Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for making that salient point. I am aware that there are many affected postmasters and families in Northern Ireland, including some in my constituency. What they are seeking is a timescale for when all postmasters in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, across this great United Kingdom—can expect to receive their compensation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask for that now. Those in my constituency have not received any word about compensation yet. Does he agree that when the Minister sums up the debate, we want to be given the timescale for the compensation? We want to know that right away.

[Mr Jones]

Yes. We now have this Bill and we have got the compensation scheme moving, and I think we need to move very quickly to get the money paid out.

Another issue relates to overturned convictions. Nearly 900 people have been convicted, 700-odd through the Post Office. Some of them in Northern Ireland and Scotland were convicted under a different system. Some were prosecuted by the DWP, for example. I will not rehearse the arguments now, but only 93 of those convictions have been overturned and that does not sit right with me. Somebody asked me why people had not come forward, but they are never going to come forward. They have been so scarred and traumatised by the court process that they will never go anywhere near a court process again. We need to tackle that, and I will cover that when I speak to my amendment later.

I welcome this Bill. My final point is on responsibility. If this scandal had happened in the United States, which takes a very different approach to financial crime and misdemeanours, people would be in jail by now. The evidence is all there, and I accept that Sir Wyn is slowly prising it out of the Post Office, but there are individuals such as Paula Vennells, who, ironically, got a CBE in 2019 for services to the Post Office, even though she oversaw all that was going on. I have written on numerous occasions to the Honours Forfeiture Committee to get that taken off her, but I have had no answer.

If there is one broad lesson to be learned from this scandal by Ministers and future Ministers, it is that when the state does something like this that is so wrong, there should be no hiding place for anyone who has been responsible. Sir Wyn is doing a great job in his inquiry to unearth some of these things. Fujitsu has been mentioned. That is an organisation that definitely has some huge questions to answer.

I think there are two parts to this. First, we have to get the compensation paid. The Minister has committed to trying to put people in the position they would have been in if they had not been affected, which is what we need to do. Will the compensation ever fully compensate them for what they have been through? No, it will not—they will have a scar—but it will help. The other important thing is that the people responsible should be brought to justice and have their day in court. Clearly, they need to answer for it.

I finish with the final line of Tom Brown’s evidence to the public inquiry, at paragraph 89:

“I would…like to find out who was responsible once and for all and to see someone take accountability for the wrong doings of the Post Office.”

I could not have put it better myself.

Building an NHS Fit for the Future

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) on making his maiden speech. Having mentioned his local boozer, he will no doubt be forever welcomed there with open arms. I welcome him to his place and thank him for his speech.

I note the historic event last week of the King making his first Gracious Address as sovereign. It is just a pity that the speech written for him by the Government was so thin, with little content and little vision. It was a clear demonstration that the Government not only are running out of steam, but have none left at all.

People know that I have campaigned on mental health for many years. It is 11 years since the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and I spoke, in a mental health debate, about our own mental health. I think attitudes have changed for the better over that period, and it has clearly moved up the political agenda. I was therefore, like a lot of campaigners and professionals, very disappointed that the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 was dropped from the King’s Speech. The Act is outdated and archaic in parts, and its language is more fitting to the Victorian era. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, in some cases it is leading to people with learning difficulties and autism being locked in the system for many years, without any voice to raise their plight.

The Minister, in her address, seemed to dismiss that as though it was somehow not important, but depriving people of their liberty is a very serious thing. To deprive somebody of their liberty, you have to ensure that they not only have rights, but care. My concerns about the Mental Health Act relate to those with autism and learning disabilities, some of whom have been locked in the system for years without a strong advocate. There are people in the criminal justice system locked into a Kafkaesque system that we have created. The Minister more or less threw that aside. I am sorry, but if you are a black teenager in the criminal justice system or an adult with learning difficulties, the system needs reforming and it needs reforming now.

It is not as though the Government started with a blank sheet of paper. We had Sir Simon Wessely’s excellent review in 2018. The Government made a manifesto commitment in 2019 to bring forward legislation. There was a draft Bill last year and a Joint Committee to scrutinise it. One would have thought it was a clear priority for the Government to move the issue up the political agenda, but what we have had from the Department of Health and Social Care is not just no Bill, but inaction. The Joint Committee spent a great deal of time looking at the Bill and put forward 36 recommendations. Ten months later and they have not yet even been answered by the Government. This is not just the Government abandoning the Bill and a broken Conservative party manifesto promise; it is a dereliction of duties. Politics is about priorities and, for me, this is a priority. Some 50,000 people a year are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. For some, I accept, it is life changing. For others, however, it leads to a system that they get into and cannot get out of. It is right to reform the Act and it is absolutely shocking that that is not in the King’s Speech. It will certainly be a commitment for the next Labour Government. I and many on the Labour Benches will make sure it is a commitment.

The Minister, in her Gatling gun approach to her speech, was more or less saying that it does not matter because everything else is okay in mental health. I am sorry, but it is not. In April 2022 we had, with much fanfare, the 10-year mental health and wellbeing plan. Over 5,200 individuals and mental health charities responded to a consultation, only to find out in January this year that it had been completely scrapped. The Minister talks about mental health being a priority, but the facts do not support that. Unless we have a proper joined-up approach to mental health, we will not get on top of the issue of individuals who need help, or have a system fit for a modern country such as the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on raising this matter. Throughout my time in the House he has spoken up significantly for those with mental health issues, and he understands the subject very well. One group who seem to fall below the radar are veterans. In Northern Ireland, a large number of people who have served in the forces suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those veterans who are suffering greatly must be a priority in addressing mental health?

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a former veterans Minister, I did a lot about veterans mental health. We now have a disjointed system with a veterans Minister who, in Trumpian style, says that everything is perfect and everything is working, when it is clearly not. We need to ensure that veterans receive the best mental health care in their local areas, and that means adopting a joint approach.

If we are to get on top of the nation’s mental health, that must be done through a public health approach. It must be done at local level, and it must ensure that public health takes a lead. Less than 2% of the mental health budget is spent on preventive work, which needs to be done not just in schools but in communities generally. Fortunately for my constituency, a new initiative has been launched in Chester-le-Street where GPs and local community groups divert people from mental health services by securing them the help they need, and I congratulate those who are involved.

Tobacco affects mental health, with 50% higher smoking rates among those with a mental illness and two-thirds higher death rates, so I support the movement for a smoke-free generation, although I note that the Government will not ask their Back Benchers to support the policy because they know they will not receive it. Action also needs to be taken on illegal sales of counterfeit tobacco, but that cannot be done in the present circumstances, because the number of local trading standards officers has been cut by 52% since 2009. We need to ensure that more money is put into trading standards and policing. The Government keep saying how wonderful it is that we have extra policing, but in fact County Durham has 140 fewer police officers than it had in 2010. It is important for us to have the enforcement side, because without that some people will be driven into the illegal tobacco market, but we cannot see it as a silver bullet that will justify cuts in public health budgets. We need continued, dedicated local smoking cessation programmes, because without them we will not make the strides that we want to make.

I shall say something on two other issues. First, on leasehold reform, let us look at the facts, as opposed to what the Government are saying. The Government have given the impression that this reform will affect every leaseholder, but it will not; it will apply only to new buildings. There is no roll-out of the commonhold for new flats, which constitute the majority of leasehold properties. This outdated feudal system needs to change. There will be a great many disappointed people who, having assumed they would suddenly be given more rights, then find otherwise. Let us be honest: this has been fuelled by the Government’s right to buy scheme, which is being used by Persimmon and other big house builders as a way of making extra cash, mainly at the expense of the taxpayer and those poor individuals.

Secondly, on transport, I have heard the references to the Network North plan. I will not dwell on it too much, because I do not believe anything in it. We know that 85% of it has already been announced, but some of those announcements have been withdrawn very quickly. In the north-east, for example, the Government argued that the Leamside line, which would help my constituency of North Durham, would be reopened, only for that announcement to be withdrawn within 24 hours. I doubt that many of these projects will see fruition.

With my role on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the investigatory powers reforms, which will be important in ensuring that the right safeguards are in place for the way our security services collect bulk data, and in bringing some of the oversight up to date. It is also important that the Government work closely with the ISC—something they did not do on the National Security Bill that went through in the last Parliament. We are still waiting for a response to some of our arguments around how the ISC is run. This legislation will be important to ensure that we give our security services the necessary powers to protect us all, and to ensure that we get the proper oversight.

This will be the last King’s Speech before the general election. It was half-hearted and full of gimmicks that were designed to be eye-catching, but it has no long-term plan for the future of our country. That is the disappointing thing, and that will only change when we get a change of Government at the next general election.

Private Pension Schemes: Regulation

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured the debate. The heading refers to “private pension schemes”, but I want to refer to a particular scheme, the Nissan pension plan, although I accept that some of the issues I will raise could affect other schemes as well.

Let me start by giving some of the background. The Nissan pension plan is a defined benefit scheme that was closed in 2020. In the north-east, this issue mainly affects those who work at the Nissan manufacturing plant, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). However, many of the employees lived, and continue to live, across the north-east, including in my constituency.

As in other pension schemes, benefits under the Nissan scheme are subject to an annual increase. However, the rate of that increase depends on when the pension entitlement was accrued. The part of the pension that was accrued after 2005 is increased by up to 2.5%. The part that was accrued between 1997 and 2005 is increased by 5%. Anything accrued before 1997—this is the main part of the scheme—is subject to discretionary increases by the pension trustees.

I say that at the beginning to explain the context of how the issue I am going to raise has come about. In 2011, the trustees of the Nissan pension scheme changed the rules around the funding when individuals take a lump sum out of their pension—when people retire, it is quite common that they commute a lump sum from their pension. The trustees decided that any lump sum would initially be paid through money in the accrual pot from 1997 to 2005—the pot with the highest increase. Should that pot be used up, they would go to the next pot—the post-2005 pot, which gets the second highest annual increase. Only if that had been exhausted could the pre-1997 contributions be touched. In effect, that reversed what happened under the plan’s previous rules. The impact is that, if a Nissan pension scheme member takes a lump sum from their pension, their remaining pension will increase at a lower annual rate—if there are any increases at all; I will come to the pre-1997 pots in a minute, which have not had an increase for 23 years. This was brought about by decisions taken by the pension trustees.

The issue was raised with me by my constituent Steve Clare, who has now been inundated as other pensioners have learned what has happened to their pensions. He has formed an action group, which has members from across not just the north-east of England but the country who are part of the Nissan pension scheme. Hundreds of people are affected, and they are finding out about these changes only when they come to take their pension and realise that they are not actually getting any increase in it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for bringing this issue forward. He said in his introduction that this issue will affect many other people across the United Kingdom who have pensions, and I will give an example. I recently had a young lady in my office whose pension has decreased over the last two years. She said, “Jim, I have no idea how these things work, but I know this: by the time I retire, my state pension won’t be enough. How do I know what to do?” That is the eternal question; the fact is that people have no idea what happens with their pension—they trust the provider. Does the right hon. Member therefore agree that, now more than ever, we need to ensure that providers are trustworthy—that is No. 1—and that that comes with better and good regulation, which, with respect, is down to the Minister and the Government?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member—it would not be an Adjournment debate without his intervention. He raises an interesting point. Most people do not understand their pension; they put their trust in the provider. They think that they are saving for their retirement and that they should have a pension when they retire—let us be honest, we have all encouraged people to pay into a pension—only to be let down by the way in which the various schemes operate. I will touch on the regulation in a minute.

I want to make two key points at this stage. First, the change to the pension scheme was not directly communicated to pension plan members. In fact, having done some research, I understand there is no legal requirement for the scheme to do so. However, the trustees cover themselves slightly on page 8 of the 2011 annual report by saying that, during the planned year, they had made changes to some factors and a calculation of methodology—it is literally two lines in the annual report. I beg anyone to understand what that meant in practice for people’s pensions. The annual report provided no further detail and, frankly, it is not worth the paper it is written on. The first time most people found out about this was when they realised the pension they had already taken was not increasing.

According to the Pensions Regulator’s website, trustees must act in “the best interests” of scheme members, as well as “prudently, responsibly and honestly.” In this case, I would argue that the trustees are not putting the interests of pensioners first; they are putting the interests of Nissan Motor Corporation above those of pensioners. The cumulative effect of what they have done is to save Nissan money it would have put into the pension scheme. Nor would I argue that it is responsible or honest to hide the changes in less than two lines of an annual report. There was no direct communication to let pensioners, or potential pensioners, know about the changes and how they would affect future years.

When I heard about this, I thought the obvious person to go to was the pensions ombudsman or the Pensions Regulator. Well, there was a bit of a ping-pong between the two of them. One wrote to me saying that the other was responsible, and vice versa. It went backwards and forwards. Frankly, my experience of them is that they are about as much good as a chocolate teapot. They are just blaming one another. It was this Member of Parliament writing to them—heaven help an individual pensioner writing to them to get any joy out of them.

It comes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on regulation and how we control these pension schemes. As I say, my experience of those two organisations has not been very good, so I would like the Minister to look at that point about the regulator and the ombudsman.

Mental Health and Wellbeing Plan

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. One of my concerns, which I suspect he has along with others, is for those with eating disorders, which is clearly a mental health and physical issue. Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are 700,000 young people with eating disorders. That is not a core part of the Government’s plan, but it needs to be. Does he agree that eating disorders have to be key and core to any strategy addressing mental health and physical health?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, eating disorders can affect people of any age, but there is a huge cohort that are young. I am coming on to my concerns about particular emphasis on young people’s mental health, which needs to be addressed.

Landfill Tax Fraud

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of landfill tax fraud.

I want to say how pleased I am that the Backbench Business Committee agreed to this debate and thank hon. Members from across the House for their support in securing it.

After I secured the debate, a journalist asked me, “What’s landfill tax fraud?” I said, “Yes, I do accept it’s quite a niche subject.” It might be seen as an anorak subject, but it is something that I have been involved with, along with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), for nearly 10 years now. I think he would agree that we are both proud anorak wearers when it comes to this matter, because it is a serious issue for the UK.

I have dug into the issue. There are solutions to it, but blind eyes have been turned by various Government agencies. There is no political will to really grasp the issue and the devastating effect it is having on our revenue collection, but also in various communities.

Have we made progress? Slightly, but there have been missed opportunities over the years. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been involved in this for as long as I have, and I cannot understand why the problem has not been grasped when there are clear solutions, some provided by the industry and some by me, the right hon. Gentleman and other Members.

Landfill tax was introduced in 1996, with the quite honourable aim of reducing the amount of domestic and other waste going into landfill and of pushing recycling—no one could disagree with that. It could be argued that it has worked in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, but its effectiveness is questionable, because we do not know what is going into landfill.

The industry is worth some £9 billion a year—not a small part of our economy. Like anything generating large amounts of revenue, it attracts criminals and others who want to exploit the system. I suggest that the way in which the Government have dealt with this area, with a lack of regulation and oversight, has allowed criminals and others to benefit. As the Public Accounts Committee report recently said, waste crime in this country has basically been decriminalised because of the lack of action.

People may ask, “Why is this important?” Well, there is a cost to the public purse through uncollected tax revenue that could support all the things that our constituents want. However, it also funds serious and organised crime gangs, which undercut the legitimate businesses that pay their taxes and follow the regulations. The other factor is the future environmental cost. We do not know what is being disposed of at some sites, so there will be a cost relating to their future degradation, with some requiring remediation. Who will pick up that cost? It will be the taxpayer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, because such problems also affect Northern Ireland. I am ever mindful of what he is saying, and I think others will reinforce his points, so is it his intention to ask the Minister to look at legislative change to ensure that the criminal gangs who break the law face punitive fines and imprisonment at a level commensurate with the activity? In other words, do the punishments need to be increased?

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this intervention. The frustration is that we do not need new legislation; we just need Government action to fund and implement the existing powers.

My next point, which will also affect the hon. Gentleman’s part of the United Kingdom, is about the effect on local communities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will mention specific examples from their constituencies of where local communities feel powerless to stop the huge environmental damage being done to the area. However, this is not down to any lack of trying by those right hon. and hon. Members, who have campaigned for change for many years.

The PAC report estimates that the cost of landfill tax fraud and waste crime is about £1 billion a year. However, that figure is just like me sticking my finger in the air, because basically no one knows. That is a conservative estimate, and the reason for that, as the report says, is that we have basically given up trying to monitor what is happening.

How does landfill tax fraud work in practice? There are strands to it. The first is the way in which the tax was implemented. There are two rates, and those rates went up between 2008 and 2014. The rate for inert or inactive waste is currently £3.15 a tonne, and the standard for ordinary waste is £98.60 a tonne. The first element of criminality involves saying that waste is inert when it is not. There is no monitoring at all, so people are instantly making a fortune by avoiding taxation. The incentive for misdescription of waste is the huge gap between the two rates. The Environment Agency does not really enforce this, and I am sure that boreholes would reveal that inert-waste only sites will contain other waste. The problem is that we do not know what is in such sites, which is a future environmental problem.

The second strand is illegal sites without a licence, for which there are no real sanctions. People can buy a field or an old quarry and keep filling it, and they do not pay any landfill tax.

The next method is far more sophisticated, whereby criminal elements buy or set themselves up as legitimate waste operators. Is that easy? It is, because there are no restrictions on who can become a waste operator. If someone buys an existing business or a quarry, they can label it and say they are going to collect waste, but who is checking? People can run two scams. They can declare active waste as inert, and they can just declare half of what they are putting in.

Fire Safety: Retirement Communities

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am pleased that I have been able to secure this debate tonight. The impact of fire on any property can be devastating, but the risks are increased when it comes to fires in retirement communities, due to the vulnerability and dependency of the residents who reside in them. While “retirement communities” can refer to a variety of types of housing, it is crucial that any building housing vulnerable and dependent residents has the very highest levels of fire protection arrangements in place.

Many residents who live in retirement communities may be unable to evacuate themselves or may have evacuation plans in place that move them from one part of a building to another part that is safer. There is therefore increased importance on ensuring that the ability of fire to spread in these buildings is contained. Despite that, much of the focus recently, following the tragedy at Grenfell, has been on the height of buildings and not necessarily the protection or lay-out of individual buildings.

I will talk about a specific retirement community in my North Durham constituency, but many of the issues I raise will affect other hon. and right hon. Members’ constituencies throughout the country. Cestrian Court was constructed and opened in 2008 by McCarthy & Stone, a developer and management company for retirement communities. The individual flats were sold to residents, and the lease was sold on. The building is currently managed by FirstPort, which also owns the lease. The issues relating to fire safety at Cestrian Court were first brought to my office in February when a resident passed me a copy of a compliance report stating that certain fire-stopping features were

“not considered to have met the guidance at the time of construction.”

Having looked at the report in more detail, I must say that I was alarmed at the litany of defects at Cestrian Court from the time of its construction. Most notably, a 1.5 metre part of a compartment wall between two flats was missing—in effect, a chunk of a corner of a cavity wall was missing—and cavity barriers on doors were not fire-stopped. Moreover, and as I will come to later, the attic space had numerous fire structures dislodged. That may have been as a result of residents moving structures in the loft or, as the report outlines, due to expansion and contraction of the roof and cavity barriers not being mechanically fixed at the time of construction. Finally, and most importantly, these defects did not meet building regulations at the time of construction: plasterboard joints were not sealed; plasterboard compartment walls were not extended to barge boarding areas; cables penetrated brick dwarf walls; roof voids were not fire-stopped; pipes penetrated cavity barriers; service penetration was not adequately fire-stopped; and communal venting discharged through the roof without fire dampening. All of those defects were serious and weakened the protections for Cestrian Court’s elderly residents. In the event of a fire, they would have had serious consequences.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member on initiating this important debate. Does he agree that the travesty of building regulations that have allowed unsafe building to take place without challenge increases the importance of the duty of care to local residents, which must be addressed not simply for his constituents but for those in every one of the 650 constituencies represented in the House, including my constituency of Strangford?

[Mr Jones]

I very much agree and will come to some of what the Government must do. Local fire boards and fire brigades will need extra enforcement powers.

I expected McCarthy & Stone, as the builder of the retirement community, to show an interest in rectifying its possible mistakes. I believed—foolishly—that it would be horrified at the risks that it might have inflicted on the residents through a litany of fire safety defects and that it would contact FirstPort, the new operator, to co-ordinate ways in which to rectify the situation. I was therefore disappointed when it simply said that the operation of the building had been passed to a new provider and that the warranty period on its construction work was up—it basically washed its hands of the situation.

It is unclear why the new operator, FirstPort, did not discover some of the structural building defects earlier as part of its due diligence when it took over Cestrian Court from McCarthy & Stone. It is also unclear why, given that Cestrian Court had five inspections during its construction, the National House Building Council failed to identify these issues.

On receiving the compliance report, I immediately contacted the chief fire officer at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, who did an audit of the building. Of most concern was the “stay put” policy in place for residents in the event of a fire, which effectively said, “In the event of a fire, do not worry. Stay in your flats. Your flats are fireproof.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Since construction 11 years ago, residents have been under the impression that “stay put” was the best policy to save them in the event of a fire. That was on the misguided assumption that the fire would be contained. With no fire-proof doors, gaps in cavity walls and loft spaces with missing or dislodged fire safety structures, that advice might have had fatal consequences. Residents were not protected, and we have been lucky that we have not had a national tragedy at this building.

The chief fire officer also found that the fire alarm system did not work, which again calls into question the “stay put” policy for residents in the event of a fire. He therefore escalated the advice from “stay put” to “full evacuation” in the event of a fire at the premises. Unsurprisingly, he also confirmed that the problems had to be treated with such urgency to mitigate the risk that the work would have to be done within three months. In the meantime, the fire risk was so bad that residents would have to pay for someone to stay on the premises 24 hours a day to alert them to possible fires, costing each two-bedroom flat £1,000. I want to formally thank Stuart Errington, our chief fire officer, and his team for the speedy way in which they dealt with this matter.

There have been cases throughout the country, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, of fires in retirement communities. There is evidence to suggest that if those fires had taken place at different times of day, they could have had fatal consequences. One fire took place at the Beechmere retirement complex—a four-storey complex of 132 extra-care sheltered flats in Cheshire—in August 2019. The fire rapidly spread through the cavities in the walls and the roof space. The fire service was unable to prevent total loss of the flats, but it was able to prevent any deaths. However, there is evidence that if the fire had taken place during the night, the consequences would have been completely different.

In 2017, a fire took place at the Newgrange care home—a two-storey care home in Herefordshire—resulting in two fatalities. The fire service had to rescue 30 people. Finally, in June 2020 in Sunderland, a fire started in the roof of the Croft care home and quickly spread. Some 27 residents had to be evacuated—some from upper storeys. Again, if the fire had occurred at night, we would have had a large number of fatalities.

Turning back to Cestrian Court, I was told in April this year that full remedial work would cost residents £87,000—around £3,000 per resident. Let me say very clearly that it is plainly wrong that residents are having to pay for remedial work that was the responsibility of McCarthy & Stone, which built the properties in the first place.

UK Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend—for he is—for his intervention. I am not quite sure that he and I will agree on the figures game. Perhaps it is one of those cases where we agree to differ. If the reserve forces were trained to the high level of capability that I hope they would be, they would be extra forces, but the point I am making about the 72,500 is that we have a level of soldiers who are not trained to the capability that they should be. That is the point that I am trying to make. It is clear to me that there are issues that need to be addressed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot simply add the reserve numbers in, because in many cases they are not formed units, they are not training with regulars, and in some cases, even among them, there are individuals who are not fit for deployment?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which—I say this very nicely—probably encapsulates the issue better. That is further exacerbated by large numbers of personnel being unavailable to deploy because they are in training roles or full-time reserve service roles. Not all those personnel are available; that is the point that I am trying to make.

If we apply the reality of those factors to the Army numbers, taking account of traditional undermanning of 7%—in layman’s terms, failing to recruit to 100% of strength—we are already, to use a snooker pun, behind the eight ball. Take out the staff supporting phase 1 and phase 2 training and any other training organisations that are on the staff assessment; take out the 15% unavailable to deploy, and the British Army regular manpower available to support a brigade-level deployment of just three years—a deployment in intensive operations for six months and every six months—is actually only about 55,000, because they are not trained to the capability that they need to be for so big a response.

I said at the start that I would make these comments in a constructive fashion, because I want the Minister to respond to the queries that we have. Those figures are worrying, and no person here can say that they are not worried by that analysis and those figures.

Given a deployed brigade current manning of about 12,000 people, it does not bode well for us being able to maintain sustained operations for any amount of time. Bear in mind the fact that the Iraq conflict ran for eight years and the Afghanistan one for 12 years, and that between 2003 and 2011 there were simultaneous operations at brigade-plus strength. We have to look at what we had in the past and what we have for the future.

Why focus on numbers? There is an old Stalinist military maxim, “Quantity has a quality of its own.” We should never disregard that thinking. It has been pointed out to me that the residents of eastern Ukraine, watching the build-up of Russian military power on their border, including their motorised nuclear motors, would draw little comfort from the language, and perhaps fanciful notions, expressed in our new integrated operating concept, such as “drive the strategic tempo”, “maximising advantage”, “creating multiple dilemmas”. We are certainly achieving this last one. Here is our multiple dilemma in this United Kingdom: we are likely to know and understand more than we have ever done in terms of intelligence and cyber, and be less able to do anything about it than ever before. That is the point I am making. If we do not have the soldiers, if we do not have feet in boots, on the boats and in the air, we have a serious problem.

In conclusion, I believe we need to spend the money and have a fully able and equipped force, fully trained. I look to our Minister and our Government today to confirm that that is where we are heading, because if we are not, we are in trouble. If we are, I hope the Minister will reassure us.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate.

First, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the birthday of the head of our armed forces, Her Majesty the Queen. When I put on the Ulster Defence Regiment uniform in Operation Banner, it was done to serve Queen and country, and I still honour her today, on the Floor of the House. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Her Majesty and the royal family on this very, very difficult milestone day.

This issue is difficult and complex. The obligation to fulfil our duty under article 2 of the ECHR is vital. Among the chatter I have heard, there seems to be confusion between a legal investigation following appropriate procedures and an investigation that gives what the family feel to be the right result or justice. This Bill is not designed to be the answer to every death involving a member of the armed forces; it is designed to ensure that the killing was unlawful and is still able to be prosecuted. At the same time, it protects against the sustained, erroneous and vexatious prosecution of service personnel such as those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland.

As DUP spokesperson on human rights, I welcome the Government changes to the provisions regarding torture as suggested in Lords amendment 1 to clauses 6 and 7. The Government’s acceptance of this in their own proposals is welcome, as is clarification as to why war crimes have continued to be exempted. I look to the Minister for some clarity on that. I have further questions on Lords amendment 4 regarding the ability of service personnel to make a claim against Government. I have been struck by the Royal British Legion’s reasoning in the briefing sent to me. The shadow Minister mentioned this, as did many others. We are all aware of new clause 13, “Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel”. That amends part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations. It could therefore potentially go some way to addressing the issues raised by the Royal British Legion, other external experts and members of both Houses in relation to the impact of part 2. Again, I seek clarity on this.

My next point will be of no surprise to anyone in this Chamber—equivalence of service personnel. For those who currently serve or who have served in the past, we have, as is the title of Lords amendment 5, a “duty of care to service personnel”. My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) both mentioned this. It is really important for those of us who have served in the armed forces and those who represent Northern Ireland in particular. It is so simple and yet so effective, and unfortunately patently untrue. There is a duty of care to service personnel, unless of course they were called to serve in Northern Ireland.

At this stage, I wish to personally thank the former Minister for Veterans and Defence People, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for his honourable actions, his passion and his commitment in the job that he had, and also for the help that he gave some of my constituents personally. I would not want to embarrass him by saying it here in the Chamber, but he really did reach out to some of my constituents in a very, very personal way. I really appreciate that and I want to put it on record.

We have today not parallel legislation where we are working through the kinks, but nothing for those brave personnel who served in Northern Ireland. I asked the Minister earlier about the legislation in respect of protection for Northern Ireland. I do not want to embarrass him but I am going to tell him what I saw as I was sitting here just before I was called. Tracey Magee says:

“NIO source tells me there are no plans to bring forward legislation in the Queens Speech on NI veterans ‘at this stage’.”

To be fair to the Minister, who I respect greatly and have affection for, if that is the case, then we really have to address this issue. If it is not in this Queen’s Speech, then when will it be? If he does not mind, I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this one and say that we really need to have a commitment on legislative time and a timescale to work towards. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is committed to this, but we need to have the involvement of Government and the Northern Ireland Office and to see it the Queen’s Speech. We need to be reassured. If there is a legislative programme, then we need it to be confirmed today and to be told what it is. That is breaking news in the past few minutes.

No matter how the republican agenda seeks to rewrite history to make it appear that there is no difference between a terrorist whose every action is a crime, and whose causing of loss of life can only be murder, and a serving member of the armed forces who may cause loss of life while legally carrying out duties, let me be quite clear: they are not the same. Legislation needs to be in place to ensure that that is not the case.

There is much in the Bill that is right and proper, but I find it harder and harder to understand and support those who persist in belittling and traducing the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. The passing of the Bill will not be complete, and will not have the full assurance and confidence of everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless those who served in Northern Ireland have very same rights—every soldier who served, every family who grieved. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, every MP no doubt has in their constituency families of those who served and died as a result of their service in Northern Ireland. For them, for the MPs in Northern Ireland, for my party and for the people of the Province, we want to be assured that legislative change will come in the House from this Government and that it will be forthcoming soonest. We want to hear about it right away.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Bill aims to address issues that rightly need to be addressed on potential vexatious investigations and litigations, but was the Bill needed? No, it was not needed. All those issues could have been addressed in the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently going through the House. The Bill was brought forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) said, as a clear piece of election gimmicking and as part of the worst aspects of what we have seen from the present Conservative party trying to get culture wars going.

We saw that on Second Reading in the wind-up from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Somehow, to criticise the Bill in any way meant that you were in favour of ambulance-chasing lawyers and against our brave servicemen and service- women. I take great exception to that. In June, I will have been in the House for 20 years. I think most people know that I have a long record in this House, like other Labour Members, of speaking up and arguing for members of our armed forces. It is worth reminding the House that many of the people who would be affected by the Bill are from northern constituencies—Liverpool and everywhere else. They are proud members of the armed forces and they need protection. The Bill is fundamentally dishonest, because it does not do what it claims to do.

Members have congratulated the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View today. Let me put this on the record. I have had my disagreements with him, but I do not for one minute question his integrity or passion in trying to get everything right for members of the armed forces. However, I have to say that the way he took this Bill and the Armed Forces Bill through was his way or no way. He was not prepared at all to countenance any view that was different from his, even when, on many occasions, it was completely wrong against the evidence we took.

Likewise, I understand what has been said about the hon. Gentleman’s campaign in Northern Ireland. It is one that I sympathise with, but he now tries to portray himself as a great champion of Northern Ireland veterans. He said last night, “Politics does this”. Well, I say to him, “Wake up. You are a politician. You were in a position to do something about it and you didn’t.” Not only did he stop the Armed Forces Bill taking written evidence from Northern Ireland veterans, but he voted against my amendment to look at Northern Ireland veterans in the Armed Forces Bill. So I shall take no lessons from him on that.

The key problem with the Bill is this: if we want to stop vexatious investigations and litigation the way to go about it is to address investigations, but the Bill is silent on that. In Committee I tabled new clauses 6, 7 and 8, which would have addressed investigations. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View told me that investigations would be not be considered in this Bill but that they would be included in the Armed Forces Bill. Lo and behold, when I was on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I found that investigations were not included because they are now part of the long-term review. That is a gaping hole in this Bill. That is why I welcome Lords amendment 2.

Rail Services: North-East England

Debate between Lord Beamish and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree; it is the same story that we get all the time. If Hartlepool, a town adjacent to the two major conurbations of Teesside and Tyneside, were in the south-east of England, it would have a service every half hour, rather than the one my hon. Friend has just outlined.

That brings me to the changes that were brought in in 2019. The timetable for my constituents got off to a flying start, because the two peak-time commuter trains, at 7.10 and 8.03 in the morning, were both cancelled on the first day. A further 11 daily TransPennine services to the north-east were withdrawn by the end of January, which left only 50% of TransPennine’s timetable for the north-east operational. TransPennine had given clear commitments to Transport for the North that there would be a seamless integration of the new timetable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is right to bring this issue forward, and he is always very assiduous for his constituency. Does he not agree that in order to have a thriving industry and business district, there must be a reliable, dedicated public transport service? Does he also agree that that takes funding and a forward-thinking strategy, and that more of both must go into the rail network in his area and into public transport in general throughout the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member. Chester-le-Street in my constituency is a commuter town for Teesside and Tyneside, and it relies on good public transport.

The timetable got worse, and by January it had still not been fixed. Between 1 January 2020 and 24 January 2020, 17 TransPennine services were out of action. The managing director of TransPennine said that performance was “not up to scratch”, but I think some of my constituents would use more forceful language to describe it. The Department for Transport said that it was “completely unacceptable”, which again is a bit of an understatement.