---

Post Office Closures

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for allowing me to speak in this important debate about the future of post offices in Sutton. No one can be in any doubt about the importance of post offices. People understand that, and often refer to the fact that, they are the lifeblood of rural communities. Indeed, they are often the lifeblood of urban and suburban communities. Just last week, I was in the queue at my local post office—I try to give it as much custom as possible—and the person behind me tapped me on the shoulder and said, ““You won't let them close it, will you?””. That view is no doubt supported by the 600 or so people who have signed a petition in the past few weeks about the future of local post offices. Post offices provide a lifeline for people, and the postmasters who run them often bend over backwards to provide additional services not only to help their customers, but to ensure the longer-term survival of their businesses. For example, they may provide free cash machines in places where they were not previously available. As my hon. Friend said, it is extremely disappointing that the proposals for yet another round of closures are coming so soon after the closures that came with the network reinvention programme, which has an Orwellian ring to it. That saw the closure of post offices in Westmead road, Stanley Park road, Stafford road, Plough lane, and Banstead road in my constituency, to name but a few. When such closures take place, consideration should be given to the impact on remaining post offices, because the queues at post offices that are still open are dramatic. That must be factored in when these matters are looked at. I want now to focus on the Government's responsibility for post offices. A few years ago, I sought to raise the related issue of the way in which postcodes are allocated, because there is an ongoing problem in Beddington, in my constituency, whereby people are being allocated Croydon postcodes, which means that they must pay higher insurance premiums, for instance. However, I was not allowed to initiate a debate about that in Parliament because the Government have no control over the issue. The issue before us would appear to be very similar, because the Government say that they have no responsibility for post offices or for Royal Mail, although that flies in the face of what everyone in the country believes. I asked a parliamentary question about the issue on 8 November and received a response on 13 November. I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what assessment had been made of the effects of post office closures on local communities in London. The response that I received said that the Government had no responsibility whatever in that respect and that it was for Post Office Ltd to take account of the impact of such closures. It concerns me greatly that the Government do not consider that they have any role in assessing the effects of proposed post office closures, when a range of people—from business people through to very vulnerable groups—depend heavily on post offices. The Government cannot simply wash their hands of this issue; they are not an independent observer who can sit and watch as 2,500 post offices are closed throughout the country over the next few years. If they were willing, they could will the means in the way that my hon. Friend set out: they could introduce imaginative proposals to secure the future of many post offices, and perhaps the opening of new post offices in places where there is increased demand. I want the Minister to give us some indication that the Government are not simply watching events from afar, but are willing actively to engage in the process and particularly to assess the impact of post office closures, rather than leaving that to Royal Mail.