Single Status of Worker

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. We are likely to start voting between 3 pm and 3.30 pm, and there could be up to 16 votes. At that stage, I will suspend the sitting and we will have to return. I cannot see us finishing all the speeches and the Front-Bench speeches in the time we have available—although if that happens, it is all good news.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it was my oversight to not mention that earlier.

Technically, the problem for a lot of the people who we are discussing is that they are not employees, so they have no recognition process. The debate has been interesting. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who made some very important points, particularly on the tax take. That is something that we absolutely need to address, but this issue is fundamentally about fairness. Our Make Work Pay agenda has to be bolstered by action to address this problem. I hope the Minister gets the message that we need to do that soon.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) for keeping the debate in the main Chamber going long enough for us to finish this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.

Jane Austen

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Murphy]

Does the Minister want to intervene on that point? No? I am sure he will elucidate that in good time.

Austen’s enduring cultural impact is felt not only on a global scale, but powerfully at a local level, where it continues to shape and enrich Basingstoke’s vibrant film and arts scene. From the literary legacy of Jane Austen to the creative energy of today, the town has long sustained a strong and distinctive cultural identity. We are home to nationally recognised venues such as the Anvil, an outstanding concert hall that hosts everything from world-class performances to much-loved community events like the mayor’s variety show, and the Haymarket theatre, which continues to delight audiences with a programme of productions, from the festive sparkle of “The Crooners Christmas Special” and “Aladdin” to a wide range of acclaimed theatrical performances throughout the year.

One incredible show that came out of Basingstoke was our very own Phil Howe’s “Twelve Hours”, which depicts the story of Austen’s infamous short-lived engagement to Harris Bigg-Wither of Manydown. Our creative momentum is further strengthened by the Exit 6 film festival, a flagship Basingstoke event that draws visitors from across the globe and showcases independent short films and emerging filmmakers. Celebrating its 10th edition in 2025, Exit 6 exemplifies Basingstoke’s commitment to nurturing talent, championing new voices and sharing culture with the world. Together, all these institutions and events demonstrate the fact that the town does not simply inherit a cultural legacy but actively lives it, making Basingstoke a compelling and deserving choice for UK town of culture 2029, as I am sure everyone here agrees.

For 250 years, Jane Austen has enriched our literary heritage, our culture and, indeed, our economy through her sharp wit and romanticism, and her ability to capture the enduring nature of human relationships. What are the Government doing to celebrate and promote Jane Austen’s extraordinary legacy? How are we supporting today’s and tomorrow’s generations of female authors and artists? Given the central role that place played in shaping Austen’s life and career, and because it has also been the birthplace of other great British icons such as Burberry, and is now home to the Anvil, the Haymarket and the Proteus, and the Willis Museum, the Milestones Museum and much more, does the Minister agree that Basingstoke would be a deserving winner of the UK town of culture 2029, which is to be decided next year?

Basingstoke represents a notable chapter in Britain’s cultural and economic story, having produced globally recognised figures and brands. I am delighted to see so many colleagues here today to celebrate one of them—Jane Austen—and to acknowledge the vital role that our authors, artists and entrepreneurs play in shaping who we are as a nation.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob in their place if they intend to speak in the debate. I want to bring in the Front Benchers at 2.28 pm. I am not going to impose a time limit now, but that will depend on how people behave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

You all have roughly six minutes each. I am not imposing a time limit; just be courteous to others who want to speak.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

We are determined to ensure that we exploit all the natural resources I mentioned that are available in the UK. The hon. Gentleman mentioned China’s strong grip on the processing of minerals, and that goes back to my earlier point about processing. It is one issue to get the raw materials from primary or secondary sources, but we also need to ensure that we attract investment in the UK for processing, too. There is certainly an opportunity for processing to be co-located alongside the natural resources in Devon, if that were considered a beneficial economic opportunity.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but he will be aware of the widespread concern about the impact of the deep-sea mining of critical minerals, which devastates an ecosystem that we know very little about. I acknowledge that he may not have the answer now, but will he undertake to write to me to say what the Government could do to ensure that we do not encourage deep-sea mining by allowing it into our future strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are extremely concerned about the ecological impact of deep-sea mining. The Government support a moratorium on—I choose my words carefully here—the exploitation of deep-sea mining, while allowing for the exploration of deep-sea mining. As a scientist and engineer myself, I think that the exploration is valuable, to ensure that we gather appropriate data, and I recently commissioned work from the chief scientific adviser in my Department to be fully appraised of the potential environmental impacts of deep-sea mining.

Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I gently remind him that there is an alternative to opposition: participation. In the Western Isles we have the highest level of community-owned wind farms in Britain: 22 MW, alleviating fuel poverty and powering community economics. Our council is ready to take a 20% stake in two big wind farms, leaving the local authority—one of the smallest local authorities in Britain—in charge of 89 MW of power on an island chain with a daily demand of 39 MW. Do the maths: the communities benefit. GB Energy has been set up with substantial sums for community involvement and I ask the hon. Member to consider what my island community and communities across the highlands and rural areas have done: buy in, participate and have a share. People might object to the pylons going past them, but they really object to the profits going past them. By having community participation, and a community share, we can make sure that communities benefit.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

This is a half-hour debate, so interventions should be shorter than that.

[John Lamont]

The Borders already has a significant number of electricity infrastructure projects, including wind farms and battery storage plants that have already been developed. Some are community owned—Berwickshire Housing Association co-owns a wind farm—but it has gone too far. Many people who previously supported those types of projects feel that we have our fair share. We are now tipping the balance into changing the Borders beyond recognition. That is why people who previously consented to such projects now say, “Enough is enough.”

It is about not just the size and scale of the pylons, but the connected electricity infrastructure that comes on the back of the pylons, with the new substations and new projects rushing to get a connection to the upgraded power supply. Barely a week goes by without a new planning application: wind turbines, solar farms, battery energy storage units, data centres. The borders have been expected to take a disproportionate burden in the transition to net zero. As we have heard in this debate, other rural communities across the UK feel much the same. There will be those who say that we need to suck it up. Take for example the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who said he would happily live next to an electricity pylon or a wind turbine. That is very easy to say for someone who lives in north London; it is an entirely different matter for someone who lives in the countryside.

There is a hidden impact of the new electricity infrastructure too. Last week, we heard that data centres in Scotland powering artificial intelligence are using enough water to fill 27 million half-litre bottles of water a year—a shocking statistic. It is made all the more shocking when we discover that it is our precious tap water that is being used. According to Scottish Water, the demand is growing. There is also the agricultural land that is lost to those projects. Rather than filling productive agricultural land with solar panels, why not adopt a rooftop-first approach to protect our farmland and greenfield sites while maximising existing infrastructure?

Community consent and local democracy are vital, and I am afraid that my constituents too often feel that these projects are simply a done deal—that the projects are being done to them rather than with them, without meaningful and constructive engagement between the developer and local communities. We feel that SPEN and other developers will go through the motions of a consultation but ultimately know that they will get their own way because they are pursuing Government policy objectives. That attitude was evidenced when the Information Commissioner’s Office recently ruled that SPEN appears to be seeking to “obfuscate” concerns about major power projects. That is totally unacceptable.

We live in a democracy, and people are supposed to have a say on what happens in their community. We have an alarming situation in which many local residents are saying no and elected councillors are objecting, but the local council is powerless. Members of the Scottish Parliament are saying “Enough is enough,” but the SNP Government will not engage. Members of this Parliament are pressing the alarm bell, but the Labour Government say that it is nothing to do with them, which is utter nonsense.

We live in the United Kingdom, and we should respect local decision making. We do not live in China, but it increasingly feels like that. Whatever the Government want is bulldozed through regardless of local opinion or the impact on our environment, habitats or landscapes. That is not how we do things in this country. My concerns centre not only on the projects affecting the Scottish Borders; they are about the lack of co-ordination and cumulative impact assessments.

I have already highlighted the concerns about the cross-border connection and the process used for that. Separately, there is a rush to get connections to the new, high-voltage power line, which is what is generating the applications for battery storage sites, solar farms, wind farms and data centres. Where is the National Energy System Operator in all this? It should be dictating how many connections it will permit, as well as looking at the cumulative impact of those projects, but it is not. The situation has become a free-for-all, and both the SNP and Labour Governments seem happy to sit back and watch the chaos unfold. Who pays the price? Communities and the environment, such as those in the Scottish Borders.

It is not just people in the Borders who have been left dismayed by the way SPEN has behaved. In the highlands, my Scottish Parliament colleague Douglas Ross MSP and Highland councillor Helen Crawford have been leading the battle, and I am pleased they have joined us in the Gallery today. Councillor Crawford organised two conventions with community councils to issue a unified statement on the importance of local democracy to new energy infrastructure. That was backed by politicians from the Scottish Conservatives, Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and independents—strong, cross-party backing—because the issue is above party politics, and because people deserve a real say in what happens in their community.

In the highlands, local communities are grappling with more than 1,300 major electricity infrastructure projects. Despite these concerns, the Scottish Government refuse to engage or meet local residents. I have a letter from Gillian Martin MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, in which she refuses to meet the affected residents, hiding behind the ministerial code.

This summer, I visited Torness power station. Some might call it a blot on the landscape, but it has been there for decades, generating vast amounts of electricity. It is a key source of high-quality jobs and an essential part of the energy network. Many of my constituents work there, as have generations of their families. Nuclear power is cleaner and greener than most alternatives. Frankly, it is the best way to produce more renewable energy while protecting our environment. Nuclear energy uses 3,000 times less land than wind does, and it can safely and reliably produce far more power than other alternatives. However, unbelievably, the SNP Government in Scotland have an ideological obsession against any form of nuclear-generated power. That means that in a few years’ time, Torness will close, jobs will be lost and our energy security will be weakened.

We should be increasing the use of nuclear power, not pursuing developments that will ruin our countryside and communities. New electricity infrastructure simply does not provide jobs and opportunities in the same way. Yes, jobs are created while the projects are built—although often for those outside the area—but then they disappear. The developers pack up and local communities pay the price for generations to come.

The issue matters to my community and to millions of people across the United Kingdom who are affected by new electricity infrastructure. Some of the most beautiful parts of our great country are at risk of permanent destruction. It is nonsensical for anyone to say that they want to protect our natural world while they simultaneously destroy it. We need a better deal for our rural communities when it comes to new energy infrastructure. The Government should urgently look at how developers engage with local people, consider options such as underground cables to protect our environment, and consider alternatives such as investing in nuclear, which is one of the most underused energy resources. If we do not do that, our rural communities will pay the price for generations to come.

I have one ask of the Minister today: will he meet me in the Scottish Borders, together with local residents who are raising concerns about this, so that he can see and hear at first hand what is at stake?

Future of the Post Office

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for encouraging sub-postmasters and anyone who is interested in the future of the Post Office to contribute their views to the Green Paper.

As the hon. Lady rightly set out, and as I hope I underlined in my statement—the Green Paper is certainly very clear on this—we think that branches up and down the country are a vital part of our country’s economic and social fabric, and we are determined to strengthen the post office network so that they can play a continuing and even more effective role in our economic and social lives.

The hon. Lady rightly underlined the significance of banking services going forward. As an aside, she mentioned the decline of other traditional post offices—letter volumes have halved since 2011. That helps to underline the significance of banking to the future of the Post Office. We are clear that the Post Office could offer more if the banks are willing to work with it. The successful completion of the banking framework negotiations was an encouraging sign in that regard. As I set out in my opening remarks, we are, alongside Treasury colleagues, determined to sit down with the Post Office and the banks to see what more we can do together. There is a commitment to 350 banking hubs over the lifetime of this Parliament, but if we can improve the way in which the banks work with the Post Office, we could see a much more significant role for the Post Office in the provision of banking services on far more high streets up and down the UK.

On national insurance contributions, I gently say to the hon. Lady that difficult decisions had to be made in the Budget because of the financial situation that we inherited, but we have taken a range of decisions to steady the network. I am sure that she is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the additional finances put aside to invest in the future of the Post Office.

The hon. Lady quite rightly underlined the broader point that Fujitsu has a moral obligation to contribute towards the cost of the scandal. As I have said, we need to wait for the final report by Sir Wyn Williams to understand the full sense of Fujitsu’s culpability.

Lastly, on mutualisation, as the hon. Lady alluded to, we think it right to concentrate in the short term on prioritising the financial and operational stability of the Post Office, given its significant challenges. In the longer term, it may well be possible to make serious and sustained governance changes. I have a genuinely open mind on that question and will look carefully at the views we receive on it in the Green Paper.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the consultation on the Green Paper. Does he agree that we should see the withdrawal of banks from high streets like mine in Eltham as an opportunity for the Post Office to expand what it can offer, not just to individuals but to small businesses in local communities? That is an opportunity rather than a burden for post offices, and we should seek to maintain them wherever possible.

[Gareth Thomas]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the even greater role that banks could play on our high streets by working with the Post Office. It is one area that Post Office senior management has identified as key to the Post Office’s commercial future. We have set aside significant sums of money to invest in new technology to make it easier to work with the banks and do even more. I hope that banks and the financial services community will recognise that they have a considerable opportunity to do more in providing services to all our constituents by working with the Post Office. I look forward to sitting down with the Post Office and the financial services industry, alongside Treasury colleagues, to see whether we can take advantage of that opportunity.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

To be clear, Sir Wyn Williams’ recommendation of a standing body to deliver compensation is very much to ensure that if there is ever a future disaster on this scale—and we all hope that there is not—the Government are better set up to respond to it. He has not specifically suggested that we transfer into such a body the responsibility for the delivery of compensation schemes at this stage, because doing so would undoubtedly slow down the process. I think that there are parallels with the infected blood inquiry, but there are also differences. We need to learn lessons on the delivery of compensation from the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal and other scandals that came before. In that regard, the National Audit Office published important work last summer, which will certainly help to inform our judgment about the case for such a standing body.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments of the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), about the involvement of the Post Office—I hope the Minister has checks and balances in place to test what information it provides, because it clearly cannot be trusted. My question is about Fujitsu, which stayed quiet while sub-postmasters, including a former constituent of mine, went to prison. The Minister said that the Government are in negotiations with Fujitsu, which sounds like Fujitsu will not pay the compensation that it should. Will he say more about who will be the final arbiter in determining how much Fujitsu should pay in this scandal, which it is fundamentally at the root of?

[Gareth Thomas]

I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for his consistent campaigning on this issue. He is absolutely right to underline the moral responsibility that Fujitsu has to contribute to the cost of the scandal. I welcome the fact that Fujitsu has accepted that it has such a moral obligation. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that I think it should bring forward an interim payment, and discussions with it have begun, as I said, but it will be important that we receive the final report from Sir Wyn Williams to understand properly the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibility going forward, as compared with the responsibility of other players in this appalling scandal. I am absolutely clear that Fujitsu does have a clear responsibility. It could begin to act now, and I hope that it does so.

Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I join him in commending the work of all those who have campaigned, and who continue to campaign, for the victims of this horrendous scandal. I pay tribute to the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Beamish. In a spirit of cross-partisanship, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in the past. I know that he worked extremely hard to try to move things forward, and I very much respect the job that he did.

Let me attempt to do justice to the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. On Capture, we are actively working on a redress scheme. We have had a series of meetings with some of the sub-postmasters who were affected by the problems in the Capture software and their legal representatives. He will be aware that a number of cases with the Criminal Cases Review Commission relate to Capture, and we think it is appropriate that the CCRC is allowed to continue to review those cases.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, the Secretary of State recently met the global chief executive of Fujitsu during his visit to Japan. I have met the chief executive of Fujitsu in the UK, and I said to him that an interim payment would be a significant step in the right direction.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Post Office’s accountants. He may be aware that the Financial Reporting Council is looking at this issue and has been talking to the Horizon compensation advisory board. It is an independent body, and I am sure that he and the House will recognise that it is right that we respect the right of that independent body to do its work.

The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that the full assessment of claims occasionally has problems. That is one of the reasons why I referred to the fact that we are bringing back facilitated discussions, particularly on the GLO scheme. Although there has been significant progress in settling two thirds of the GLO claims that have been put in, we think that those facilitated discussions will help to make it easier for fair compensation to be allocated in a timely way to those victims of the scandal.

Where a case for interim payments is made to us, we always encourage our team to make such payments in order to try to ease the financial pressures, and therefore the trauma, that victims still experience. The hon. Gentleman will know that there were concerns in the past about the letters requesting further information. I have seen some previous examples of those requests, and I can well understand the frustration of sub-postmasters, their lawyers and campaigners. When we request further information, it is to make sure that we can offer an increased payment to sub-postmasters going forward. However, I recognise that there will be some scepticism because of the history around requests for information.

We will continue to do everything we can to get payments out to people as quickly as possible, and we have taken further steps to work with the Post Office to identify victims who had not previously come forward. Some 6,000 new claimants have now come forward, and we are trying to process their cases as quickly as we can.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the reference to the discussions with Fujitsu. The Horizon software is still being used by the post office network, and I understand that the contract with Fujitsu is worth about £2.4 billion over its lifetime. We should not lose sight of the fact that Fujitsu was heavily involved in supporting the Post Office’s prosecution of innocent sub-postmasters. Can my hon. Friend say exactly how he will ensure that Fujitsu pays the appropriate amount of money to compensate for its role in this affair?

[Gareth Thomas]

I recognise the concern across the House. My hon. Friend has followed this issue for a long time, and I recognise his continuing interest. He will forgive me if I do not give a running commentary to the House on the negotiations that we will have with Fujitsu. We are obviously waiting for the conclusions of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry and his judgment about the level of responsibility that Fujitsu must accept. As I alluded to in my answer to the Opposition spokesman, an interim payment by Fujitsu would be a significant step forward.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of that case, I will happily look at where it is at. The Horizon shortfall scheme has been run by the Post Office for some time. Initially, it was closed and then it was reopened under pressure. All those who came forward in the initial tranche of claims have had them assessed and offers have been made. The majority of the compensation that was offered has been paid out. When the scheme was reopened, there was a substantial increase in the numbers of people applying for redress. Indeed, we are still seeing people coming forward now and we would expect, as a result of all the letters that we have asked the Post Office to send out to sub-postmasters who might have a claim, that there will be further substantial claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme. With the Post Office, we are looking at what more we can do to speed up the assessment of those claims.

The fixed sum payment that we announced in September of some £75,000, which sub-postmasters can choose to accept in full and final settlement of their claim, has been welcomed and accepted by a significant number of sub-postmasters. That is helping to speed up redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I accept that there is more to do, and we are looking at what else we can do in that regard.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the fact that he is putting more resources and manpower into processing people’s claims. But I wonder where the complexity of these claims is coming from. Are we asking for too much information from people in the first place? I watched the evidence of Sir Alan Bates at the Business and Trade Committee, and I have read some of the cases in the news. In one case, a person with breast cancer had their compensation reduced and I thought, hang on a minute, this may be going too far and is a bit churlish. Just how much information is being gone through in order to process these cases? I wonder if we may want to go back and look at that. I have spoken to the Minister about this, and I know that he wants to speed the process up as much as possible. Is it possible that we could streamline the process?

[Gareth Thomas]

I have looked at this issue, which came up at the Select Committee. We write out to ask for further information in order to be able to justify the payment of more compensation, not to query the information that has been provided by sub-postmasters to date. To try to provide reassurance on that point, we are making that explicit in the letters that we send out to sub-postmasters. We are anxious to reduce the stress and concern and, essentially, the trauma that people have gone through already. We do not want that process to be repeated, if at all possible, during the compensation process. Asking for more information is designed to enable us to offer more and fairer compensation to the individuals concerned.

Future of the Post Office

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I am a veteran of virtually every debate, urgent question and statement on this issue over more years than I dare to mention. I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister, but it is disappointing to read some of the comments about the process for sub-postmasters to apply for compensation. We hear about people who have been repeatedly asked for the same information time and again. They are being asked to provide information that is 20 years old and to respond to questions they cannot answer because the Post Office has confiscated the documents and not returned them. The solicitor who represents those postmasters says that the system is designed to wear them down. I gently ask the Minister, what we can do to improve this process for the postmasters?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a strong and compelling case. The criticisms that he has just articulated about the compensation process are ones I have heard directly from victims of the Horizon scandal and their legal representatives. We are looking at a series of further things that we can do to improve the compensation process. We have moved more staff in the group litigation order compensation process to help speed up redress for sub-postmasters in that scheme, whose remaining cases are more complex. Perfectly reasonably, people want to see them compensated as quickly as possible. I am optimistic that for claims that come into the GLO scheme before Christmas, we will see significant redress delivered to victims of the Horizon scandal by March.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much echo the hon. Lady’s point that, if there is one bit where our political system operated well in this, it is the constituency link and the classic Member of Parliament’s surgery, although the story as a whole is clearly unsatisfactory. I recognise her words on Lord Arbuthnot and the cross-party campaign that came about. The Ministry of Justice issue is paramount and frustrating. The state of the records has delayed the process, and that is a real frustration, but she will understand that, following so much failure, if a case emerged where a letter was sent out incorrectly after all that people have been through, that would clearly be outrageous. Given I am now accountable for the scheme, I absolutely cannot have that. I could talk about some of the things we have inherited, but I do not think that is particularly helpful. I will simply give the hon. Lady the assurance that she rightly seeks: this issue is of maximum importance and we are working at pace with Ministry of Justice colleagues and the devolved authorities in relation to justice systems around the United Kingdom.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I heard what he had to say about the involvement of the Post Office in the appeals process, but may I press him a little further? Given the mistrust in the Post Office that has built up over many years, even though the Post Office may only be providing information to the Department, is his Department satisfied with how the Post Office is providing that information? Have there been any occasions where the Secretary of State has had to challenge the Post Office? That is the degree to which people mistrust the Post Office in this process, and that has been the case for many years.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I think my hon. Friend will have heard in my earlier answers that we have chosen to deliver this scheme in-house in the Department for Business and Trade, reflecting the concerns he is reasonably expressing. To command people’s confidence, they want to see the schemes not only set up, but delivering. That is why the updates to the House on how we are progressing under each scheme are so important, and I commit to doing them regularly.