I am extremely grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate on the issue of the Leyton Green post office on 674 High road in my constituency, which has been marked down for closure. That closure is unreasonable, unfair and damaging to the local community who use it and depend on it. The post office is excellently run by Shanaz and Nashir Bashir, and it provides a first-rate service. It is a community resource while also being profitable, and it is always busy.

The process of the closure programme has been deplorable. The consultation period of just six weeks was far too short. The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, set in process a judicial review, which has been taken on by the current Mayor, Boris Johnson. I have with me a letter dated 28 May from Ian Clement, the deputy Mayor. It says that the Mayor, Boris Johnson,

"will be continuing with the judicial review challenge", and it continues:

"London has already experienced disproportionately high levels of post office closures in recent years compared with other areas of the country. The Post Office has not provided convincing evidence that further closures in London are necessary on economic grounds. Community-based enterprises like local Post Offices provide vital services for Londoners, especially older Londoners and families, and they should be protected. Post Offices are crucial in supporting local retail and where a Post Office closes, small businesses and the local community suffer."

The criteria used in the closure programme were far from clear or coherent. They seemed to relate only to distance and money. I shall say more about that shortly. The decisions on which post offices should be closed have been arbitrary, and, as far as I can see, have been made with very little regard for the representations made or the consequences of closures. The decision document paid no more than abbreviated lip service to all the protests. I submitted a petition from 2,150 users of the post office, but I do not think that it was given sufficient weight. The consultation process was unfair.

The post office serves a very deprived area. Clyde Loakes, leader of Waltham Forest council, in a letter to the Minister wrote:

"I am concerned about the negative impact on some of our most deprived communities.

Waltham Forest is one of the 10 most deprived local authorities in England. However as you know the lives of vulnerable people are always more complicated than the statistical picture painted by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (one of the key criteria for informing post office closures). We have high numbers of people claiming incapacity benefits, a high incidence of health issues such as circulatory disease, which can restrict mobility, and a concentration of older residents in some areas. Moreover we have significant problems with financial exclusion—the most recent research available indicates that 24 per cent. of our local social housing tenants do not have a bank account. Equally, for many of the most vulnerable in our community, interaction at local service points such as sub post offices helps reduce feelings of isolation which are so often a precursor to serious social exclusion.

This Government has prioritised support for the vulnerable in a whole range of public policy areas. My concern is that the closure of these local post offices will leave some of my borough's most vulnerable residents more isolated."

I echo those views. I too made representations. Indeed, my assistant was amazed at the length of the letter that I sent to the Post Office, but that was due to the importance of the Leyton post office to local people. As well as drawing attention to the petition that I had submitted, I pointed out that during the previous closure round, when the Post Office had earmarked the branch for closure, it had sited it wrongly on its maps. Moreover, the Post Office had not taken into account the refurbishment of the branch only two years ago. When it was up and running again a number of its clients were not told, but now it has a good clientele.

Major regeneration has taken place in the area served by the post office. People who had been decanted from estates there are now being returned, and plenty more are due to return to the Beaumont estate. The Leyton post office will be their local branch. There is other building activity in the area as well: there is to be a new police station, as well as more housing. The alternative post office branches being suggested are simply not suitable. There is no bus route and a walk uphill is necessary, or if there is a bus route people must cross major roads when they have got off the bus. They then face very long queues.

The area is multi-ethnic, and much of its population is poor, deprived and vulnerable. Near the post office is a mosque attended by many people, and the number will increase in the future. The postmaster and postmistress speak Urdu, and provide an excellent service. When I visited the post office I saw a great many customers of eastern European origin. That is important, given the post office's international links. It also has an ATM, which has attracted many customers. All in all, the case against closure was overwhelmingly powerful. I was dismayed that those points did not form part of the criteria.

I could read out a lot of residents' letters, mainly from elderly people who are very vulnerable, but I do not have enough time. There was also a letter from a local business whose name I do not want to mention. It said that it uses this post office to deposit its business takings, and that the safety of its staff would be at risk if it had to do those cash transfers in some other way.

Help the Aged has also made very strong points about vulnerability. It states:

"The Urban Reinvention Programme resulted in the closure of around 2,500 Post Offices in cities in the UK. The Network Change Programme will result in the closure of 2,000 more branches, both rural and urban."

It points out that

"we are concerned that the lessons of the Urban Reinvention Programme have not been learnt and the impact on communities and older people receive inadequate consideration...the closures will serve to further fracture community structure and make life increasingly difficult for older people and the most vulnerable...61 per cent. of customers in deprived urban areas say they use their local Post Office to access free community services and 36 per cent. meet friends there. Between 2001 and 2005 the proportion of the elderly who use the Post Office at least once a week has risen in both rural and deprived urban areas."

The same point applies in this case. Help the Aged continues:

"88 per cent. would have to make special travel arrangements to reach alternative services."

The same point applies in this case. Help the Aged continues:

"77 per cent. of over-65s view the network in deprived urban areas as a focal point and place to meet others...Older people in the UK are amongst the Post Office's most loyal and frequent users. Many who rely on their state pension wish to have a Post Office account, often use co-located shops"— the same point applies in this case—

"and appreciate both traditional and new services offered."

The Post Office reports the concerns and representations in a cursory manner, and it is hard to believe on reading them that it gives them any realistic weight. I received a letter on 15 May from Valerie Stanley, the agency correspondence team leader of Post Office Ltd that almost—not quite—constituted belated criteria. She states:

"The decisions...are complex and difficult. These involve balancing a wide range of factors, as prescribed by the Government, which include the commercial viability of branches and other operational issues, as well as factors which are offered due regard by Post Office Ltd, such as the local demographics and the effect of closures on the local economy. At the same time Post Office Ltd must ensure compliance with the detailed minimum access criteria...set out in the Government Response Document."

She then says that that is

"balanced against the severe financial constraints that the network faces".

Even though those are belated criteria—that letter was not available, by the way, ahead of the consultation—they still boil down to the factors of distance and financial cuts. That is not good enough and not appropriate.

There was an Opposition day debate and vote in Parliament on 19 March, and I voted against that Opposition motion because they would not have put a penny piece into the post office network; in fact, they would not have matched the Government's money for the network. I was not going to vote for more closures than are already proposed. However, I did think that the process would be a fair one, and I was prepared to give it a chance at that time.

There was a very good article in Tribune on 11 April by Billy Hayes, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union. It points out that the Tories cannot be relied on to defend the network because they would not provide enough money, and that

"they closed 3,542 post offices when they were last in power."

He also criticises the Liberal Democrats for their proposal of

"separating out the branch network from the rest of the Royal Mail, disregarding the fact that this would jeopardise the fulfilment of the Royal Mail's universal service obligation. But then when have the Lib Dems ever been obliged to have a coherent policy?"

The Government are not off the hook, because, as the Minister may gather, my distinct impression is that the consultation went through the motions and it was a waste of my time and that of the petitioners and other constituents who wrote in arguing for this post office to be saved. This decision was not based on proper criteria, being overwhelmingly based on distance and financial cuts to the network.

The distance involved may be less than a mile, although I believe that two post offices are within a mile and others are beyond a mile or very close to that, however the terrain involved is very difficult, consisting, as it does, of major roads. So, the journey is not an easy one for the people who have to make it, particularly older and vulnerable people. Those social factors, and the fact that the closure is bad for trade and business, were not given proper weight by the Post Office.

May I make one more point politically to the Minister? He may not agree with it, but I shall say this anyway. I think that this policy is a Blairite one. It is an example of why things are going wrong for Labour with the voters, because it hits the poor and vulnerable, and muddles the message of what Labour is really for—it is for helping the poor and the vulnerable to improve their lives. This is a deeply Conservative policy, claiming only to do it better than the Conservatives would. That is not good enough in this context. The country and people, who want to support Labour, are crying out for the Prime Minister to move away from this out-of-date, unproductive and uncaring Blairite approach. I am sure that, like me, the Minister is keen for the Labour Government to succeed and to carry on past the next election. That is why these policies have to be examined and changed.

I heard the debate in which rural post offices were discussed, and it was mentioned that some of them were used by six customers. Of course, nobody would say that such post offices have to be saved. However, these cuts are far too deep and damaging, and change should start by our pulling back from them. The case for the Leyton high road post office is overwhelmingly powerful. It should stay open, and I urge the Minister to intervene on its behalf.