Post Office Redress and Funding
Debate between Gareth Thomas and Clive Efford(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Debate between Gareth Thomas and Clive Efford(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Transport for London Funding
Debate between Gareth Thomas and Clive Efford(9 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On the garden bridge, which no one has ever asked me for, TfL intends to build the Silvertown tunnel in south-east London to relieve congestion at the Blackwall tunnel, but it says that local residents will have to pay for it through tolls, though no other river crossing in London has charges. Perhaps the garden bridge should have an entrance fee, so that it can pay for itself instead of taking money away from vital transport links that are needed in the rest of London.
Mr Thomas
Rather than getting into the detail of what may happen with the garden bridge, let me say that I would prefer to see that money reallocated to a series of other existing and necessary capital investment projects. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think the priority is Harrow, but I am sure that he will be able to make the case for south London well.
I come back to the concern that the £3 billion cut in funding in the spending review and the extra costs from the sub-surface upgrade programme might put other investment projects at risk. The Piccadilly line refurbishment is particularly important for many of my constituents who live in Rayners Lane, South Harrow and Sudbury Hill. Will the refurbishment programme for that line go ahead as planned? There has been much speculation about when, or if, the night tube will go ahead. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of whether it is at risk of cancellation or substantial delay as a result of those cuts. In the Minister’s intervention, he raised a point about fares revenue. The upgrade of the four lines in the sub-surface upgrade programme would have generated extra fares revenue that will now be lost, as more passengers will not be able to be carried until much later. Some estimates suggest that that could be as much as £270 million lost.
In the eight years in which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has been Mayor of London, fares have rocketed. Some of my constituents, such as those who travel from West Harrow on the Uxbridge branch of the Metropolitan line, have seen a 60% increase in the cost of travelling into central London. My constituents and others who live in outer London and use the tube regularly have been treated as a cash cow by the Mayor of London for too long. I am concerned that the loss of that £3 billion may increase the pressure on the Mayor, and/or future Mayors, to raise fares still further.
I am also concerned that further job cuts on Transport for London’s network, which are now inevitable, will further compromise the safety and security of passengers, including my constituents. TfL operational staff fulfil crucial operational functions as well as many safety-critical roles such as managing peak flows of passengers and handling emergencies. On the tube, DLR and Overground, adequate numbers of staff are needed to identify and respond to emerging crush situations.
Adequate numbers of staff are required to limit fare evasion, too, which is rocketing—it is up to £61 million a year following a reduction in staffing levels. I pay tribute to Greater London Authority Labour colleagues, led by the excellent Val Shawcross, Navin Shah and Len Duvall, for that information. Visible staff help to deter and detect crime, including people preparing for or engaging in acts of persistent serious crime and even—God forbid—terrorism. Staff also reassure passengers during tense periods such as now, but staffing is at its lowest level in recent history and Government cuts make it look likely that it will drop further.
Under plans for staff cuts at stations, Leytonstone station, which currently has four staff in peak periods, will be reduced to two members of staff—a 50% reduction at a station where there has already been a worrying terrorist incident. That is just a small indication of the worry that further job cuts, driven by the major cut in Government funding, might force on us.
I understand that London Underground Ltd now plans to cut a further 838 front-line staff positions from normal traffic hour operational levels. New staffing levels have apparently been derived from so-called business need schematics formulae, which do not incorporate the need for security checks or other operational needs. As a consequence, staff are required to meet the demands of security checks and will have to be removed from their allocated customer service positions for sizeable portions of their shifts to do so, leaving their areas unstaffed and effectively unmonitored on occasion. That is a concern. Will the Minister be willing to review with Transport for London’s managing director whether the loss of those front-line staff is a sensible way forward and whether alternatives might be found?
Higher Education Fees
Debate between Gareth Thomas and Clive Efford
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a genuinely passionate and robust debate. We have heard interesting contributions from across the whole House, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), from the hon. Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
There were interesting contributions from the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). The contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was particularly interesting, given his experience. There was an interesting contribution on Aimhigher from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine), and another from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). There were particularly interesting contributions on the question of access from my hon. Friends the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
There were contributions from the hon. Members for Reading West (Alok Sharma), for Belfast East (Naomi Long), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). We heard a particularly interesting contribution from the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who gave another interesting speech. We also heard from the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Finally, we heard from the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey).
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has read out an extensive list, but has he noted how many Members were rising to speak when the Speaker called the Front Benchers to sum up? I wonder whether he can remember a debate of this importance, with a four-minute speaking limit, that has left so many people unable to get in. Does not that underline the fact that the guillotine that was imposed was unjustified and that it has denied Back Benchers the right to speak?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. We tried to get the Government to take the time out to publish a White Paper and to allow the House to have proper consultation and a proper debate. We never tried to curtail debate when we were in government—we allowed extensive time for Second Readings and for Committee proceedings.