As of March 2023, there were just 117 Crown branches remaining in the UK.

Jobs to be cut could also include those of staff working in the company’s London headquarters.

The review is also expected to say whether a number of branches, in some of the most rural parts of the country, will see vital grants reduced dramatically.

Earlier this year, The Telegraph revealed that nine branches could be forced to reduce their hours or close after the Post Office had written to them to say that the “exceptional payments” they received from the business would be reduced or cut altogether.

When The Telegraph approached the Post Office about the affected postmasters, the business said it would not go ahead with the changes until the strategic review was completed.

James Cartlidge, a Tory MP and former defence minister whose constituent was affected by the plans, likened the review to a “sword of Damocles” over the postmasters’ heads.

Much-anticipated evidence

On Wednesday, Mr Read will make his much-anticipated appearance at the inquiry, to which he will give evidence over three days.

Mr Read, who announced in September that he would be leaving his job in March 2025, is likely to be questioned on claims that he repeatedly asked for more money and threatened to resign when his requests were refused.

Last week, Henry Staunton, the former chairman of the Post Office, was questioned over a letter he sent to Grant Shapps when the latter was business secretary about a “critical situation” regarding Mr Read’s pay package.

Writing that Tim Parker, Mr Staunton’s predecessor, had raised similar concerns about the chief executive’s pay on two previous occasions, Mr Staunton suggested that Mr Read’s base salary should be raised from £415,000 to £535,800 – and his total compensation packaged hiked from £788,500 to £1,125,180.

Mr Staunton also told Mr Shapps that he should recognise that “if Nick were to resign” any replacement would be seeking a minimum of £1 million for their overall pay package.

When asked about the letter, Mr Staunton said: “It was obviously just a massive salary increase for – in a company where it wasn’t a normal corporate. It’s – it was a public – owned by the public, paid for by the public purse.”