Speeches by Griffiths.

“Have you made changes to the processes now?”

“Mr Recaldin, on the communication point, do you think it was made clear to sub-postmasters when they were sent RFIs that the intent was beneficial? We have had a lot of feedback about the concern when they were sent the RFIs.”

“Is that something that you would be keen to change?”

“We were told at our last session that the HSS was designed to wear people down with the number of questions and the amount of detail that claimants were expected to provide. Do you think that you are giving sub-postmasters the benefit of the doubt when it comes to evidencing their claims?”

“How would you find out? I accept that you don’t know, but if you had to answer the question, how would you go and find out whether you were giving them the benefit of the doubt?”

“Sub-postmasters have no confidence in the Post Office delivering redress. Do you think that the Post Office should be administering any of the redress schemes?”

“The question was really about the trust of participants in the scheme, because what we heard in the last evidence session was concern that giving more information was actually going to be detrimental. That is why I am asking the question whether it has been detrimental on any occasions.”

“To go back to the request for further information and your statement that that is always done with the intention of improving offers, I want to know how many examples there are of occasions when you have actually reduced the offers made.”

“Yes, but how would they know which to take?”

“The question that the Chairman and I are trying to ask is why we would not put that support and legal advice at the very beginning of the process to allow people to make a choice—that is, between the full £600,000 or £75,000—before submitting? They are not being able to access advice on which of those options is best s…”

“To follow up on that, how do you think claimants can make that choice between these different schemes, and understand whether those schemes are fair, when they are without access to legal representation?”

“The Social Security Advisory Committee estimated that more than 70% of people with a disability will lose their winter fuel payment this year. Does the hon. Lady really think that cutting benefits from this vulnerable group of pensioners is the right thing to do?”

“You have mentioned mediation. Is enough emphasis being put on the mediation stage, notwithstanding what you have said about going in at the front end?”

“Thank you so much. It has been incredibly moving hearing your testimony. I am going to slightly change the question I wanted to ask, in the light of what you have been saying. I am going to ask two questions. First, do you have faith that the schemes are designed with the best interests of the sub-postmasters in mind? …”

“I really appreciate that. Do you think the new independent appeals process will ensure that sub-postmasters at least get given fair offers?”

“You have probably answered some of this, but if there is anything else, please add it. What else could be done to ensure that the HSS is running smoothly and fairly?”

“In West Sussex, EHCP requests are running at over 120 per month. Will the Secretary of State’s SEND reforms include measures that could make it harder to get an EHCP, potentially making it harder for children to qualify for special school places?”

“16. What steps her Department is taking to support children with SEND.”

“The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that measures in the Employment Rights Bill could cost businesses up to £4.5 billion annually and increase the number of strikes by 54%. Does the Minister expect that legislation to enhance or undermine investor confidence?”

“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conflicting regulatory directives, which sit across all the different agencies that he has just referred to, are part of the problem and should be urgently addressed, without necessarily waiting for the long-awaited review?”