1. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on providing financial inclusion programmes in local communities. (216449)

My Department works very closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in delivering the Government’s programmes to promote financial inclusion. For example, we are currently establishing a network of regional and national champions, including for the west midlands, who will help to lead local partnerships to increase financial inclusion.

My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that already 12 west midlands credit unions and community development finance institutions are benefiting from growth fund investment from my Department.

I welcome the Minister’s response. I represent a constituency that still has a high proportion of low-income earners. What can my Department do to help those in my constituency who may be vulnerable to the activities of loan sharks?

My hon. Friend represents a constituency in that situation, as do many others. The Department has done some mapping across the country to help to establish which areas are in the greatest need of additional resources. Several things are being done to address his specific concerns. First, as I have said, we co-operate with colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and they are running crackdowns on illegal lenders in areas where they are at work. My Department is also doing some work through the growth fund, which is investing in credit unions and helping them to grow. Where we have invested, credit unions are growing rapidly, providing a source of affordable credit in the community so that people do not have to turn to, or rely on, doorstep lending or loan sharks.

The single most important thing that the Government can do to ensure financial inclusion in remote rural and deprived urban communities is to ensure access to cash. In that context, will the Minister assure me that the Department will do all that it can to ensure that it and all its agencies give equal prominence in, for example, every letter sent to benefit claimants to the opportunity to obtain cash at the post office through the Post Office card account? Will he join me in deploring the Pension, Disability and Carers Service in particular, which has been actively misleading clients about the future of the POCA and, in many letters, failing even to say that it is available?

I believe that one letter was sent out locally that was incorrect, and we have retracted that statement and checked that the letters being sent out are correct. It is always our policy to ensure that benefit claimants or pensioners who wish to receive their benefits or pension in cash at a post office can continue to do so.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister refer to credit unions, because, as a long-term member in my area, I know how much they can promote financial inclusion. Does he agree that local post offices often best provide credit union facilities? Would it not therefore be a good idea if the Post Office card account contract were given to the Post Office itself? Any other decision would be deeply regrettable.

My hon. Friend knows that the contracting arrangements for the successor to the existing Post Office card account are determined legally. The tendering process is under way, so it would be inappropriate for me to go any further. The Post Office has said publicly that it has put in a tender for the contract, which it describes as “strong”, but I cannot go any further, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. Ministers are not involved in determining the tendering process, which is run by officials.

I strongly sympathise with my hon. Friend’s point about possible stronger links between credit unions and the Post Office. He will be interested to note HMRC’s announcement last week about reforms to the regulatory climate that applies to credit unions. It implies greater flexibility in the future and the long-term possibility of establishing closer links with the Post Office.

2. What steps he plans to take to achieve the target of halving child poverty by 2010. (216450)

3. What steps he plans to take to meet the Government’s 2020 child poverty reduction target; and if he will make a statement. (216451)

“Ending Child Poverty: Everybody’s business” announced an additional £950 million for tackling child poverty. Along with the commitments in last year’s Budget and pre-Budget report, about 500,000 more children will be lifted out of relative poverty than otherwise would be.

The Prime Minister told the House on 23 and 30 April that the Government were “on the road” to taking 1 million children out of poverty. Will the Secretary of State confirm that not only is the up-to-date figure closer to half the 1 million figure, but in each of the past two years the number of children in poverty, on the Government’s own measure, has increased by 100,000?

No, we have lifted 600,000 children out of poverty and, as I said in my answer, another 500,000 are in the pipeline, so to speak. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Prime Minister, but his leader just made a speech about social breakdown in which he did not even mention child poverty. We are committed to the target; the Opposition are not. We care about child poverty; they do not. That speech shows that the Tories have not learned the lessons of the 1980s and would be exactly the same if they were to return to power. The hon. Gentleman should tell his leader to withdraw his speech.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the doom-merchants opposite and commit the Government not only to meeting the 2020 target but to keeping the current definition of poverty? Will he reject the calls from some in this Chamber to redefine poverty rather than to tackle and abolish it, which is what the Government are committed to doing?

That is absolutely right. We are the only party that is committed to the target. We will keep the definitions that we have set out and the three targets. It is quite clear that the Opposition want not to reduce child poverty but to redefine it.

Order. May I tell the Secretary of State that the point has been made about the Opposition, and from now on his answers should be about ministerial responsibilities?

May I say that, on reflection, the Secretary of State might regret comments suggesting that caring about child poverty is purely a party issue? He might want to reshape those remarks when he gets a chance. Is he not concerned that the figures show that the percentage of children risking poverty in two-parent families is hardly different from 1997? In fact, percentage-wise, the figure has gone up slightly. In caring for children in poverty, will the Secretary of State see whether he could do something more about how welfare policies act on two-parent families, because we all care about the issue?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to support two-parent families as well as lone-parent families. The risk of child poverty is higher in a lone-parent family than it is in a two-parent family, but we need to support both. We need to get partners in two-parent families into work to reduce child poverty, and we need to do the same for lone parents, but caring about child poverty means doing something about it. That means spending money and having a target.

I again congratulate the Government on setting such an audacious target to abolish child poverty, given that no other Government have ever set themselves that task. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite all the Government’s efforts, progress has stalled somewhat? Given that huge sums will not be available to increase tax credit payments still further, does he believe that the Government should reschedule the priority that they give to moving claimants from benefit into work so that we achieve the target?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the figures for the past two years have been disappointing. We said that. That is exactly why we redoubled our efforts and put in the extra £1 billion. He is right, too, that reducing child poverty is not just about tax credits and benefits, but about getting people back into work. Our goal is to do both. Talking about only the causes of poverty ignores the fact that one of its causes is not having enough money. That is why we also believe in increasing the money that goes to tax credits and child benefit, which we did at the previous Budget.

One group who can experience particularly severe poverty is disabled children. The Secretary of State will know that receipt of disability living allowance grants access to a range of other benefits that go alongside it, including disabled premiums on tax credits, and that, without it, families can miss out on upwards of £10,000 a year. Given that the Government are unable to provide figures on DLA take-up rates, what action will his Department take to increase take-up of DLA and reduce the dire poverty faced by those particularly vulnerable children?

We are working to increase the take-up of DLA among families with disabled children. I recently met the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, and we are working with it and others to increase take-up. We are spending money on a take-up campaign to ensure that everybody who is entitled to DLA claims it. Hon. Members can play their part, too, by ensuring that their constituents know that they should be claiming DLA if their children face those issues.

The Secretary of State talks about getting people back to work, and he is right to do so. He will be aware that half of children in poverty have a parent in work and that more than a fifth of poor children have a parent who works full time. What will the Government do to address the needs of that group of parents who earn enough to keep their children out of poverty but are then taxed to below the poverty line, even after receipt of tax credits?

The issue is about helping partners into work and making sure that we provide more money through tax credits, which is exactly what we did in the previous Budget. We want to consider how we can help partners to work, because very few families in which one partner works and the other works part time, or in which both work, are in poverty; I think that about 2 per cent. of children, a very low percentage, in such families are in poverty. We want to help people to work, and we want to give them more money, too. We want to tackle the causes of poverty and to give people more money through tax credits.

4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of independent budgets and direct payments for disabled people. (216452)

We know from research that people in receipt of direct payments value the freedom and flexibility that they give, but take-up has not been as widespread as had been hoped. Individual budgets were piloted so that we could see whether the benefits of greater choice and control could be provided for people who did not want a direct payment. Researchers are analysing the findings from the pilot and a report will be published later this year.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. People with disabilities face enough difficulties and barriers in society without their care package being one of them. Will he commit to accelerating the roll-out of individual budgets, while ensuring that people with disabilities and their carers have full support, so that we can be sure that they can use the packages?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that individual budgets can give disabled people, as well as other groups, control over the support that we give them. The vast majority of disabled people are very happy with the support that they get, but that where they are not, or where they feel that they could do better themselves, we must consider how we ensure they have control. We will actively look into that issue in the next few weeks.

I recently saw for myself how successful the In Control project, which has cross-party support, has been in Oldham, and what a difference it has made to the lives of disabled people. The Government want 1.7 million people to be able to have independent budgets over the next three years. How many of those people does the Secretary of State expect to be able to have independent budgets by the end of next March?

As I said, we will consider that issue in the Green Paper, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until it is published.

My right hon. Friend will know of the small problem with recipients seeking and finding the information they need to make the right choice about individual budgets. Is he aware that no one seems to have responsibility for compiling and maintaining a directory of services that those people could buy into?

My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the early findings from the pilots is the importance of advocacy and support. That is not a reason to think that the principle is not right; it is just a lesson that we need to learn to make sure that the system works effectively in practice. I will look into the point that he makes about a directory, and I will write to him.

5. When Remploy plans to open a jobshop in York city centre to assist people with disabilities who were not previously Remploy employees in finding jobs. (216453)

Remploy continues to search for suitable premises in York city centre. In the meantime, Remploy opened a facility on 9 April at York university, which is available to help all disabled jobseekers in York. Remploy is also working in partnership with Future Prospects, a local specialist provider, which means that any disabled jobseeker in York will be able to access Remploy services through Future Prospects’ city-centre facilities.

When the Minister made the case for closing the Remploy factory in York, she said that, if it closed, a city-centre jobshop would be established and that it would get 50 disabled people who were out of work—not former Remploy employees—into work each year. The facility on York university campus helps former workers from the York Remploy factory, but it is essential that a new facility is provided in the city centre as soon as possible; otherwise, the Government will not meet their target of getting 50 disabled people into work each year.

My hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in the situation in York, and I congratulate him on his advocacy for his local facility. There have been difficulties in trying to get premises in York city centre, not least due to access issues, but I assure my hon. Friend that Remploy is actively and positively looking for facilities in York city centre.

The Minister will be aware that the closure of the Remploy facility in York caused disabled people particular problems in getting back into work, but will she accept that the number of people in work in York has gone down hugely, particularly in the past three years? The latest closure was of an HMRC office. What plans does she have to find another facility, perhaps locally, so that those currently working there can continue to work in York?

With Remploy, we looked specifically at how we support disabled workers into employment. If we are talking about the generality of people who can access jobcentre facilities, that is a slightly different issue. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that Remploy in York has been working very actively to support its disabled employees, who wanted to maintain themselves in employment. Outside this forum, I will be delighted to share with her some of the real success stories that have come out of York about former Remploy employees.

As my hon. Friend knows, I was very pleased that Remploy in my constituency was removed from the list of closures, but its continuing existence depends on it securing contracts. It supplies health care products to England and to Scotland but has no contracts in Wales. I made every effort to secure those contracts, but what else can the Government do to ensure that the factory, which is very important to our area given the high percentage of disabled people, continues in existence?

I thank my hon. Friend for championing her local Remploy factory and for supporting the modernisation programme. She is right—there was extreme disappointment that the Welsh health service did not renew its contract with her local Remploy factory. I can assure her, however, that Remploy’s management are still optimistic about getting more work not only into her Remploy factory but into Remploy factories across the country as part of its modernisation programme.

6. If he will make a statement on trends in levels of poverty among the elderly.[Official Report, 10 July 2008, Vol. 478, c. 12MC.] (216454)

The number of pensioners in relative poverty has fallen by 900,000 since 1997, and the number in absolute poverty has fallen by 1.9 million.

The Government’s fuel poverty target has, according to their own advisers, been missed, so I wonder what warm words they can offer elderly people and pensioners who face dramatically increased fuel costs. The Government appear to have no clear strategy for addressing fuel poverty among the elderly, who will be too afraid to turn up or even to switch on the heating in case they incur very large bills. What action will they take to assist this most vulnerable section of our community?

I would have thought that the hon. Lady had informed her constituents that winter fuel payments will increase this year. There will be an extra £50 a week for those aged between 60 and 80 and an extra £100 for those aged over 80, bringing to £250 the amount that the Government provide to the elderly each year to help with their winter fuel bills. An extra £400 in winter fuel payments will be paid to those aged over 80. Indeed, we are going further than that by taking powers in the Pensions Bill, which is currently going through the other place, that will enable the data sharing of information with suppliers so that poorer pensioners can be put on to lower social tariffs, ensuring that they pay lower bills and get insulation. Warm Front has given 1.7 million homes assistance on insulation: an average of £2,700 has been provided to ensure that homes are insulated and fuel bills are kept down, so quite a lot is happening in this respect.

I welcome the progress in tackling pensioner poverty. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most important safeguards against pensioner poverty, especially for women pensioners, is the chance to have a work-related pension pot, and will he say what progress is being made on the development of personal accounts?

We certainly need to ensure greater pension equality for women. We reformed the state pension system to ensure that the number of women who receive a full basic state pension will rise from about a third to 75 per cent. in 2010, and, indeed, up to 90 per cent. in the 15 years thereafter. That will give them equality with men, but it is only the basis of change. We are introducing automatic enrolment, which will ensure that the employers of millions of women currently unable to get a private pension will be obliged to provide one, into which the women will be automatically enrolled. Millions of women will be able to build a pension pot to give them a more secure retirement.

Last month, the town council of Pwllheli in my constituency wrote to the Secretary of State expressing concern about pensioner poverty. The reply referred to the availability of pensioner credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Is the Minister satisfied with the take-up of those benefits, and, if so, will he tell the House, and Pwllheli town council what the take-up level is?

I am not satisfied with the take-up of pension credit, which is why we are undertaking reforms, including, as of October this year, making pension credit, council tax benefit and housing benefit more easily accessible. We will introduce a series of changes whereby an application for one will automatically entitle someone to the others. Help the Aged and Age Concern have requested the change for a number of years, and it will be introduced from October. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is assured that action is being taken.

Our Labour Government’s passion for eradicating pensioner poverty should be applauded. Until April of this year, it could be said with certainty that no pensioner was worse off as a result of a Labour Government, and that the poorest were £40 a week better off. Given recent inflation figures, does my hon. and learned Friend believe that the rate of inflation, rather than the retail prices index, should apply to pension increases next year?

We have addressed the matter of uprating, but we want to restore the link with earnings, which, as my hon. Friend knows, the Conservatives removed some time ago. We have said clearly that we intend to restore the link by the target date of 2012, or in the course of the following Parliament, and we aim to use its restoration as a foundation block on which to build better pension entitlement for the long term.

Does the Minister accept that the latest figures, which show that an extra 300,000 of our older citizens now live in poverty—well above 2 million—are bad enough, but that since the statistics were prepared even more pensioners will have been driven into poverty by the recent surge in energy and other living costs? Is it not time that the Government got serious about tackling pensioner poverty?

I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he remembers that it was his party that broke the earnings link—this party is committed to restoring it. Does he remember that his party left millions of pensioners destitute and in poverty, on £68.80 a week? Under us, the minimum that people have a right to receive is £124, and we hope to be able to continue to increase it. We have lifted 1.9 million people out of absolute poverty—poverty that his party left those people in.

Whatever happens in the course of the next winter, one thing is certain: I do not expect anybody from our Front Bench to tell old-age pensioners to knit a woolly hat or to take a hot water bottle to bed, just like the Minister did in those grim Tory years. What was her name? It was Edwina Currie, and there are a load of them on the Tory Benches that act just like her.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We do not need to say that, because we will provide additional help to pensioners so that they can turn up the heating rather than worry about having to knit. The Conservative party’s attitudes are exemplified by that comment, and this Government’s attitudes are exemplified by the fact that we are increasing payments to pensioners at the very time when fuel bills are going up. We acknowledge that, and we are doing something to help pensioners.

The Minister will know that the elderly tend to look to their families to give them some support after they have retired, which no doubt saves the Treasury hundreds of millions of pounds. However, if their children have emigrated, particularly to Commonwealth countries, and they follow them to those countries, we treat them as second-class citizens and do not uprate their pensions. They can therefore become impoverished. When are we going to bring justice to British pensioners who decide to emigrate to Commonwealth countries to live closer to their families in retirement?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the long-standing policy, which both the Conservatives and this Government have adopted, is that we will not uprate the pensions of those in non-EU countries unless we have an agreement for reciprocal uprating with those countries. Although a case can be made for those who live in other countries, if there is additional money to spend and there are still issues of pensioner poverty in this country, which there are, my priority ought to be to reduce that poverty. If there is any extra money, that is what I intend it to be spent on.

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on measures to reduce levels of child poverty. (216455)

We discuss the child poverty strategy regularly with Treasury Ministers. For example, I shall meet the Financial Secretary to discuss that subject later today. We have a shared commitment to make further progress in reducing child poverty, building on what has been achieved so far.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment, but may I draw his attention to an anomaly? Many children in this country have parents who work but do not pay income tax, because they do not earn enough. Parents in those same families could well be paying council tax, because the level at which council tax is paid is lower than that at which income tax is paid. Will he consider raising the threshold for both council tax benefit and housing benefit? At a stroke, he could take a step that would take thousands of children out of poverty and go a long way towards helping the Government meet their targets.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which, as he will know, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government raised last year. Of course, council tax is a tax on property rather than on income, so it is not too surprising that the conditions are a little different. We said in our response to the Committee’s report that we were prepared to examine the viability of aligning council tax benefit eligibility with other parts of the tax and benefits system over time. It cannot be done very quickly, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the case for greater alignment, and we will examine the viability of that.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Sure Start children’s centres in Chilton, West Cornforth, Dean Bank, Fishburn, Newton Aycliffe, Thornley, Wheatley Hill and Wingate in my constituency on their work in alleviating child poverty? Does he agree that that is a crusade for this Government, not just an aspiration, as it is for the Opposition? They had 18 years to get it right, and they did nothing.

I agree completely with my hon. Friend and join him in paying tribute to those Sure Start centres for their achievements and lamenting the absence of a commitment from the Opposition. Sure Start has not only provided the best possible start for young children and made a very important contribution to tackling disadvantage among children, but is increasingly providing places where support can be directed to parents. There is help back into work, advice on applying for and receiving tax credits and other help that people need.

I recently visited a Sure Start centre in Lambeth, where a back to work course being delivered by Tomorrow’s People was doing a great job. We want Sure Start centres to be used increasingly in that way.

8. What progress has been made on the use of voice recognition analysis in respect of benefit claims. (216456)

Voice risk analysis is being piloted by 14 local authorities for claims and reviews of housing and council tax benefits. Those pilots are going well, and so a further 15 are being arranged. We are also piloting that technology in Jobcentre Plus for jobseeker’s allowance and income support claims. Full evaluation results from the initial pilots will be available later this year.

I welcome anything that tackles benefit fraud, but will the Under-Secretary assure me and the House that those analyses will not be used to target vulnerable people or, indeed, result in the withdrawal or withholding of any benefits without real evidence?

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute reassurance. The technology that is in use does not in itself prove benefit fraud. All that it does is indicate levels of potential risk in the call, which lead us to decide which verification process to follow to establish the merit of the claim. When there is a question about any claimant having difficulty in pursuing a claim over the telephone, we will establish that early and always make alternative arrangements such as home visits or face-to-face meetings. Although we are also tackling benefit fraud, our objective throughout is to ensure that we pay the right benefits to the right people at the right time.

9. What recent estimate he has made of the number of defined-benefit occupational pension schemes in which the liabilities exceed the assets. (216458)

On the Pension Protection Fund’s assessment basis, 5,000 schemes.

The final salary schemes in the private sector have been shutting for many years as unaffordable. The decline in the investment market has made many more extremely vulnerable. Does the Minister believe that the Pension Protection Fund, which he has just mentioned, to which vulnerable schemes have to contribute, is adequate to fund possible insolvencies in the years ahead?

The Pension Protection Fund is best placed to make an assessment of the adequacy of the amounts that it needs, and it has done so and levied accordingly.

10. What recent progress his Department has made on the simplification of benefits. (216459)

Simplification is essential to reform. For example, the local housing allowance, rolled out from April, has simpler and clearer rules than the previous housing benefit system. Last month, following successful pilots, we agreed with the Local Government Association on a simpler approach to claims when starting a job. From October, two current benefits—incapacity benefit and income support on health grounds—will be replaced by one: the new employment and support allowance. Those are all examples of simplification.

I recognise that some progress has been made on simplifying the benefits system, but much more needs to be done. Will the Minister investigate the case of my constituent, Sara McGlynn, who is suffering because she is not ill enough to earn an invalidity benefit? She has not earned enough in the past, because she is too young and does not receive incapacity benefit, and as her partner earns just above the minimum income level, she does not receive income support. Will the Department investigate the case so that complexity does not rule out that person’s receiving Government support?

I am happy to consider the details of that case if the hon. Gentleman will forward them to me. However, it does not sound to me like a problem of complexity. The system has been effective in increasing employment—we have more people in work in Britain today than ever before, and that is partly the result of the success of welfare reform. However, I agree that simplification is important. For example, we will explore further the idea of a single working age benefit, which would be a radical simplification and would perhaps partly deal with the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I repeat that I am happy to look at the details of the case.

Will the Minister consider simplifying the double benefit rules, especially regarding carer’s allowance and the state retirement pension? Will my right hon. Friend be willing to examine that rule, which is of long-standing concern to pensioners? I am sure that the designers of the welfare state in the 1940s could not have expected so many pensioners to be carers for other pensioners—whether spouses or elderly parents. It is a shock to the system to find that, when they receive state retirement pension, their carer’s allowance stops.

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that people are often concerned when they get into that position and discover that that is the rule. He will know, however, that it is a long-established principle of the benefits system that we do not pay two benefits in those circumstances. I cannot hold out for him the prospect that that will change imminently. However, he will know of the carer’s premium in pension credit, which is helping to address the problem that he rightly highlights, and we will of course see whether there is more that we can do.

A number of my constituents have come to me and complained that their incapacity benefit was stopped after a medical and that, although they then went to appeal and won the case, they experienced a huge delay before their benefit was restored. If that benefit can be stopped immediately, why can it not be started again?

When an appeal is successful, benefit should come back into payment very quickly. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to draw my attention to any particular problems, I should be happy to look into them; however, anybody who experiences a delay will have their arrears paid in full.

11. What estimate he has made of the number of defined-benefit pension schemes which are open to new members. (216460)

About 2,400 defined-benefit pension schemes remain open to new members.

Given the Prime Minister’s disastrous decision in his first Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1997 to raid pension funds to the tune of £5 billion, does the Minister share my concern that the take-up in defined-benefit pension schemes has dropped by 1 million in the past year and that, as I understand it, about 4,000 schemes have closed? If the Minister shares my concern, what are the Government going to do to address the present parlous situation?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pensions are for the long term and that investments go up and down. Therefore, deficits appear in schemes at different times, which sometimes go into surplus. Such changes occur. The only people immediately at risk would be those in a scheme where the employer moved into insolvency and there was a significant deficit. That is why the Pension Protection Fund has been set up. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have restored confidence in pensions, not only by setting up the PPF, which ensures that people have a kind of insurance scheme, and creating the regulator that oversees risk in the pensions market, but by sorting out the financial assistance scheme and ensuring that those 140,000 people got justice. We are in the process of restoring confidence in pensions—a confidence that was seriously damaged by his Government.

13. If he will make a statement on the tendering process being undertaken by his Department for the new Post Office card account. (216462)

I was under the impression that the question had been withdrawn, but I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is here.

The Minister is right. However, because the hon. Gentleman arrived in the Chamber before his question was called, I used my discretion. My apologies to the Minister.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is here. The tendering process is that which is set down by law. It commenced in May 2007, with the publication of the official contract notice, and is proceeding in accordance with the established timetable. In accordance with the rules, the process is being led by officials. Ministers are not directly involved. An announcement on the successful bidder will be made as soon as possible.

I am grateful for your generosity, Mr. Speaker; I did not expect to be in the Chamber at this time. I am glad that I am and that the Minister cannot get off the hook that easily. Given that the Government have basically decimated post offices in Shropshire, not least in my constituency, closing Sambrook, Church Aston and King Street, Wellington, will the Minister give an undertaking, not only to post offices in Shropshire but to those throughout the country, that the tender process will be transparent, open and fair, and will allow those postmasters who want to continue to provide this service every opportunity to do so?

The process will certainly be fair, because we are scrupulously following the strict rules laid down by the Public Contract Regulations 2006. If the hon. Gentleman cares to study those regulations, he will see that the process is led by officials and that Ministers are not involved. I cannot therefore give him any reassurances about the outcome, and it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment about any potential bidder. At this stage, I know that the Post Office is a bidder because it has publicly said so. I am unaware of who the other bidders are, however, and that is as it should be. As I have said, the process is being led by officials, and there will be an announcement as soon as we can make one.