The majority of MPs voted to reject the motion before Parliament:^[1]

• This House
• notes that under this Government the Post Office has gone from a profitable organisation to a business that is making half-yearly operating losses of £100 million, has the worst strike record of any business in the country and is consistently failing to meet its delivery targets;
• deplores its reported intention to abandon its morning delivery guarantee; condemns the Government for retaining Consignia in full public ownership while at the same time refusing to take any responsibility for its failures;
• further notes that in the last financial year another 547 sub post offices closed;
• regrets the Government's determination to press ahead with the withdrawal of benefit payments across the counter despite its failure to put in place any alternative source of income, thus threatening the survival of thousands more; and
• further condemns the Government's total mismanagement, which has created the crisis that is facing the Post Office today.

An alternative motion was proposed in its place and voted through.^[2]

• [1] John Whittingdale MP, House of Commons, 29 January 2002
• [2] Post Office - Condemnation of previous Conservative government, House of Commons, 29 January 2002

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.

• [1] Vincent Cable MP, House of Commons, 15 May 2002
• [2] Douglas Alexander MP, House of Commons, 15 May 2002
• [3] Counter Revolution - Modernising the Post Office Network, Performance and Innovation Unit, June 2000

The majority of MPs voted to authorize payment of £180 million to fund compensation payments to subpostmasters whose offices were being closed under a modernization process, and a further £30 million to make improvements to offices that remained.^[1]

This was one stage of the plans outlined by a government report^[2] that had been fully accepted.^[3]

Funding was provided as "selective financial assistance" under a law that required Parliamentary approval for sums in excess of £10 million,^[4] which explains why the motion that was passed read precisely:

• This House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of the urban post office reinvention programme, a sum exceeding £10 million to Post Office Ltd.^[5]

Nevertheless, it is unusual for appropriations to be authorized by specifying a lower bound only.

• [1] The Post Office network in urban areas, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
• [2] Counter Revolution - Modernising the Post Office Network, Performance and Innovation Unit, June 2000
• [3] The Post Office network - how Government policy has developed since 1997, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
• [4] Industrial Development Act 1982, Section 8.
• [5] The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms), House of Commons, 15 October 2002.

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

• This House
• deplores the programme to close 3,000 urban post offices because closure decisions are being made without taking adequately into account the needs of post office customers;
• believes that honourable Members are insufficiently consulted when proposed closures are announced;
• regrets the lack of time available to provide for a full consultation period and the failure of the consultation process to influence the closure programme;
• condemns the Government as the sole shareholder of Royal Mail plc's wholly-owned subsidiary, The Post Office Ltd., for its failure to intervene in order to rectify the way in which the Urban Reinvention Programme is being implemented;
• expresses its great concern about the programme to implement Post Office card accounts, which is failing to reflect the needs of customers, especially for the most vulnerable, including elderly and disabled people;
• calls on the Government to give a firm indication that an Exceptions Service will be introduced and to provide the House with the details of how such a system will operate after 2005; and
• further calls on the Government to make a statement on the sustainability of the funding of rural post offices beyond 2006.

A replacement motion in favour of Government policy was proposed in its place.^[2]

• [1] Stephen O'Brien MP, House of Commons, 13 January 2004
• [2] Future of Post Office network - Congratulates the government, House of Commons, 13 January 2004

The majority of MPs voted for the motion:^[1]

• This House
• congratulates the Government for its commitment to modernise and invest in the national network of post offices while keeping them easily accessible to all customers;
• notes that the choice of account for customers into which they wish their benefits paid is entirely a matter for the customer concerned and congratulates the Government on ensuring that all the necessary information is available to customers to make an informed choice;
• applauds the Government's £2 billion investment in the Post Office network and its success in reducing the rate of rural post office closures;
• notes the Post Office's commitment to ensuring that 95% of the urban population live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile, and that honourable Members are consulted on proposed closures as part of an agreed process between the Post Office and Postwatch;
• further notes that 3,500 post offices closed under the previous administration; and
• condemns those who seek to undermine confidence in Britain's postal services.

An earlier motion critical of the Government had just been voted down.^[2]

• [1] Stephen Timms MP, House of Commons, 13 January 2004
• [2] Future of Post Office Network - Deplores the Programme - rejected, House of Commons, 13 January 2004

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

• This House
• believes that all Post Office customers who wish to continue receiving their benefits, pension payments and tax credits through the Post Office should be able to do so through a Post Office Card Account opened at the counter of a Post Office or sub-post office;
• notes that the Government has encouraged Post Office customers to use their own bank accounts or basic bank accounts, whilst preventing the promotion of the Post Office Card Account;
• further believes that the Government should use the roll out of Direct Payment to encourage the take-up of all benefits and tax credits;
• calls on the Government to clarify urgently how housebound, disabled and older people who are not able to cope with the three direct payment options will be able to claim their pensions and benefits after 2005;
• recognises the significant role played by local post offices in both rural and urban areas;
• appreciates that ending cash benefit payments will deprive sub-postmasters of an average of 35 per cent. of their income; notes that this will make many post offices commercially unviable and is likely to lead to yet further closures;
• further calls on the Government to ensure that the urban post office closure programme is conducted systematically and only after consulting all relevant parties including Post Office users; and
• condemns the Government's failure to deliver benefits and tax credits in a simple, easy to understand manner while at the same time jeopardising the future prosperity of the Post Office.

This was replaced by a motion in favour of the Government in the following vote.^[2]

• [1] David Willetts MP, House of Commons, 24 march 2004
• [2] Post Office Services - Welcomes £2 billion investment, House of Commons, 24 March 2004

The majority of MPs voted for the motion:^[1]

• This House
• supports the Government's strategy to modernise the way benefits and pensions are paid, and to provide customers with a choice of accounts;
• welcomes the fact that with Direct Payment customers will still be able to collect their cash from the Post Office if they wish using a current account or basic bank account with Post Office access or the Post Office Card Account;
• notes the Government's plans for a cheque payment, cashable at post offices, for people who cannot be paid through an account;
• recognises that Direct Payment is a more modern, efficient and secure method of payment which will also help increase financial inclusion;
• welcomes the fact that more customers are now paid through an account than by order book without problems, including nearly six million pensioners;
• notes the previous government's attempt to introduce a Benefit Payment Card, which wasted millions of pounds of tax-payers' money;
• notes the fact that the Post Office had not until recently kept up with changes in customer demand and so had seen transaction volumes dropping and losses increasing;
• recognises the need for change and congratulates the Government for taking decisive action to help turn the business around;
• welcomes the record £2 billion investment in the Post Office network over a five-year period, including £450 million for the rural network and £210 million to modernise the urban network; and
• believes that this will help ensure a viable Post Office network that people will want to use.

This motion was preceded by an earlier motion critical of the Government that was voted down by a majority of MPs.^[2]

• [1] Patricia Hewitt MP, House of Commons, 24 March 2004
• [2] Post Office Services - Calls for systematic consultation before closure - rejected, House of Commons, 24 March 2004

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

• This House
• notes the failure of Royal Mail plc to deliver first and second class mail reliably and on time and regrets the damage this is doing to businesses and private customers alike;
• notes with particular dismay the threatened closure in Leicester of the Knighton Church Road Post Office, Knighton, and the East Park Road Post Office, Spinney Hills;
• calls on the Government to end the uncertainty facing the future of rural post offices as a result of the Government's refusal to announce further funding until after 2006;
• deplores the inadequate consultation procedure of the Urban Reinvention Programme despite the Government's recent announcement to review urgently the arrangements for the consultation currently employed;
• expresses continued concern about the Government's implementation of the different Direct Payment options which has caused significant problems particularly for elderly and disabled customers in Stechford, Shard End and Hodge Hill in Birmingham;
• condemns the Government for its failure adequately to promote the take-up of Post Office Card Accounts; and
• further calls on the Government to provide more details on the implementation of the Exceptions Service.^[2]

The following alternative motion was proposed and passed without a vote:^[3]

• This House
• supports the Government's strategy for a viable Post Office network;
• welcomes the delivery by Royal Mail of 93 per cent. of first class letters the next day in the first half of 2003-04;
• shares the Government's disappointment over the drop in performance since then, which rightly falls short of customers' expectations;
• calls on Royal Mail and the unions to work together to improve the quality of service;
• notes that the closure of any post office is regrettable but supports the Government's view that, without rationalisation, unplanned closures would continue, leaving damaging gaps in the network;
• supports the Government's commitment to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of the urban population will live within one mile of their nearest post office;
• supports the Government's commitment to ensure funding of rural post offices until at least 2006;
• welcomes the changes to the urban reinvention consultation process and the extension of the consultation process from four to six weeks;
• supports the Government's move to Direct Payment and welcomes the fact that already more than half of customers are getting their benefits, pensions and tax credits paid straight into accounts, of which 3.2 million are Post Office card accounts;
• notes that the Opposition wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the Benefit Payment Card scheme;
• supports the facility for those who cannot be paid through an account, particularly the most vulnerable older people, to receive a cheque payment; and
• recognises that change was needed and congratulates the Government for its strong, decisive action.

which passed without a vote.

• [1] Michael Fabricant MP, House of Commons, 5 July 2004
• [2] 'Exceptions' to direct payments, Newcastle City Council
• [2] Stephen Timms MP, House of Commons, 5 July 2004

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

• This House
• believes the Government is putting the future of the Post Office network and of Royal Mail at risk by their continued failure to take the tough and overdue decisions needed;
• further believes that many local post offices have closed or are under threat because of the uncertainty over the future of the subsidy to rural post offices after 2008 and the withdrawal of public sector business from the network, including the pension book, the television licence, passports and the decision to withdraw the Post Office card account when the existing contract expires in 2010;
• shares Postcomm's concern that over 6,500 remaining rural post office branches are vulnerable and could close over the next few years;
• further believes that the Post Office network provides significant social and economic benefits and can play a key role in tackling financial exclusion and helping rural and deprived urban communities to survive and thrive;
• further believes the delays in finalising the investment package for Royal Mail is undermining Royal Mail's ability to compete in the postal market following liberalisation last January threatening jobs and Royal Mail's market share; and
• therefore calls on the Government to end this paralysis in decision-making at the heart of Government so that the Post Office network and Royal Mail can make the investments they need with greater certainty about a sustainable and stable commercial future.

This motion was replaced by the new motion:^[2]

• This House
• acknowledges the important role that post offices play in local communities, particularly in rural and deprived urban areas;
• recognises that the business environment in which Royal Mail and the Post Office network are operating is undergoing radical change with more and more people choosing new electronic ways to communicate, pay bills and access government services;
• applauds the Government's record of working closely with Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters to help them meet these challenges with an unprecedented investment of more than £2 billion made by the Government in supporting the network;
• acknowledges the important role post offices can play in tackling financial exclusion while recognising that the Government must also take due account of the need to deliver services efficiently; and
• acknowledges that the Government is committed to bringing forward proposals to help put Royal Mail and the Post Office network onto a sustainable footing.

which passed without a further vote.

• [1] Edward Davey MP, House of Commons, 16 October 2006
• [2] Jim Fitzpatrick MP, House of Commons, 16 October 2006

The majority of MPs voted to delete the motion:^[1]

• This House
• recognises the contribution that sub-post offices make in communities across the country;
• pays tribute to sub-postmasters and postmistresses for the service they provide;
• believes that sub-post offices have a key role to play in delivering new services in those communities for local councils, businesses and consumers;
• condemns the Government's short-sighted plan to close 2,500 sub-post offices; and
• urges the Government to allow sub-post offices greater freedom to develop their businesses.

A new motion voted into its place immediately afterwards.^[2]

• [1] Alan Duncan MP, House of Commons, 10 January 2007
• [2] Sub Post-Offices - Applauds the Government record, House of Commons, 10 January 2007

The majority of MPs voted for the motion:^[1]

• This House
• acknowledges the important role that post offices play in local communities, particularly in rural and deprived urban areas;
• recognises that the business environment in which Royal Mail and the post office network are operating is undergoing radical change, with more and more people choosing new electronic ways to communicate, pay bills and access Government services;
• applauds the Government's record of working closely with Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd. and sub-postmasters to help them meet these challenges with an unprecedented investment of more than £2 billion made by the Government in supporting the network since 1999;
• endorses the Government's firm commitment to ensuring the continuation of the network, while acknowledging the widely held view that its present size is unsustainable;
• supports the Government's approach of allowing Royal Mail the freedom to respond to future commercial challenges and opportunities, and in particular enabling Post Office Limited to determine the future shape of the network within clear Government rules governing criteria for local access, a requirement to develop new "outreach" services, full public consultation on proposals for each affected area and a continuing commitment to social network payments by the Government to reflect sub-post offices' social role; and
• welcomes the Government's renewed commitment to allowing the public to get their pensions and benefits in cash from post offices if they choose to do so, including a successor to the Post Office card account when the current contract expires in 2010.

This replaced a motion critical of Government policy which was voted out immediately before.^[2]

• [1] Alistair Darling MP, House of Commons, 10 January 2007
• [2] Sub Post-Offices - Condemnation of closure plan - rejected, House of Commons, 10 January 2007

The majority of MPs voted to reject the motion put forward by the Conservative Party:^[1]

• This House -
• regrets the proposal to close up to 2,500 post offices;
• recognises the vital role post offices play in local communities;
• notes the concern and unpopularity amongst the general public of closing such a large portion of the network;
• has concerns that the access criteria laid down for the closures consultation do not adequately take into account local geographical factors and public transport networks;
• is concerned that the consultation period is only for six weeks rather than three months, as recommended by Cabinet Office guidelines;
• believes that post offices must move with the times in the services they offer and that options for business expansion and developing business opportunities with local authorities should be explored further; and
• calls upon the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Limited to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices while these issues are re-assessed.

An alternative motion was proposed and voted through in the following vote.^[2]

Half of the rebels were absent in the second vote, which included two loyal Labour voters, Ian Cawsey and Julie Morgan, who did not appear in this first division.^[3] The BBC listed only those who voted against the Government.^[4]

• [1] Alan Duncan MP, House of Commons, 19 March 2008
• [2] Post Office Closures - Commends the Government's action, House of Commons, 19 March 2008
• [3] Comparison of Division 131 to 132, House of Commons, 19 March 2008
• [4] Post vote slashes Labour majority, BBC News, 19 March 2008.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:^[1]

• This House
• recognises the vital social and economic role of post offices, in particular in rural and deprived urban communities;
• notes the decline in post office customer numbers in recent years and the financial losses of £174 million incurred by the network in 2007;
• further recognises the effect of changes such as direct debit facilities and increased use of the internet for payment and communication;
• commends the Government's action to support the post office network with investment of up to £1.7 billion up until 2011, including an annual subsidy of £150 million;
• further notes that this subsidy did not exist under the last government and that without it thousands more post offices would be under threat; and
• urges the Government to continue working with Post Office Limited to ensure a viable and sustainable network for the future.

This followed a previous vote rejecting a motion to suspend the closure programme during consultation.^[2]

The debate is bisected by the announcement of a deferred division,^[3] making it inconvenient to access on a single page.

• [1] John Hutton MP, House of Commons, 19 March 2008
• [2] Post Office Closures - Suspension for issues to be re-assessed, House of Commons, 19 March 2008
• [3] Deferred division interruption, House of Commons, 19 March 2008

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.