Post Office Closures — Deep concern — rejected — 15 May 2002 at 18:57

The majority of MPs voted against the motion:[1]

  • This House
  • is deeply concerned that, with 10 months left for the transition to automatic credit transfer for the Post Office's 16 million benefit and pension customers, there is great uncertainty and confusion hanging over the network;
  • believes that, in the absence of new sources of income to replace the lost £400 million, many post offices will close, including a third of all urban post offices;
  • is alarmed by reports that new initiatives promised under the PIU Report are failing, in particular that the Your Guide programme is being downgraded and that planning of the Post Office Card Account is well behind schedule;
  • has little confidence that the commercial banks have the ability or motivation to meet the financial needs of many of those Post Office customers expected to migrate to the use of bank accounts;
  • notes that the network's problems coincide with growing losses in Consignia and the threat to its mail services and to the universal service obligation; and
  • calls on the Government to set out a clear policy and timetable for heading off a potentially disastrous collapse of the rural and urban network.

This motion was replaced by one which read:[2]

  • This House
  • applauds the Government's decision to accept all 24 of the PIU recommendations in its June 2000 report "Counter Revolution-Modernising the Post Office Network";[3]
  • notes that Consignia is committed to preventing avoidable closures of rural post offices and has drawn up a code of conduct on how this is to be implemented in conjunction with the consumer watchdog, Postwatch;
  • further applauds the decision of the Government to grant the greater commercial freedom to Consignia that management and unions had long called for;
  • welcomes the action of the Government in appointing a new chairman of Consignia and a new chief executive of Post Office Ltd. and to enshrine in legislation the primary duty of the regulator to preserve the universal service;
  • further applauds the commitment of the Government to a national network of post offices; and
  • further notes the commitment by Post Office Ltd. to ensure that 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile.

which passed without a vote.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 136082.9%
DUP0 1020.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab307 (+2 tell) 2075.9%
LDem0 46 (+2 tell)090.6%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 50100.0%
Total:307 195078.8%

Rebel Voters - sorted by vote

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Kate HoeyVauxhallLabaye
Geraldine SmithMorecambe and LunesdaleLabaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive