Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

As many colleagues know, I spoke on Second Reading of this Bill, so I am delighted to see it progress to its final stages in the Commons. I want again to commend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for progressing his Bill so amiably through to this stage. It is a highly emotive Bill; while the numbers who will benefit each year are thankfully relatively small, the impact on those families is huge. Reflecting that, it has been extremely positive to see the wide, cross-party support this Bill has attracted, especially of course from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), who I know has long campaigned on this issue.

As I said on Second Reading, as a father myself it is hard to imagine the impact and trauma that a family must go through on the loss of a mother during childbirth. Tragically, however, those situations do occur, so we must put in place the laws needed to protect properly the rights of those who remain, to keep the family together and to support single parents in coping with raising a child or children alone, something that many will not have expected ever to face.

Any parent will know that juggling all the responsibilities of raising children alongside employment and everything else can be stressful at the best of times. This Bill helps to protect the rights of those families at the most traumatic and distressing point, as they get beyond the horrific loss of a mother, with all the stresses and strains that such circumstances will entail, and gives them the time they need to move forward as best they can, both physically and mentally.

I have read through the changes made in Committee and I think they are sensible to ensure that the Bill achieves the best possible desired effect. The most significant change now refocuses the Bill on addressing the specific issues through paternity leave, as opposed to through shared parental leave as was originally envisaged, creating day one rights for paternity leave. That is a particularly important change for those families where the deceased mother did not work. Under the Bill as first proposed, there would not have been any shared parental leave for the other parent to access, but paternity rights exist whatever the entitlement of the other parent. As amended, the proposed extension to paternity rights is the best possible choice and will ensure that more families in such tragic circumstances can benefit from the changes.

It is important that those rights are extended to cases where, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, both mother and child do not survive childbirth, to reflect the impossibly challenging trauma of getting through losing both a partner and an expected child. Although I recognise that this Bill does not do everything that was originally envisaged to address the issue of pay—in an ideal world that would also be resolved—I think there is recognition that addressing pay is more complex. I hope that will continue to be considered further, and I will closely follow it.

It should be recognised that many employers will already go over and above to support employees during such circumstances, both with leave and financially. I hope the provisions will be treated as a floor, not a ceiling, for the support offered. There will also be other bereavement support for which individuals might be eligible.

The Bill is a major step forward in securing the rights of families going through the toughest of circumstances having lost a mother. It will have a major beneficial impact on those families when they are at their most vulnerable. I wish my hon. Friend continued success in this important Bill’s progress through the other place, and I look forward to seeing it become law.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

With the leave of the House, I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, including the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has consistently supported the Bill, and I am grateful to him for always being here when the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House.

I said at the beginning that I wanted to thank the organisations that have supported the Bill and I do so again. The support of organisations such as Gingerbread, the Fawcett Society and the Childhood Bereavement Network has been invaluable not just in making sure that the Bill works for parents but in giving living examples of people who are left behind to raise a child. I have had several conversations with bereaved parents, some of whom were bereaved years and years ago, who have said what a difference this legislation would have made had it existed at the time. Nobody expects to lose their partner in childbirth—it is unimaginable in that sense—but now they are able to reflect on it in those terms.

I could not conclude without paying tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry). He was instrumental in convincing an Opposition Whip to take on his Bill, and I said at the time that that was quite an achievement. But we are actually here today because of Aaron, Bernadette and Tim. I wish we were not, in truth, but we are, and that is because of people such as Aaron and their dogged determination to convince their MPs that the law could be changed.

I pay tribute to the officials again, and to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is instrumental in ensuring that so many Bills are passed every sitting Friday, week after week. I can recall days when no private Member’s Bills were passed, Mr Deputy Speaker, under a previous Whip for PMBs, and that was the sport of the Friday. These days, many pass with good cause and I am so pleased that Members have supported the Bill’s progress to the other place. I look forward to it gaining consent from there and from His Majesty the King.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, Mr Elmore, and our sincerest best wishes and thanks to Aaron and Tim.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Baker]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point: the Post Office main accounts would have had debtors saying that they were owed money—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Will the hon. Member please face the Chamber, so that the whole House can hear him?

[Duncan Baker]

My apologies. The debtors would have said that those innocent sub-postmasters owed the Post Office corporate accounts what we now know to be tens of millions of pounds. But they were wrong—that was fictious and they were not owed that money. Will we ever get to the bottom of that and restate the Post Office’s accounts, which must have been materially wrong year after year throughout that period from 2010?

Budget Resolutions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to Members for sticking to six or seven minutes, as Dame Rosie suggested. We do not want to impose a formal time limit if we can get away with not doing so, but the informal time limit would mean that everyone got in, and had roughly equal time.

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the Minister for the help she has given me recently with regard to the issues facing men and boys, which is a subject close to my heart. I am equally supportive of women and girls. Does she agree that this Bill—or any Bill that criminalises free speech—will have a huge effect on women and girls across this country? We will get to a point where parents will be unable to say to their sweet little girl who comes home from school, having seen the abhorrent material in relationships, sex and health education, “No, you’re not a boy; you’re a lovely little girl, and you’re going to grow up to be a lovely little girl.” Does she also agree that the Bill will put biological males in single-sex spaces, which again is abhorrent, and take away podium places from girls?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Maria Caulfield]

The point I was making is that parents have a right and that we, when legislating in this area, must be careful to ensure that we do not criminalise legitimate conversations in the family setting. Sadly, we have seen cases—for example, those involving female genital mutilation—where a lack of parental responsibility has led to the abuse of children. We are concerned that, by not covering that in this Bill, there is potential for conversion practices, which could be abusive, to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The right hon. Gentleman says he does not understand or has not heard scenarios in the debate that would be covered by the Bill but are not covered by existing legislation. I give him the scenario of an unregulated therapist—that is, someone who is not part of any registered body, of which we have many in this country who do significant harm, and there is another debate, possibly, about registering them. That unregulated therapist can take a vulnerable person—to some extent, anyone questioning their sexuality or transgender identity is vulnerable because they are questioning—and repeatedly tell them that they cannot be that, they should be ashamed of that, and they should be disgusted about that. That does not meet a criminal threshold. It might meet a threshold many years down the line of a psychological harm that we will not know. Surely that is a clear example where this Bill, or a Bill like it, would act, but he suggests there are no examples.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Again, interventions should be short—I understand the reason.

[Sir Liam Fox]

If the point the hon. Gentleman makes is valid, it is valid in the other direction, too. It should be wrong and, in his case, criminalised to tell any young person that they are definitely something when they are unclear about what they are. If that is what comes out of our debate today, that is a step forward in the wider debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is clear in the exemptions that individual prayer is not caught by the Bill, but if Members feel that that is too thinly defined, we could thrash it out in Committee. Can the right hon. and learned Member tell me any mainstream religion whose religious texts say, “You must change your sexual orientation or your transgender identity”? I am not aware of any, so I do not understand why any religion would be caught by the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the right hon. and learned Lady responds, I just want to point out that several other Members still wish to participate in the debate.

[Suella Braverman]

I am being generous with the promoter of the Bill. Listen, we all know that in religious contexts people will pray for all sorts of things about fellow travellers in their faith, so my point stands.

Lastly, because I am conscious that other people wish to speak, I am very concerned about the impact of the Bill on parents, teachers and therapists. I speak not as the Member of Parliament for Fareham, who has met many constituents, including parents who are upset and traumatised by observing what their teenagers or young adults have gone through, but as a mum of young children who are beginning their education in British schools. As a mother, I feel it is my responsibility to do everything—to give my life—for the safety of my children. I would do anything for my children, as I know every parent would. If I were in the position of having my own child presenting with anxiety or presenting questions like this, I would want to support them and I would want them to be happy, but I would also want to direct them in the way that I know best, consistent with my parental authority, educating and teaching them about gender and sex. In my view, in our household, in my family, we believe that a man cannot be a woman; a boy cannot be a girl. That is what I would be telling my children, with the best intentions and from a place of love. If that were to criminalise me, that would be a crying shame and a total undermining of good parenting in this country.

UK Accession to CPTPP

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

Select Committee statement

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the Select Committee statement. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which should be brief and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I call Liam Byrne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for that question and for welcoming the report. We look forward to welcoming him before the Committee at some point in the near future to talk about some of our forthcoming reports on export-led growth. The point he makes is right and I am glad that, for once, he and I agree on the numbers—that has not always been the case. The reason we wanted to flag it is that the Government’s impact assessment states:

“CPTPP membership acts as a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region which is expected to account for the majority…of global growth between 2021 and 2050.”

We appreciate that all Governments need to hard-sell their policy achievements—that is the nature of the game we are in—but it is important that we do not oversell the treaty. The reality is that it accounts for only quite a small fraction of the Indo-Pacific market, which is trumpeted in the impact assessment and in the integrated review as one of the treaty’s virtues. We must be clear-eyed and hard-headed about precisely what gain comes from this treaty specifically, and it would help us all, frankly, if the Government set out their road map for growing the treaty in future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for making his statement and responding to questions.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall]

That is exactly why we put things such as the Trade and Agriculture Commission on to a statutory footing, so that it could report on these trade agreements. Its opinion is fully weighted with the Government response and comes in during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and allows us in this House to consider it. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) wants to debate this point in a general debate on CPTPP, I would look forward to doing it all over again. Of course, the whole purpose of the process is to give us the chance to take full consideration of the agricultural community’s view.

I have gone on for far too long, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much! [Hon. Members: “More!”] I believe that that is the first time that anyone in the House has ever told me to carry on, but I am very grateful for it none the less.

We have huge opportunities in the UK to strike new trade agreements to encourage our economy to boom. It is striking that, in his opening remarks, the shadow Minister on the Labour Front Bench did not recognise that, since 2010, the UK’s economy has outperformed that of Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany and France, to name but a few. This trade agreement signals not just an intent to sign more trade deals in the future, but an approach that we can take if we work together with businesses, financial services, legal services and all industry across this country to bring value to London and to all regions of the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing its ratification and to this Bill being passed unamended.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

In saying that you had gone on for far too long, you managed to unite both sides of the House, Mr Mangnall, so congratulations.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Minister, I will make a short statement about the House’s sub judice resolution. There are relevant active legal proceedings relating to Horizon before the courts. In December 2022, Mr Speaker exercised his discretion in respect of matters sub judice to allow references to those proceedings, as they concern issues of national importance. That waiver is ongoing. However, I urge hon. Members to exercise caution in what they say, and to avoid referring in detail to cases that remain before the courts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Post Office scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history, shaking people’s faith in the principles of equity and fairness that form the core pillars of our legal system. I am very pleased that last week’s excellent ITV drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” has brought an understanding of the Horizon scandal to a much broader audience. I have received much correspondence about the scandal and the emotional impact that the dramatisation has had. Those of us who have been campaigning and working on the issue for some years were already well aware of what happened.

I pay particular tribute to Alan Bates and his fellow postmasters, including Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton, to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), the hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), to Lord Arbuthnot and other members of the Horizon compensation advisory board, and of course to key figures in the media. They played a key role in seeking justice and compensation for the victims. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his continually constructive approach, as well as my ministerial predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

Watching last week’s ITV programme has only reinforced our zeal for seeing justice done as quickly as possible. We are already a long way down that road. Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is doing great work in exposing what went wrong and who was responsible. Full and final compensation has already been paid to 64% of those people affected. I have previously said to the House that my main concern now is regarding those still waiting for full and final compensation, and the slow pace at which criminal convictions related to Horizon are being overturned by the courts. Before Christmas, the advisory board published a letter that underlined exactly that.

This is not just a matter of getting justice for those wrongly convicted. Overturning their convictions is also key to unlocking compensation. Each person whose Horizon conviction is overturned is entitled to an interim compensation payment of £163,000. They can then choose whether to have their compensation individually assessed or to accept an up-front offer of £600,000. That offer is already speeding along compensation for a significant number of people.

In the light of the advisory board’s letter about overturning convictions, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and to Lord Arbuthnot. I have also had a very positive meeting this afternoon with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. All of us in the House are united in our desire to see justice done, and we have devised some options for resolving the outstanding criminal convictions at much greater pace. The Lord Chancellor will, rightly, need to speak to senior figures in the judiciary about those options before we put them forward, but I am confident that we should be able to implement measures that address the concerns expressed by the advisory board. I hope that the Government will be able to announce those proposals to the House very shortly.

Of course, there is clearly great concern about the role of the Post Office in prosecuting these cases. The Post Office rightly decided to stop undertaking private prosecutions in 2015. If we are to make sure that a scandal such as this can never happen again, we need to look at the way in which private prosecutions such as these have been undertaken. Any company can bring private prosecutions in this way: this is not a special power of the Post Office. I know that the Lord Chancellor wants to give this issue proper and thoughtful consideration, and I am sure that he will report to the House about the issue in due course.

Getting justice for the victims of this scandal and ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again is my highest priority as a Minister, as it has been throughout my 15 months in office. When we talk about compensation, we have to remember that the lives of the postmasters and their families caught up in this scandal have been changed forever. They have faced financial ruin, untold personal distress and a loss of reputation that no amount of financial compensation can fully restore. The Government recognise that we have a clear moral duty to right those wrongs to the best of our ability. To support those whose lives were turned upside down by the scandal, we have provided significant funding for compensation. We have also been clear that it should not be the taxpayer alone who picks up the tab. We will wait for the inquiry to report to make clear the extent of any other organisation’s culpability for the scandal and any individual accountability.

Our aim is to ensure that every victim is fully recompensed for their losses and the suffering they have had to ensure. To date, more than £148 million has been paid to 2,700 victims across all compensation schemes, 93 convictions have been overturned and, of those, 30 have agreed full and final settlements. Just over £30 million has been paid out in compensation to those with overturned convictions, including interim payments. Of course, we want to ensure that the process for agreeing compensation is fair, transparent and open to independent assessment. That is one of the reasons why I am today announcing that retired High Court judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom has agreed to chair an independent panel that will assess the pecuniary losses of those postmasters with overturned convictions where disputes arise. That will bring independent oversight to compensation payments in a similar way to Sir Ross Cranston’s oversight of the group litigation order scheme and the independent panel in the Horizon shortfall scheme.

Of the original 555 courageous postmasters who took the Post Office to court and who first brought the Horizon scandal into the public eye, £27 million has been paid out to 477 claimants in addition to the net £11 million received through the December 2019 settlement. Forty-seven members of the original GLO group have also received compensation following the overturning of their convictions, totalling more than £17 million. We have received full claim forms from 59 of those postmasters who are eligible for the GLO scheme and issued 43 offers. There have been 21 full and final settlements paid and a further seven full and final settlements accepted. That brings the total number of accepted full and final GLO settlements to 28. I would encourage claimants’ lawyers to continue to submit GLO claims, because my Department stands ready to review them and turn them round quickly.

It is worth noting that the 2,417 postmasters who claimed through the original Horizon shortfall scheme have all received offers of compensation. Around 85% have accepted those offers, worth over £107 million. In total, over £91 million has been paid out through the scheme, with the Post Office now dealing with late applications and with cases where initial offers were not accepted.

However, this is not just about compensation; it is about restoration—the restoring of people’s good names and the restoring of the public’s trust, both in our postal service and in our justice system. It is therefore only right that we get to the bottom of what went wrong and of who knew what and when. Although the scale of the problem is immense, the Government are unwavering in their resolve to tackle it, to compensate those affected and to leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of justice. We owe that to the victims, to their families, to the memory of postmasters who have died since this tragedy first came to light and to those who, tragically, took their own lives after being accused of awful crimes they never committed. We owe it to everyone who has been caught up in this tragic miscarriage of justice.

I thank all Members across the House who are supporting us in this effort. Together we stand united, not just in memory of those who have suffered, but in shared purpose to ensure that such a tragedy can never, and will never, happen again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support, and for the manner in which he delivered his response to the statement. We share an ambition to see exoneration, and I am very happy to work with him over the next few days to make sure that we are getting to the right place.

He raises a very important point about people who were involved in a pilot scheme for Horizon—an issue that has also been raised by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). We want to make sure that every single victim is properly covered by the various schemes, and I have asked everybody who has evidence of any kind, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, to furnish me with the details. I will make sure that we pick up anybody who is left outside the schemes.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned Fujitsu, and I concur with his points. Anybody who is shown to be responsible for this scandal should be held accountable, including by making payments into the taxpayer’s fund. I accept what he says about the honours system, as I have said before on a number of occasions. I speak as a former CEO. This is not to direct responsibility for any specific thing that happened—the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry is there to identify responsibility—but, as a former CEO, I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to ask the CEO who oversaw the Post Office during a critical time, when things went so badly wrong, to voluntarily hand back their honour. However, that is a matter for the person concerned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the article in The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice by M. R. McGuire and K. Renaud, entitled “Harm, injustice & technology: Reflections on the UK’s subpostmasters’ case”.

First, page 444 shows the graph of the prosecutions, which rose from 10 in 1997 to nearly 80 in 2001. The people responsible should have noticed that we were not going to get ordinary, decent people—sub-postmistresses and sub-postmasters—suddenly going crooked on that scale. Secondly, the article talks about the bugs that were named after the sub-post offices where they were discovered: the Dalmellington bug and the Callendar Square bug.

I also refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the article in The Sun about my constituent Cheryl Shaw, who gave up in 2008. Having lost £400 week after week, she brought in the Post Office investigators, who claimed that they could not find anything to explain what was happening. She had to sell out, she lost her home and she took on work as a carer. She is illustrative of those who were convicted and those who gave up before they were prosecuted.

Many people now believe that the Horizon system was set up for one purpose and adapted to another, for which it did not work. When people started entering things twice, there was apparently a loss where the Post Office did not actually lose any money. If the Post Office did not lose any money, how could people have been properly prosecuted? The titanic error was the belief in technology.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I totally agree that people should be held responsible where, following an inquiry and investigation, they are shown to have wilfully neglected their duties. He raises an important point about the courts’ attitude towards computer and technology-based evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is looking at that issue too, it having been brought to his attention by Paul Marshall, one of the leading barristers involved in this scandal.

I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent, Mrs Shaw. I take it that she will have applied to the Horizon shortfall scheme, which should compensate people like her. If my hon. Friend would like any help or assistance to make sure that has happened, either for himself or for Mrs Shaw, I am very happy to provide it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair when we last discussed the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill on 19 December. I do not think any of us who knew about the TV drama would have believed the impact it has had. It is bittersweet that it is had such an effect. It is really telling that MPs, peers, the media and many others tried to bring this issue into the public consciousness, but none of us managed to do so as effectively as a TV drama.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Today I have been contacted by local sub-postmasters who want to meet me. They were never prosecuted, but they had shortfalls and paid money back to the Post Office. Many of them just walked away and retired, and they now have no evidence of what happened. When a sub-postmaster walks away from a post office, all the financial documentation goes back to Post Office Ltd. Can we have a thought on that, Minister?

Will the Minister confirm that all the money that went back to Post Office Ltd enhanced the profits on which, over the years, many bonuses were paid to Post Office executives? Will pressure be put on those people to repay those bonuses? I disagree with very little of the Minister’s statement, and I think there is consensus across the Chamber on this, but some words sprang out at me: “very shortly” and “in due course”. Can we please have fixed timelines for the reports?

I commend Sir Wyn Williams, whom I first met when he took on the inquiry before it became statutory. It sounds ridiculous for me to say that I was impressed by him, but I really understood that he was going to get to the bottom of what happened. He has done that in spite of grievous failures on behalf of Post Office Ltd.

There must be accountability for everyone in Post Office Ltd and Fujitsu who prosecuted and persecuted sub-postmasters over the years. I pledge that SNP Members will continue to put pressure on Governments of any colour to keep the momentum going to ensure that real justice is served, even if that involves more pressure on the former CEO and on the people who received honours because of their work for Post Office Ltd. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding and know he agrees with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words and for all his work in the campaign for justice for postmasters. I also congratulate him on his recent knighthood; the whole of Yorkshire was rejoicing at his award.

I can assure my right hon. Friend on all four counts. Yes, we want a more rapid means of overturning convictions. Yes, we want to make sure that the Post Office does not challenge unfairly any attempt to overturn those convictions. Yes, too, on making sure that the investigatory process happens more quickly. Of course, some of these matters are outside our control, as he is fully aware, because of the separation of powers, but in terms of the policing of cases I am happy to talk to him after this statement about what precisely he means by that. There is an independent element to the way all the compensation schemes are running. They are not being policed or restricted by the Post Office; there are independent panels and independent assessments as part of all those processes, but I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend in detail about what we can do in those areas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Justice delayed is justice denied but 85% of the convictions have still not been overturned despite the Select Committee warning last spring that the process was rolling much too slowly and having made recommendations for speeding it up. Many of those recommendations were rejected, yet tonight the Minister has told the House that only now is the Lord Chancellor exploring with the judiciary a way to speed things up. Will the Minister tell us tonight his timeframe for delivering justice to those who have been unfairly convicted? Can those who are still waiting for their convictions to be overturned expect justice to be done this year? Or must they wait until many more of them have, tragically, passed away without justice?

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on the way they have progressed this issue, which has caused so much devastation for businesses, families and individuals right across the United Kingdom. People who thought they had a good business, worked at it, invested in it and trusted the Post Office to do right by them, found that they were betrayed by those who knew that mistakes were being made and knew that the system was faulty, yet, rather than admit to the failings, decided to pursue innocent individuals.

I do not want to elaborate on the stories we have heard today, but this Government body and its officials wilfully pursued cases that they knew would destroy individuals, families and reputations. As has been said, postmasters and postmistresses are often regarded as pillars of society in their village or locality, and they suddenly found themselves painted as if they were thieves.

It was known from an early stage, it would seem, that the accusations were totally false. One postmaster said to me, “Surely somebody in the Post Office must have known at an early stage that it was not one or two individuals but hundreds of people who had served blamelessly for many years. Did they think a virus had come into the system and turned them all into criminals? Somebody must have asked questions.” It seems that someone did ask questions and that, as the inquiry has shown, it was known at an early stage that there were flaws in the system and the system was wrong. Even when it was found that these people were right, tens of millions of pounds were spent on pursuing them through the courts, as that was an easy way to shut them up, rather than admitting that mistakes had been made.

I welcome the three things the Minister has said today, although he will have to come back on a regular basis to reassure us. The Bill extends the period in which payments can be made, but we cannot keep delaying compensation for the many who have been left destitute, had their reputation ruined and lost their business. Although the Minister has indicated that, technically, all the Bill will do is allow the compensation period to be extended in case that is needed, I hope that provision will not be used—I accept his assurance that he does not intend for it to be—to drag out the compensation scheme, and that it is only for cases with complexities that will take time to work out. I hope he will come back regularly between now and August to update us on the number of cases that have been dealt with, settled and sorted out.

I welcome the point the Minister made about corporate and individual responsibility. We need to have that, because it was clear that individuals in the organisation knew that what was being done to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses was wrong and yet the corporate response was, “Let’s not admit anything.” As a result, some people were dragged through the courts and finished up with prison sentences. It does not really matter what level of compensation we give, because how can we compensate for broken marriages, ruined reputations, wrongful imprisonment, premature deaths and even driving people to suicide? No level of monetary compensation will ever deal with that, which is why it is important that those responsible are held to account, that there is no hiding place for them and that we do not see the affront we have had so far of the head of the Post Office at the time actually being rewarded. Indeed, not so long ago a Member drew to the House’s attention the fact that the Post Office bonus scheme meant that individuals in the Post Office were actually being given bonuses for giving information to the inquiry that they ought to have been giving in any case. What the Minister said on that is important.

I noted the Minister’s comment that taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of the money that has to be paid out. Fujitsu knew that its system was flawed and it has not been held to account. The Minister said that,

“where responsibility can be assigned”,

the Government would seek to have compensation drawn from Fujitsu. The evidence given to the inquiry already shows that a large degree of responsibility can be assigned to Fujitsu. If that is the case, I trust that the Government will be rigorous in pursing that company. It seems odd that a company that supplied such a system should have had its contract renewed not so long ago. We need greater scrutiny of that and we certainly need to see not only individuals held responsible, but the company that supplied the faulty software held responsible for making some of the financial compensation to these individuals.

It is good that we have the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, here today. They are to be congratulated on the rigorous way in which they have pursued this matter. It gives hope that at least this issue is not going to be ignored, but it is important that we have regular updates so that the public can have assurance that Parliament and the Government are not ignoring it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Gerald Jones to make the last Back-Bench contribution.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind Members that, in this capacity, I am not the Deputy Speaker, but “Chair”, “Mr Chairman” or whatever you want—just not “Mr Deputy Speaker.”

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Nige?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

And not Nige, either.

Clause 1

Expenditure in connection with compensation schemes relating to Post Office Horizon system etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

I heard Flora Page, one of the claimants’ barristers, acknowledge on the “Today” programme that overturning all the convictions automatically raises some constitutional issues, so this may not be easy. However, I am determined to make it easier for people to come forward and for convictions to be overturned. I honestly do not think there is anything between the position of the right hon. Member for North Durham and my position in terms of our desire to see justice done and compensation paid. That is what he is calling for, and it is the Government’s job to try to achieve it. I promise him that we shall do our best. I hope that in the light of that assurance and the other assurances I have given, he will be willing to withdraw the new clause.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Mr Jones, you indicated that you did not wish to press the new clause to a vote. Is that still your intention?

[Mr Jones]

It is, given the assurances that the Minister has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome the Bill’s passage, which is another small step on a long road. I note what the Minister said about the response to the overturned convictions, which will be difficult, but, as he well knows, we have been there before over the last few years. Again, I thank him for his active involvement.

I also thank the other members of the advisory board—Professor Chris Hodges, Professor Richard Moorhead and Lord Arbuthnot—for their continuing work. We will no doubt be meeting shortly, in the new year, to ensure that we achieve what we all want, with people getting the compensation they deserve as well as the answers. I thank the Minister’s officials, and in particular Carl Creswell, Rob Brightwell and Eleri Wones. They may seem long-suffering given some of the expressions they give to advisory board members when we raise more work and more difficult tasks for them to do, but without their support we could not have got to where we are today. Officials are sometimes not thanked, but it is right to thank them for their work on this. Again, what the Minister and all of us want is for the system to work and for it to go some way to help heal the great wrong done to the individuals concerned.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for chairing our proceedings. I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and Members of the House all the best for Christmas and the new year. Let us hope that in 2024 we can have a conclusion for all the compensation and, more importantly, Sir Wyn Williams’s review, which will certainly make for interesting reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will just say a few words before we bring the parliamentary proceedings to a close for yet another year. On behalf of Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team, I thank all those who work here in our Parliament for their service through the year. It does not matter in what capacity people work here; we are all a team. Without their support, we simply could not do the work that we do. A big thank you to all of you. I wish everybody—those who report on our proceedings and those who watch our proceedings diligently—a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. We do not know what next year will bring. I will carry on playing the national lottery; I will live in hope in 2024, if nothing else, as this year was not particularly fruitful—none the less, I will carry on. Merry Christmas everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I am excited by the prospect of the deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, with which the Secretary of State is very much engaged, and I am looking forward to being re-engaged with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, as the latest figures show that total trade between the UK and the Gulf is worth more than £60 billion. We are looking forward to moving the negotiation forward and getting a very good deal for the UK.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister back to the Department for Business and Trade, and I look forward to helping him hopefully to do better this time around. According to the International Monetary Fund, over the past decade British food and drink exports, including from SMEs, rose by just 3%, which was the lowest growth of any G7 country. The US, Canada, Italy and Japan all saw their exports grow by between 30% and 95%. Government Ministers will not negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would help, they have cut funding for trade missions, and now the Secretary of State has cut funding to go to trade shows too. Why will Ministers not share our ambitions for Britain to have the fastest export growth rate of any G7 country?