who has never had a grace and favour home. MPs are also reimbursed for spending on travel, office costs and computer equipment.

But the huge disparities in the amounts spent on postage and stationery fuelled suspicion that people in marginal constituencies send more information on their activities to constituents, in the hope of safeguarding their seats. The figures show there are no Tory MPs in the top 20 overall claimants. The most expensive government figure was chief whip Jacqui Smith, whose Redditch seat is highly marginal - she claimed £158,000.

The total for the last financial year is £6m more than in 2004-05, and £30m more than in 2001-02, the first year for which figures are available, according to Bloomberg analysis. Peers are unpaid, but spent £15.6m on expenses.

"It's not surprising that politicians think they can get away with these huge expense accounts because there's no transparency in the system," said Heather Brooke, a campaigner for open government and the author of Your Right to Know.

Critics also argue that the system is based on trust, pointing out that MPs do not even have to offer receipts for expenditure under £250. The information commissioner has twice urged politicians to open their books. Expenses claims by members of the Scottish parliament dropped sharply after detailed breakdowns were published.

But Liberal Democrat MP Nick Harvey, speaking for the Commons committee which oversees the expenditure, insisted: "Compared to parliamentarians in other countries, this represents excellent value for money. This money is for the essential cost of staffing and running their offices in parliament and in the area they represent." Politicians also argue that high expenses claims may indicate a particularly dedicated MP who does more to help constituents, rather than a particularly extravagant one.

This year's figures show that the prime minister has almost halved his expense claims for his constituency home to £8,399 after bad publicity last year. His overall bill as a constituency MP was just over £87,000, while Gordon Brown claimed £135,000 in expenses.

Foreign secretary Margaret Beckett's £133,000 bill included almost £100,000 on staff salaries, including that of her husband Leo, who runs her office. Labour MPs said yesterday that she was one of the hardest workers at Westminster.

Mr Harvey said the overall increase was largely due to last year's general election, which meant that the 135 MPs who retired or lost their seats spent around £5.8m on winding up their affairs, while new members had to set up offices. The total cost of an MP is £729,000 if the running costs of the Commons - such as security - are included, while a peer costs just £149,000.

Big spenders

1: Eric Joyce, Falkirk, Lab £174,811
2: Alistair Carmichael, Orkney & Shetland, Lib Dem £161,815
3: Ashok Kumar, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, Lab £161,049
4: Jacqui Smith, Redditch, Lab £158,313
5: Alex Salmond, Banff & Buchan, SNP £157,844
6: Andrew George, St Ives, Lib Dem £157,308
7: Liam Byrne, Birmingham Hodge Hill, Lab £156,988
8: Sharon Hodgson, Gateshead East & Washington West, Lab £156,891
9: Ian Davidson, Glasgow South West, Lab £155,521
10: Ian Austin, Dudley North, Lab £155,242
11: Angus Robertson, Moray, SNP £155,189
12: Andrew Dismore, Hendon, Lab £154,539
13: Dan Norris, Wansdyke, Lab £154,447
14: Nigel Griffiths, Edinburgh South, Lab £153,570
15: Frank Doran, Aberdeen North, Lab £152,852
16: Jeffrey Donaldson, Lagan Valley, DUP £152,722
17: Janet Anderson, Rossendale & Darwen, Lab £152,137
18: Michael Connarty, Linlithgow & East Falkirk, Lab £151,854
19: Bill Rammell, Harlow, Lab £151,377
20: Charlotte Atkins, Staffordshire Moorlands, Lab £151,227
21: Paul Keetch, Hereford, Lib Dem £151,053
22: John Grogan, Selby, Lab £150,984
23: Alan Simpson, Nottingham South, Lab £150,620
24: Ian Taylor, Esher & Walton, Con £150,356
25: Jim Murphy, East Renfrewshire, Lab £149,846

The most frugal

1: Willie Rennie, Dunfirmline & West Fife, Lib Dem £37,670*
2: Philip Hollobone, Kettering, Con £49,576
3: Michael Martin, Glasgow North East, Lab - Speaker £66,954
4: Dennis Skinner, Bolsover, Lab £67,706
5: Adam Afriyie, Windsor, Con £68,325
6: Bridget Prentice, Lewisham East, Lab £77,194
7: David Evennett, Bexleyheath & Crayford, Con £79,543
8: John Randall, Uxbridge, Con £80,163
9: David Winnick, Walsall North, Lab £80,450
10: Nick Hurd, Ruislip-Northwood, Con £85,268
11: James Brokenshire, Hornchurch, Con £85,819
12: Greg Hands, Hammersmith & Fulham, Con £87,257
13: Tony Blair, Sedgefield, Lab £87,342
14: Sir John Stanley, Tonbridge & Malling, Con £87,627
15: Alan Williams, Swansea West, Lab £87,825
16: Brian Binley, Northampton South, Con £88,130
17: Stephen Dorrell, Charnwood, Con £88,247
18: Sir Nicholas Winterton, Macclesfield, Con £88,515
19: Desmond Swayne, New Forest West, Con £90,522
20: Jim Devine, Livingston, Lab £92,297
21: David Gauke, South West Hertfordshire, Con £94,392
22: Philip Hammond, Runnymede & Weybridge, Con £95,248
23: Grant Shapps, Welwyn Hatfield, Con £95,827
24: Theresa May, Maidenhead, Con £96,241
25: David Simpson, Upper Bann, DUP £96,389


· Sinn Fein members excluded as they do not sit at Westminster

*Willie Rennie elected February 2006

    MPs' expenses claims hit record £86.8m, G, 27.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,,1932769,00.html

State pension protest descends on parliament

Wednesday October 25, 2006
Press Association
Guardian Unlimited

Pensioners from across the country today descended on parliament and demanded that they not be left "to rot in poverty".

One thousand protestors gathered to lobby parliament to increase the basic state pension. Many were dressed as skeletons to underline the fact that half a million pensioners die every year, and that three million will miss out on government plans to link the payment to earnings in 2012.

Ministers announced earlier this year that they would restore the link, which was abolished under Margaret Thatcher in 1980, as part of a widespread reform to the pensions system.

But campaigners today poured scorn on the idea that introducing the link immediately was unaffordable. They loudly cheered speakers at a meeting in Westminster who compared the lack of spending on the elderly with the billions used for defence.

One of the protestors, Jay Ginn, 67, of Coulsdon in Surrey, said: "They have increased money for the NHS, which is great, and for education, but the one big thing they haven't done is increased money for pensioners. In fact they have effectively reduced it.

"There are people here who fought in the war, who built this country up to what it is. They have worked hard all their lives building the country and now we are just left to rot in poverty. We are very angry about it."

Kelvin Hopkins, Labour MP for Luton North, told pensioners that he himself had recently turned 65 and backed their calls.

He said: "My own view is that this is a very, very modest demand, and I think pensioners have got to go on from this to get a much better basic state pension for everyone."

Another Labour MP, Kate Hoey, told delegates: "Where is the priority for this country at this moment in time? In my view it would be restoring the link immediately, not restoring Trident [Britain's independent nuclear deterrent]."

She said that money spent on the war in Iraq, which was not supported by the majority of the public, "could have been spent on realising the aspirations of pensioners in this country."

Left wing Labour leadership challenger, John McDonnell, said he was "sick to death" of the failure to restore the link.

He told the rally: "It is not much to ask when you work all your life, and many of you have served your country as well, it is not much to ask that you don't have to face poverty."

He said the government's tax credits scheme for pensioners was both demeaning and complicated.

The National Pensioners Convention, which was behind today's demonstration, wants to see an increase in basic state pensions to £114 a week from the current figure of £84.25 in a bid to address pensioner poverty.

More than 80 MPs have signed an Early Day Motion in support of their demands.

Many of the protestors attending the rally later visited the House of Commons to lobby their MPs. Campaigners were due to deliver a petition with 100,000 signatures to Downing Street.

Earlier, a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "Tackling pensioner poverty has been our first priority.

"Since 1997, initiatives such as pension credits have helped to lift more than two million pensioners out of absolute poverty and a million people out of relative poverty."

    State pension protest descends on parliament, G, 25.10.2006, http://money.guardian.co.uk/money.guardian.co.uk/pensionswhitepaper/story/0,,1931057,00.html

MPs vote for blanket smoking ban next year

· Majority of 200 rejects private clubs compromise
· Officials proclaim victory for better public health

Wednesday February 15, 2006
The Guardian
Michael White, political editor

A total ban on smoking inside offices, pubs, restaurants and "virtually every enclosed public place and workplace" throughout England will come into force in the summer of 2007 after a resounding cross-party majority of MPs yesterday rejected last minute compromises designed to exempt some pubs and private clubs.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the health secretary Patricia Hewitt went with the flow of expert, public and backbench opinion, changed their positions during the day and voted to abandon Labour's manifesto position of less than a year ago.

In the crucial free vote, with neither side certain which would prevail, Ms Hewitt's latest compromise was rejected by 384 votes to 184. The 200-vote majority did not include the defence secretary, John Reid.

Health officials proclaimed the vote a historic victory, to be compared with the 1948 NHS Act or the clean air legislation which ended city smog in the 50s. But some MPs predict a backlash among voters who cherish their right to drink and smoke in working men's clubs and the grand private clubs of Pall Mall.

With smoke-free workplaces becoming "the norm", Ms Hewitt told MPs: "Over time we estimate an additional 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of this law and millions more will be protected from second hand smoke."

That should cut the 85,000 smoking related deaths a year, pro-ban MPs believe. Scotland and Northern Ireland have already enacted public bans and the Welsh assembly has agreed in principle. Ministers also announced an increase in fines, from a maximum £200 to £1,000 for not displaying ban signs, and from £200 to £2,500 for not enforcing the ban.

Yesterday's votes came after a zealous Commons debate on the government's health bill, which even saw Liberal Democrat leadership candidates Sir Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes defying their manifesto commitment to a full ban.

Both sides in the dispute - 40 years after Harold Wilson's Labour government first promised such a ban - squabbled to the very end over the right line to draw between between protecting public health and individual liberty. Labour's Steve Pound, a self-styled "ashtray monitor" since primary school, made a witty appeal for tolerance and realism - but in vain. Last night MPs first voted 453 to 125 to replace the 2005 manifesto compromise, fashioned by Ms Hewitt's predecessor, Mr Reid, and backed by the then-cabinet. It would have exempted pubs which sell cooked food from the proposed ban, a halfway house intended to allow both choice and time to build consensus.

The Reid formula was denounced as unworkable and wrong by health professionals and trade unions who warned of the dangers of passive smoking for other customers and employees, not least pub staff. Opinion polls have moved their way.

Last night Mr Reid's no vote was joined by cabinet colleagues John Prescott, Tessa Jowell, Alan Johnson, Ruth Kelly and John Hutton, plus 44 other Labour MPs, many from traditional industrial towns with clubs that will be affected or even put out of business. Most Tory MPs including the past three leaders voted no, though David Cameron was absent as his wife gave birth. Eight Lib Dems also voted no.

A majority of MPs, including Ms Hewitt's Tory shadow, Andrew Lansley - who has also changed his position since 2005 - endorsed a replacement clause to confirm ministerial powers to exempt private and residential homes, hotel rooms, prisons and hostels. It would also have allowed Ms Hewitt to exempt 18,500 private clubs, owned by their members and run on a non-profit basis, and therefore just as entitled to "make their own decisions as [people] in their own homes", she argued during the bill's second reading debate in November.

Yesterday she made the clubs' case again, but defied Conservative taunts that her "voice and vote" in debate should go the same way, admitting she had an open mind. Colleagues told her a clubs exemption would be unfair to pubs.

A second vote, designed to decide the clubs issue separately, saw MPs vote by the thumping 200 majority to reject that option. Ms Hewitt's ministerial team, which had been divided, fell into line.

The smokers' lobby group Forest condemned "a double whammy, an unnecessary and illiberal piece of legislation that ignores public opinion and denies freedom of choice to millions of people".

    MPs vote for blanket smoking ban next year, G, 15.2.2006,http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1709946,00.html

Biometric scans for passports from April

· ID card vote paves way for detailed national database
· Start of £5.8bn computer procurement project

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
The Guardian
Tuesday February 14, 2006

The final Commons votes last night cleared the way for the first national identity card scheme in Britain for 50 years.
Parliament's approval of ID card legislation signals the start of a procurement process for the largest public sector computer project in Europe, which carries a minimum official price tag of £5.8bn in running costs over the next 10 years.

A debate launched in 1995 by the former Tory leader Michael Howard, when he was home secretary, is set to become law. It will eventually mean that 38 million British citizens over the age of 16 and resident foreign nationals who have lived here for more than three months will have their details registered on a powerful national identity database.

The first step will come this April, when a "biometric" security feature - an electronic scan of a finger, an iris or the face - will be included for some of those who renew their passports. In October a network of 70 passport/identity card offices will open, where all first-time passport applicants will be interviewed.

Within two years - that is from 2008-09 - the 7 million people who renew or apply for a passport will be given a full biometric passport, possibly containing electronic scans of all their fingers, thumbs, face and eyes, and have their details entered automatically onto the national identity database. In effect, they will get an ID card by what critics call "creeping compulsion".

The front of the card will carry details such as signature, photograph and nationality, but the entry on the database will have more than 40 pieces of information, including previous addresses, immigration status and unique identity number. Citizens will have access to information about who has used their database entry but ministers say it will not link to criminal records or other sensitive personal information such as medical treatment.

The fee for this new combined biometric passport/ID card has not been set, but ministers have cited a cost of £93 each. This could be offset by charges to the private sector for verifying customers' IDs.

A 10-year passport costs £51 and officials say the cost of the biometric passport will make up 70% of the £93 cited. Critics say the cards will last five years, not 10, and the scheme could cost up to £19bn, putting a £300-a-head price tag on the project. Ministers have said they will produce a £30 standalone ID card, which could also be used as a travel document within the EU.

In the meantime, Home Office officials will start to put in place the biggest IT procurement exercise in the European Union. They will invite commercial suppliers to manufacture the identity cards and the chips that will store the biometric data - as well as the IT infrastructure to set up the database, the data hub, and the system of scanners and readers that will ensure everybody's identity is verified.

The government has refused to publish a figure for these set-up costs, saying it would restrict their ability to gain value for money from potential bidders.

The Home Office says that by 2013 it expects more than 80% of adults to have a combined ID card/passport. The government will go back to parliament to introduce primary legislation to make the scheme compulsory: those who fail to register could face fines of up to £2,500.

    Biometric scans for passports from April, G, 14.2.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1709197,00.html