Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, I welcome this piece of legislation and thank the current Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); the former Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully); and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who guided me through some of the issues when I first became involved in this matter. It has been a long battle, but the job of this House when it identifies an injustice is to ensure that that injustice is addressed, and this was an injustice.

I am still baffled by how we ever reached this stage—how Post Office officials, Ministers and judges did not question how people who had so much to lose suddenly turned into thieves in their tens and hundreds. This did not happen over a long period of time. It was identified over a short period of time, yet those people were prosecuted unquestioningly. Indeed, some who knew the facts felt that because they had started going down this route, they had to continue to justify it, even if that meant withholding information and pretending that it was only one or two people so that others were not alerted to what was happening. It was an injustice.

I have heard arguments today that we have to tread very carefully with this legislation—that it is very delicate, that it could annoy the judges, and everything else. As the right hon. Member for North Durham has pointed out, the judges were also responsible, because they heard evidence. Did they question it as rigorously as they ought to have done? I do not know—I do not know many of the individual cases—but it is quite clear that many similar cases were coming before the courts, and somebody should have asked, especially given that the people who were being brought before those courts had so much to lose. Their reputation was destroyed, and up until this point, they had not engaged in that kind of behaviour.

I am not all that sensitive about stepping on some judicial toes with this legislation. This House has on many occasions been quite happy to overlook some of the legal issues in the context of Northern Ireland—exonerating, or giving letters of comfort to, people who had been guilty of murder, and so on—so I do not really have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that we have to be very concerned to tread carefully in relation to this piece of legislation.

There are just two issues that I want to raise. The first is the issue of those who have gone through the Court of Appeal already or have had their leave to appeal rejected. Given that, in most cases, the evidence that was presented and the judgments that were made would have been made on the basis, or at least partly on the basis, of trust in technology—the very thing we are saying was wrong in the cases of those we are now seeking to exonerate—means that we should be looking at those cases. Whether or not they are dealt with on a one-to-one basis, they should not be ignored, because the same kind of evidence used in those appeal cases was used in the court cases. Again, it would be an injustice not look at those particular issues. Regardless of how that is dealt with, and whether we should include the appeal cases totally or they should be looked at individually, I think we cannot ignore that one.

Of course, the issue I really want to address is clause 9 on the territorial extent of this Bill. I have had conversations with the Minister, and I know he is sympathetic and understands the issues in relation to Northern Ireland. However, when I listen to the arguments, I really do not think there is a case for excluding Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Yes, justice is a devolved issue, and the Minister has said on other occasions when I have raised this with him that we have to be very careful of the political sensitivities. However, I have to say that there was not much concern in this House about political sensitivities when we put through a list of Bills the length of my arm that were controversial. People in Northern Ireland did not want those Bills taken in this House, and the parties were divided on them.

In this particular case, there is no division and there will be no kickback from any party in the devolved Administration. In fact, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister—the three Ministers who will be responsible for this—have all written to the Minister indicating that they would be fully supportive. They would be fully supportive because they believe that it would not be possible to keep in step with the timing of the legislation that will go through here, and the reason for that is quite clear. It is the way in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is obliged by law to consult on legislation.

I do not even know whether the legislation would first have to be included in the programme for government, which would be one step, and after it had been included in the programme for government, consulted on. However, even if it we only have it as stand-alone legislation outside the programme for government, there is a 12-week consultation period. As the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister have pointed out, that means legislation could not even be considered in the Northern Ireland Assembly this side of the summer recess, so we would be talking about the autumn. There is a compelling case not only because there is no opposition, but because, if it were to go down the route of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would be delayed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the number of cases is small—I have heard different figures, but we are talking about no more than 30 cases—but that cannot justify the delay, which he is eloquently describing, in keeping these people from their recourse to justice?

[Sammy Wilson]

I think that is right. Some people may, of course, turn that argument around and say, “It’s only a small number of cases, so why should we be concerned?” But although the number may be small, since this issue has become so public there is public outrage on behalf of those who have been unfairly treated. Many people who have spoken to me about this have not been affected personally by the Horizon scandal, but there is a sense of injustice that some people were affected in such a way—they lost their reputation, their money, their business, in some cases their families, and their peace of mind—and there is a need not to delay any longer if at all possible. One way of ensuring that there is no such delay is to include Northern Ireland in the Bill.

When the Secretary of State was asked about this issue she said that she wanted to avoid unintentional consequences. Those unintentional consequences were unspecified because we did not get any examples, but I do not see how there could be unintentional consequences from including Northern Ireland in the Bill. It is a tight piece of legislation. It specifies who is covered by it, what offences are covered, and the way that the exoneration would be implemented by having records removed and so on. I cannot see where the unintended consequences would be, and I find that argument fairly weak.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Debate between Lord Beamish and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Lord Beamish and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As a Unionist, I find this a sad and alarming debate. I come from a part of the United Kingdom where Unionism is not just a constitutional choice. Indeed, for many people, over the past number of decades, it was a matter of life and death. Many of them laid down their lives to be Unionist. Although it is not the Government’s intention, the way in which this debate, discussion and decision has been conducted is fanning the flames of nationalism. We have heard it here today. Second-class MPs, fourth-class MPs are to be excluded. It is all hyperbole. The truth is that when something is rushed through without consultation and when shortcuts are made, it adds grist to the argument that people from other parts of the United Kingdom are being excluded.

I know that we have a problem, but it is not an immediate one. If one looks at the evidence, one can see that in the previous Parliament 14 Bills were either English or English and Welsh only. Not one of them can the Government say was changed so dramatically by outside interference from non-English MPs. Not one of them caused huge problems or warranted this action.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree that these things need to be carefully considered in detail. Like me, is the hon. Gentleman concerned and surprised that the Government have completely dismissed the findings of the McKay commission?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am, which is why I think the Government should take more time over this. Historically, there is not a problem. Indeed, the Leader of the House told us today that there is not even a problem for the immediate future. The only Bill that he believes will be an English-only Bill is the buses Bill. Does he really believe that the constitutional and parliamentary Picts and Celts from north of the border led by Robertson the Bruce will somehow draw out their claymores and dirks and shred his legislation? Does he really believe that that is the threat he faces? There is no immediate threat, so why do we need this ill-thought out, ill-conceived and rushed piece of legislation—it is not even legislation—which will enable Members to conjure up grievances?

I cannot attribute a motive for this fancy footwork, and for these shortcuts. I cannot understand why the Government have rushed this through. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) talked about how concerned his constituents were, when he talked to them on their doorsteps, about English-only legislation and the way in which it might be interfered with. As there is no immediate threat, why can we not have proper discussion, proper consultation and a plan for the future that finds some consensus?

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Lord Beamish and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

In 2009-10, the budget for the nine regional development agencies in the UK was £2.2 billion.

[Sammy Wilson]

That probably puts it all in perspective. The measure looks good in the Chancellor’s speech, but, when one looks at the resources that it releases, which in turn are supposed to increase the willingness of firms to invest and the productive potential of the economy, one sees just how miniscule it is, and we have to judge whether it will make a very great impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Yes. That is the entire flaw in the Government’s policy: the idea that they can cut public expenditure as deeply and savagely as they are going to, and that somehow jobs will be created in the private sector—something that will just not happen. It might happen in parts of the economy, but there is certainly no indication that it will happen in my region. In fact, the situation is even worse, because Durham university’s model shows that taking out 20% of the public services will lead to 50,000 jobs going in the north-east, with 20,000 of them actually in the private sector. Replacing those jobs, in addition to the 30,000 in the public sector, is going to be very difficult.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the growth figures are wrong, the impact will be magnified and multiplied the further one moves away from the south-east of England? The impact on regions of the United Kingdom will be much more severe if the Chancellor has got it wrong.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but do the Conservatives care? No, I do not think they do. We saw that in the 1980s and early 1990s in the north-east of England. His constituents will face similar problems to constituents in the north-east, given the contraction of public sector jobs, which will have a direct impact on the private sector. Trying to attract business and growth to those areas will be very difficult, and I fear that we could have a two-speed Britain: a reasonably prosperous south-east of England, but stagnant or even declining regions, such as the north-east and Northern Ireland. Does the Conservative party care about that? No, I do not think it does.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Sammy Wilson

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Over the past few weeks since the coalition came into being and the announcement of the Budget, the rhetoric that we have heard has been all about fairness. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said on many occasions, “We’re all in this together.” The other phrase is, “There’s no alternative.” We have heard the accusation that the previous Labour Government did not have a deficit reduction strategy. Well, this element was a key part of that—£3.6 billion of it.

I am quite sad that only one Government Back Bencher is in the Chamber, and I notice that the Liberal Democrats have not been here throughout this debate. During the election, we heard nothing about the VAT rises, but we also heard nothing about the fact that one of the things that the Government would do in their first Finance Bill would be to give a £3.6 billion tax give-away to the richest 2% of pensioners. I am sure that that would have gone down very badly with the electorate if the Government parties had been honest with us at that time. During the past week, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, in their great coalition together, have been arguing that VAT is not regressive, although a key exception is the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has found this policy very difficult. However, one cannot say that the measure we are debating is progressive at all.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the amendment, which would require a distributional analysis of any changes, were accepted, we would be in a position to make a judgment on whether a system that is complicated, as the shadow spokesman said, was at least being replaced with a system that was fair and did not, as the hon. Gentleman says, give a huge amount of money to the very richest people?

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There seems to have been confusion from the Minister in the sense that she is saying, “Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more”—in other words, that the Government might not actually introduce this measure. If this change is to be made, we need to know who it will affect lower down the income chain. If the top 2% are not going to carry their share of the burden, people lower down the tax scale will be affected, such as pensioners, who are already being hit by VAT and other implications of this Budget.

This proposal affects 300,000 people—2% of pension savers and 1% of working age taxpayers. We are being told that it is fair, just and progressive to abolish what was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which would have raised £3.6 billion to help to reduce the deficit that was created because of the lending we had to provide following the economic crisis. I am sorry, but I do not accept that that is fair, and I think that if this were explained to most members of the public, they would agree. Currently, no one who earned under £130,000 a year would be affected by this measure. If someone is in a Cabinet packed full of millionaires, that perhaps skews their perspective on what poverty is and what income buys. However, the average member of the public, certainly in North Durham, would be appalled by the fact that we are going to let off people who are earning what is not just a good wage but, for most of my constituents, a fantastic, unimaginable wage.