If he will make a statement on the future of postal services.

What his policy is on the future of postal services; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are committed to an open and competitive UK postal services market. However, the market conditions for all postal service operators are changing rapidly, and in December 2007 I announced an independent review of the postal sector under Richard Hooper. The review will assess the impacts to date of liberalisation of the UK postal services market, explore trends in future market development and consider how best to maintain the universal service obligation.

The consultation for Post Office closures in Milton Keynes is not due to start until July, but last November the Post Office inadvertently published on its website the five post offices that it has already earmarked for closure in Milton Keynes, clearly underlining the local view that any consultation is a sham—a view perhaps shared by some Ministers. Given that I have campaigned hard for I before E, or infrastructure before expansion, why, at a time when the Government are forcing Milton Keynes to expand, are they forcing our post office network to shrink?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a full and proper consultation process on closures. One inescapable fact must be addressed by all of us in the House—that the Post Office is losing business. It has lost 4 million customers a week, and we must recognise that. It has lost that business partly because of the internet and people doing their business online, and partly because the Post Office itself lost business—for example, in relation to TV licences from the BBC. We have a simple choice. Either we go on subsidising the Post Office at a cost to the taxpayer, or we address the losses now and make sure that the Post Office runs on a proper commercial basis for the future. I would have thought Conservative Members understood that.

The Secretary of State will know that in the past 10 years there have been 3,200 closures. He knows that another 2,500 post offices are under threat. I join the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and others in the Cabinet who have all said that the importance of post offices should not be underestimated, in particular post offices such as Longdon and Hammerwich in my Constituency, which are the only shops in those small villages. If they close, it will have a devastating effect on the rural economy.

One of the matters that must be considered in the closure programme is whether there are viable alternatives to closure for local sub-post offices. If the hon. Gentleman and his constituents want to make such proposals to the review team, I would strongly recommend that he do so, and that all my right hon. and hon. Friends take the same advantage of the consultation process to make such representations.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Postwatch is seen as totally ineffective in representing the needs of residential and commercial customers of the Post Office, as it was in my Constituency in the closure of Francis street and Walnut street post offices? Will he take steps to ensure that Postwatch is made truly independent and give it the teeth to make sure that it can represent the needs of customers effectively?

Postwatch will shortly become part of the new National Consumer Council, and I very much hope that in that guise it will go on representing the consumers of postal services.

My right hon. Friend will remember that last time round in the south of Tamworth every single sub-postmaster took the money and ran, shutting six sub-post offices. The plan was no longer in the hands of the Post Office, but in those of the sub-postmasters. Will he give me an assurance that this time there will be more structure to the outcome?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because for the first time we will have new national access criteria, which will ensure that all our constituents have convenient and timely access to postal services.

As the Secretary of State reflects on his response to the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee's report, which I am glad to say he has agreed to expedite and which I welcome unreservedly, may I help him by suggesting that it has one main theme and one qualification? First, the consultation process is not working as it should do, because it is largely constructed for the benefit of the Government, Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters, not for the community served by the sub-post offices. Secondly, is he aware of the growing concern being expressed to me by sub-postmasters that the report significantly underestimated the harassment and pressure that they were being put under by Post Office Ltd during the public consultation stage?

I am not in favour of harassment and pressure. If the hon. Gentleman and his Committee have examples of that I am prepared to look into them. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and the work of his Committee, and I am sure that he will be glad to know that we will respond properly and fully to his Committee's report in due course.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is concerned about the impact on small businesses in the communities that are losing their post offices. They will have further to go, longer to queue, and fewer places to weigh and dispatch small packages in the eBay era. Is he concerned about that? Are we not seeing a Gadarene rush for deregulation and competition, showing every sign of damaging the small business sector and the universal service obligation as well?

As I said in my answer, I want to see a competitive postal market with high-quality services, for both domestic and business users. I would say two things to my hon. Friend in particular. For the first time we are providing an underpinning payment of £150 million a year, which we have guaranteed for the next five years, to support the delivery of postal services in rural areas, and on top of that there will be new outreach services, serving the needs of my hon. Friend's rural constituents and businesses. The Post Office provides an important service for small businesses, which I want to ensure continues in the future.

What kind of community consultation is it when Cherwell district council is told that however good a case is put to retain Grimsbury or Orchard Way post offices in Banbury, or Kings End in Bicester, regardless of what it does, come what may, four post offices will close? That is not fair consultation, that is fraudulent consultation, and people are getting increasingly angry as a consequence.

We should look at all the alternatives. If there are local suggestions about how losses for the Post Office may be avoided, we should look at them. However, the Post Office has a responsibility to us and to the taxpayer to run the network of sub-post offices efficiently, effectively and to a profit for the taxpayer, not a whacking loss. That is a responsibility that, however much the hon. Gentleman might like to avoid it, Ministers cannot avoid. We have a responsibility to run the business properly, and we will discharge that responsibility.

The 63 post offices in my Constituency of Ceredigion are awaiting the outcome of their futures, which they will hear about next week. Is there not still a great inconsistency in timing? The legislation is completely against the spirit of the Sustainable Communities Bill.

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales? There will be a sledgehammer blow on our post offices next week, but it has been announced that next year there will be a re-enactment of the Post Office development fund in Wales. When that fund comes into effect, our post offices will have gone.

The issues to be addressed in Wales are the same as those in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Post Office network has to stop making a loss and start making a proper return for the taxpayer. We have regular and proper discussions with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, and we will continue to have them.

Last year, bonuses awarded to the board of the Royal Mail Group totalled £4.7 million, more than 10 per cent. of the total savings that the Government want to make from closing 2,500 of our post offices. Given that the most vulnerable use our post offices most, does the Secretary of State think that that is an example of robbing the poor to pay the rich?

No, I do not. There have to be proper incentives for the senior management team at the Post Office; ultimately, such matters are the responsibility of the Royal Mail board.

Is the reality not that the closure programme has been forced on the Post Office by the Government? The Government have determined that 2,500 post offices will close; the Government have set the access criteria that will decide which ones are put forward for closure; the Government have forced through an unacceptable consultation programme against Cabinet Office guidelines; and, worst of all, the Government have insisted that if one post office is saved, another in the same location must close in its place. Yet Ministers are now arguing why their constituencies should be exempt.

The Secretary of State is a fair and decent man. Does he not understand why people will be so angry about a Government who decide to force through a massively unpopular closure programme, when members of that Government believe that only other people's constituencies should be affected?

No, I do not accept that. The one thing that I do accept is that the closure programme is unpopular—of course it is. It is a very significant change to push through at this moment in time, but it has to be made if the Post Office business is to enjoy a secure and proper future.

It is right and proper, however, that individual Members of this House should, on behalf of their constituents, make representations to the Post Office about the closure programme. There are those who say that that is not responsible; that is patently ridiculous.