Post Office Legislation
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and can absolutely give him the assurance he seeks. A fixed-sum award is only one route; it is not right for everybody. Some people have higher levels of claims, and we will support them where we can. In my remarks, I announced new measures we are using to do that, including a pilot scheme where expert reports are not required. That should significantly abbreviate the timescale between being able to submit a claim and getting a response. As for expediting in this area, in the GLO scheme we set a target that in 90% of cases we would respond to a final claim within 40 days. Currently, we are on 87% against that measure, so we are delivering this more quickly. He makes an interesting point about a named claim manager or something along those lines, and, if I may, I will take that away with me.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, the legislation and the removal of the Post Office from the process to the extent that we have seen so far. However, I do not think the Post Office is able to deal with any claims credibly. I wrote to the Minister on 12 February about my constituent who came forward after the TV programme. She had had problems with Horizon, had agreed compensation with the Post Office, which was way below what her losses were, and had signed a non-disclosure agreement. At the time she had been dealing with a terminally ill partner, who has since passed away, and so was in no fit state to take on the Post Office. She is seriously out of pocket, so I would expect her to be able to fall under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the letter he will doubtless send me.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have not seen the letter the hon. Gentleman mentions yet, but I look forward to it and I understand his points about the Post Office handling claims. I am responding personally to every letter I get on this matter from colleagues; we always do that, but I am doing so even more on this occasion. I am sorry to hear about his constituent and the situation she is in. If she has accepted less than £75,000, she will get an automatic uplift to £75,000. We are determined to ensure that, across every scheme, people are treated fairly and feel that they are being treated fairly, and I am keen to look at the hon. Gentleman’s letter and make sure that is the case for his constituent.
Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
I apologise without hesitation. What happened to Louise and her family is a disgrace. It should never have happened, and we should not be in this situation, but we are where we find ourselves. We now need to do exactly what the hon. Lady has set out: seek to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. If she would like a conversation about that case, I am happy to help where I can.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I come to the House virtually every time we have questions on this subject, or it is before the House, and I am taken in by the Minister’s mellifluous bromides about the compensation scheme. However, a letter from the chief executive of the Post Office, Nick Read, suggests that over half the convictions are safe and that the Post Office would defend them. Furthermore, he says that the Post Office is taking on expert police investigators to investigate the investigators, which is pouring even more good money after bad. How can the sub-postmasters who have been convicted and those who have been wronged by the Horizon scandal have any confidence in a scheme that is influenced by the Post Office in any way? In making decisions, how much are the Government relying on information from investigations by the Post Office?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman does contribute virtually every single time the issue is discussed, and I thank him for that. It is hugely important for postmasters in his constituency and further afield that his voice is contributing to those calling for the remedies needed. I am aware of the letter on this issue from the Post Office’s chief executive officer, and what he says; it was his choice to write that letter. Today’s statement, and the one on Thursday, illustrate that the letter had no influence on us; we think that introducing legislation is the right thing to do. We have always been clear that some guilty people will be made innocent through the process. We think that is a risk worth taking—the least worst option. As for the influence on compensation and other matters for individuals, we have ensured that there are independent processes running right through the compensation schemes. The advisory board is holding our feet to the fire very effectively, and I welcome its work.
Post Office Horizon Scandal
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is one of my predecessors, and I thank him for the job he did. His tenure was all too short, but he did a great job. I know he raised this matter when he looked after this part of the brief.
We are discussing mental health support for individuals and, potentially, families with the advisory board. The compensation schemes very much take mental health into account, and assessing those impacts is one of the reasons why it takes a while to make sure people receive proper redress.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about AI, in which I know he is keenly interested. We should look carefully at the use of AI in prosecutions, and I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is doing so.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I commend the Minister again for his excellent work. This is an unprecedented situation that requires the solution he suggests. May I ask him again about “no public interest” cases, including my constituent’s case? The situation has changed since I asked him about it on Monday, and new cases have come forward. The Post Office must have a list somewhere. It must know who was held to be in breach by the Horizon accounting system.
There may be people out there who are frightened to come forward because they have signed non-disclosure agreements. Is it possible for us to tell the Post Office, “Come on, cough up. Let us know who has not been contacted”? Letters could then be written to those people, perhaps by the advisory board, to invite and encourage them to come forward. We need to give them the confidence to do so, because they might be frightened about being approached by the Post Office. I am sure that anyone who signs one of the agreements that the Minister mentioned will want an assurance that they will never again be pursued by the Post Office.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman has been a regular contributor on this issue. We are keen to include “no public interest” cases within the scope. They are currently treated slightly differently in terms of compensation. Not everybody has the same route to compensation, but the advisory board has been very keen to make sure that there is a single way forward for people who have suffered from convictions.
Some people are nervous about coming forward. Various bodies, including the Criminal Cases Review Commission, have written to people with convictions. There is work to ensure that anybody who might have suffered as a result of this scandal is properly communicated with by someone they trust. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the advisory board about whether we have done enough and whether we could do more.
Horizon: Compensation and Convictions
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I entirely agree; the programme brought the scandal into everybody’s living rooms, and although many people were vaguely or even very aware of it, they did not see its real effect in terms of the people it affected or the brutal way in which they were bullied and forced out of their businesses and livelihoods—and in 200 cases, I think, put in prison. The programme has done a fantastic job. We should pay tribute to ITV, its producers and the actors concerned,0 as well as to the many journalists—not least Nick Wallis, Tom Witherow and Karl Flinders—who brought these issues to light and into the public consciousness, which I am sure played a part in the producers’ decision to make the programme.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to the Minister, and to all the people he mentioned in his statement, for their work. We must recognise and accept that it is not sound to base any criminal conviction on Horizon. My constituent was one of the original 555 in the group litigation order scheme. His conviction was overturned, so he is now seeking full compensation in the overturned convictions scheme, but his is one of three cases that the Post Office says there is no public interest in pursuing. It says that Horizon was not intrinsic to his conviction, but the figures used in his conviction were produced using Horizon. That is a Kafkaesque situation and it cannot be allowed to stand. The Post Office should not be anywhere near deciding who gets compensation and what compensation they get. It should be removed from the process. It has been shown to be untrustworthy and incapable of dealing with the matter in an even-handed way. Does the Minister agree?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman has contributed to virtually every debate or statement on this matter, and I thank him for his work on it. We agree with him, and indeed the compensation schemes agree with him, that the Horizon evidence should not play any part in whether or not somebody is found guilty. There are obviously different schemes: the Horizon shortfall scheme, and the group litigation order scheme, which people who were part of the group of 555 sub-postmasters took forward. To clarify, the 40-day target for a response to any claim is under the GLO scheme, not the overturned convictions scheme, although we are equally ambitious about providing rapid offers to people who bring forward claims for overturned convictions. He raises an important point about public interest cases. Again, we have discussed that today with the Lord Chancellor. We want to ensure that everybody affected gets fair compensation and that the Post Office has as little influence as possible in those cases. Ideally, in terms of overturning convictions and access to compensation, we would deliver something completely outside the Post Office’s jurisdiction.
Post Office Compensation
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work, not least on the Select Committee, of which he has been a member for a long time; he does a fantastic job on it. He is exactly right: we want people to be able to draw a line under the devastating impact this has had on their lives and livelihoods, and move on. It is one thing establishing what went wrong, but a compensation scheme then has to be put in place. It invariably takes a lot of time to assess somebody’s loss, because of the complexities around financial losses and the impact on people’s personal lives. This is a way to draw a line under things very quickly, which is exactly the intention behind the scheme. We hope that people will step forward and then be able to move on with their lives.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his handling of the matter. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), to Lord Arbuthnot and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones): they have done an excellent job on what is an unbelievable scandal.
My constituent was convicted and went to prison under the Horizon scheme, but the Post Office has never accepted that it was Horizon evidence that sent him to prison. What position does that leave him in? Does the Minister agree that it would not be fair for the corrupt Post Office to be able to deny that person the compensation to which he is clearly entitled? The chances that Horizon had nothing to do with his conviction are minuscule. It should not be possible for the Post Office to prevent him from getting compensation. Can the Minister reassure me that my constituent will be able to access the scheme?
Kevin Hollinrake
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about my predecessors, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who did a brilliant job and has been hugely supportive of the work I have done since taking over his responsibilities. I also thank the hon. Gentleman, who I think has spoken in every statement and debate on the matter in which I have participated as a Back Bencher or as part of my ministerial duties. He does an excellent job representing his constituents and many others.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point about Horizon evidence. I am happy to meet him to discuss his concern about the case. Of course, we do not interfere with what the courts decide. That is the difficulty: the courts follow independent processes under the separation of powers, as he is aware, so a conviction cannot be overturned unless the court so decides. However, I am very happy to look at the case, perhaps in conjunction with his constituent. I am keen to help wherever we can.
Post Office: Horizon Compensation
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be happy to look into the situation. The solicitors involved in this are Dentons and Addleshaw Goddard. We believe they are the right people to help us make sure these claims are fair and to facilitate negotiations between the two parties, but I am keen to talk to him about any issue he wants to raise with me.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My constituent served a prison sentence as a result of a prosecution by the Post Office. His conviction was subsequently overturned on the recommendation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but because he pleaded guilty on the advice of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Post Office is saying that his case is not a malicious prosecution, and therefore he is not included in the scheme and is not to be compensated. It is only offering him what it would cost the Post Office to defend his case if he were to take it to court. Can the Minister say whether my constituent will be included in the schemes he has outlined today?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very sorry to hear what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent; that must have been a devastating situation for him. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to talk about individual cases on the Floor of the House today—I do not think that Madam Deputy Speaker would want me to do so—but I am very happy to liaise with the hon. Gentleman. If he writes to me, we can take that up on his behalf.
Royal Mail and the Universal Service Obligation
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(1 year, 10 months 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this really important debate about Royal Mail and the future of the universal postal service, and I very much appreciate her experience and expertise, and what she is able to add to this very important debate. She talked about the changes at the top of Royal Mail, as well as the changes in personnel in my role. I pay tribute to my predecessors, not least for their unwavering commitment to Royal Mail workers, who do such a fine job, and to a universal postal service, which I will come to in a second. Today’s debate is the second I have had on this matter in this Chamber this week, which shows how important the subject is to our constituents and to fellow Members of Parliament. I agree with the way the hon. Lady described the service; it is a lifeline for many throughout our communities.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions. As they know, postal services are an integral part of the modern economy, allowing the smallest of businesses to connect with customers across the world and providing consumers with access to a vast range of products. Most people rely on at least some important information to be delivered by post. Cards and letters remain a special way to keep in touch with loved ones, and, as the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said, it was hugely important that covid tests were distributed properly during the pandemic.
In the last financial year, all postal operators delivered around 3.8 billion parcels across the UK and Royal Mail delivered around 8 billion addressed letters. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) is right that the volume of letters delivered has dropped to 8 billion; it was around double that in 2013, at the time of privatisation. Nevertheless, the importance of the postal service in keeping people connected was never more apparent than during the covid pandemic. We are hugely grateful to the delivery workers, who worked exceptionally hard to deliver letters and parcels in those difficult circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about the pride that postal workers feel in their jobs. I absolutely concur with that. My father was a milkman in our local community. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about how vulnerable members of the community are looked after by postal workers, and that was the experience of my father in our little local community as well, so I fully recognise the importance of the service.
Post offices also play a unique and vital role in the UK’s postal system. We are committed to ensuring that we keep a minimum of 11,500 branches throughout the UK, with 99% of the population being within three miles of a post office. That is why we have invested £2.5 billion in the post office network over the last 10 years.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) seemed to think that Government Members view public service workers as enemies. I gently say to him that I take exception to that. We all have friends and relatives who proudly work in the public service. My mum was a social worker who worked in the public sector all her life, and she did a fantastic job, so I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation, and I do not recognise in my colleagues, either.
Clive Efford
My simple question is: how will the Minister vote on the Bill on Monday?
Kevin Hollinrake
We will have a good opportunity to debate the Bill on Monday, so I do not want to get dragged into that right now.
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) makes a very good point, and I have a lot of time for him generally. My point is a general point, but there are specifics underpinning it that we have to consider. The definition of “all information” is relevant, as is the definition of “less favourable” when considering whether an employment contract is now less favourable. That interpretation will be left for the courts and lawyers to decide. I am looking at this from a business perspective. How would it affect the likelihood of businesses wanting to employ people? That is a big commitment for any business.
Clive Efford
If we refused to send legislation into Committee because of how lawyers might or might not interpret it in future, we would not pass a single Bill. The hon. Gentleman is going into minute detail on the wording of clauses, and that debate belongs in Committee. It demonstrates that Government Members have lost the argument. This Bill should go into Committee.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but in my view it is better to have no legislation than poor legislation. It is important that we look at the Bill and decide whether it should go into Committee.
As I was trying to say in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brent North, it is about capacity. We would be giving the Central Arbitration Committee huge responsibility, not only for taking on lots more cases but for making lots more determinations about information.
Local Government Finance Bill (First sitting)
Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Clive Efford(7 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kevin Hollinrake
Q Sorry, we are short of time. I want Councillor Borrow to come back on that.
Councillor David Borrow: Darra Singh and his committee floated the idea of regional equalisation of the business rate. All that would do is reinforce the inequality between regions, and it is absolutely fundamental that if we are to get a fair local government finance system, you have equalisation across the country. From a mathematical point of view, you can argue that it is easier to do it on a regional basis, but that simply reinforces inequality. The dramatic, obvious example is between the south-east of England and the north-east of England—that would simply reinforce the poverty in the north-east and the affluence in the south-east. It is clearly not something that any Government should be looking to do.
Clive Efford
Q Mr Ware, following on from Mr Hollinrake’s questions, does not the capacity to raise income through fees and charges and to generate local economic activity—that is what we are talking about in business rates—need to be taken into consideration? Let me explain myself. I am from the borough of Greenwich, sitting on the outskirts of inner London, and I look in on Camden and Westminster, which can raise money through things such as parking charges, which enables them to finance local government expenditure in a way that other areas cannot. Is that not a major factor? You cannot take the face value of how much one local authority charges for council tax as a way of demonstrating its efficiency.
Guy Ware: It is clearly not a straightforward measure of the efficiency of the local authority or indeed its ability to raise resources in other ways, as you suggest. There clearly are differences between authorities. There are also a number of restrictions around the use to which such income can be put. Our approach in London Councils and the GLA has been to argue for the need to be able to look at London as a system as a whole. In order to make the success of the economy that I was talking about earlier continue, you cannot look purely at a borough-by-borough level, because the concentration of employment in the centre of the city means that that is where the majority of the jobs—not all of them, but a very large proportion—are going to be, but that is not where people are going to live. We need to think about how we can balance the contributions that various parts of the capital can make to its future success, and part of that will be the ability to invest in transport, to provide housing and to raise revenue through various types of resources.