Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Settlement Funds

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I again pay tribute to the work that he has done over many years on this scandal to make sure that the world knows the truth about what took place. He makes a valid comment about the similarity of moral principles between the various cases. I can go no further than to confirm what the Minister said in another place. I will quote it to him in full:

“the 555 sub-postmasters who were part of the High Court case performed a massive public service by exposing the wrongdoings within the Post Office, and I recognise the deep frustration at the fact that because they agreed that the settlement with the Post Office would be a full and final one, they do not qualify for these compensation schemes. I have met some of those people and, as I said, I will continue to work on what more we can do.”

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I, like everyone else, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the work he has done. I also acknowledge, as he has done, that this is significant, because it means that central government will fund all the compensation.

I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said in answer to one of the questions from the Front Benches. To paraphrase, he said, “We know there was a terrible scandal. What we’ve got to do now is provide adequate compensation for those who were affected.” We all understand what the scandal was; Mr Justice Fraser in the High Court has laid it out. It involved the Post Office, despite senior management knowing that there were problems with the IT, which was probably identifying wrong shortfalls, nevertheless allowing sub-postmasters to be charged in millions of pounds for those shortfalls, in some cases allowing them to be prosecuted and in others allowing those who were prosecuted to be sent to jail. With all the people who suffered in this way, the Post Office, knowing that the IT system was unreliable—that is what Mr Justice Fraser said—nevertheless allowed them to be prosecuted or sued and in some cases bankrupted. They are all entitled to compensation.

There are three categories. First, there are those who went to prison or were convicted; some of them may not have gone to prison. They must be compensated —there is no doubt about that. Secondly, there are those not covered by the settlement—that is, people other than the 555. Can the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, confirm that they will be compensated? There is no other basis—no possible distinction that can be drawn with them—and there is no full and final settlement argument in respect of them. Thirdly, there is the group of people who were party to the settlement. Because he is well informed on this, the noble Lord will know that £56 million was recovered in the settlement and £46 million of that went on costs—he is nodding because he is clever and knows everything. That left £11 million for 550 sub-postmasters, whose average loss was £700,000. They were given £20,000—that is all they got. Surely, if we are keen that they be fairly compensated, that third category should also be compensated. Can the noble Lord deal with each of the three categories I have identified?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree substantively with many of the points that the noble and learned Lord made. He is tempting me to comment on the lawyers of his profession who took part in funding the case of the 555 members and the amount that went on legal fees, which perhaps I should not do in this House. I sympathise greatly with many of the points he made. Perhaps I would go even further and say that even when the Post Office knew about many of these problems, it appears it then attempted to cover it up. However, these facts will emerge in the inquiry that is taking place. The judge who is leading it is doing extremely well and is progressing with exposing that injustice.

Those outside of the 555 settlement are able to secure compensation through the historical shortfall scheme, which is the other one I mentioned in my response to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. On the third category, Paul Scully in the other place—I quoted his words earlier—certainly went further than the Government have gone before on those points, and he has promised to work with those who were affected.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, intellectual property lawyers, patent agents and attorneys are incredibly important for the future. I thoroughly endorse the remarks made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury.

Honestly, confidence in this Bill was weak to start with. That mess-up just then on patent attorneys was appalling, and it made me look at the rest of Part 3. Could the Minister first of all identify what the problem is that Part 3 is dealing with? We had a clue between 11.30 pm and 11.45 pm on Wednesday evening when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who sadly is not in her place, said the following:

“The purpose of the professional qualification provisions in the internal market Bill is to ensure that professionals can, in most cases, access their profession in all parts of the UK, by ensuring that there is an overarching system for recognition.”—[Official Report, 28/10/20; col. 375.]


Clause 22 says that where you are qualified in one place, you can be qualified in another, while Clause 25 says that Clause 22(2) does not apply to existing provisions. Let us be clear what is happening here: the Government are saying that we are not making any change to the existing position in relation to professional qualifications, and as far as I am aware—and this is nothing to do with the EU—there is absolutely no problem about the current position. The effect of Clause 25(3) is that these provisions do not apply to any change in the future. Am I right about that? They are making no change for the past but they are bringing in these provisions in relation to the future. Why is that, when there is no problem about the past or the future? The Government are causing problems everywhere with this. I ask them to explain to the House and the wider public why on earth they are doing it. They have messed up the one area that we have looked at so far. Why should anyone have any confidence in this Bill?

On a separate point, I refer the Minister to what the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop—on the government side—said on day one in relation to this matter:

“The timetable for the Bill appears to be predicated on the end of the transition period on 31 December this year, but what is the real risk of regulatory divergence between then and the completion of the common frameworks process in 2021? The House is aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 already confers on Ministers so-called Section 12 powers to freeze devolved competence in relation to EU retained law.”—[Official Report, 26/10/20; col. 88.]


So, if there is any problem about this, it can be dealt with by the Government’s Section 12 powers. That applies not just to this but to wider issues.

Why are the Government bringing forward such an obviously unthought-out Bill that is doing damage to what—and I say this with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby—even the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, thinks is a mess-up, and he is a supporter of the Government’s Bill? Why on earth are they messing everything up like this? Could they please give an answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said on day one? Is he right? If so, the urgency goes.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on this important subject. I shall start by replying directly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke about Part 3 and why we felt the need to bring these proposals forward. The Bill is intended to ensure that divergence in professional regulation between the four nations of the UK does not increase barriers for professionals living and working in different parts of the UK. As our economy continues to develop and new sectors emerge, it is possible that new regulated professions will be created and there may be changes to existing qualification requirements that could make it more difficult to access the profession in another part of the UK. These new professions may well be crucial to the UK’s economic future. As in other areas, we do not want barriers to trade across the UK in these sectors. Internal market provisions will apply where part of the UK regulates a new profession, access to which is limited to those holding certain professional qualifications or experience. The provisions will also apply to existing professions where there are changes to the requirements for the qualifications or experience needed in order to access the profession concerned. Currently, while the recognition of professional qualifications between the four nations can and does occur, there is no overarching framework that ensures that it does. The Bill creates such an overarching framework to guarantee that recognition of qualifications between the four nations will be possible and barriers will be minimised.

I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe the specific assurance they asked for: nothing in the recognition provisions of the Bill, including the exclusion, affects the current situation. IPReg will continue to be able to decide whether and how trademark and patent attorneys should be allowed to carry out the regulated legal activities that it is designated to regulate in all the different parts of the UK.

The government amendment aims to bring patent and trademark attorneys in line with other legal professions and to place them outside the scope of the recognition provisions of Clause 22 of the Bill. Legal professionals have been excluded from the scope of the provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications in acknowledgment of the different legal systems that exist in the UK. This will ensure that the regulation of and access to these professions, including trademark and patent attorneys, are not affected in any way by the mutual recognition provisions of the Bill and will be completely unaffected. That is why we need Amendments 107 and 108.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the idea of new professions being invented. If this happened, there would be a professional body that would need government recognition in some form. Could he give us an example, perhaps, of a new profession emerging without a professional body in relation to which there is a substantial risk? If there is no such example or evidence, it is incredibly unconvincing. The second and separate example he gave was an existing profession giving rise to a particular requirement that would create a barrier to entry in one part of the United Kingdom for another. Could he give an example of when that has happened in the past?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

By the very nature of it being a new profession or qualification, it is quite hard for me to give examples of what might happen in the future. There are all sorts of new technologies; even in the noble and learned Lord’s legal profession, there may be new technologies, ideas and proposals that will come forward. There is the whole world of artificial intelligence or gene editing—there is a massive range of new and potential professional areas, bodies and qualifications that may come forward. That is the point: we want the current situation in many of these professions to be unaffected, but, in the case of new professions, it is entirely possible that the individual nations of the UK might seek to regulate them differently, and we want no new barriers to trade to emerge.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I go back to the very interesting answer that the Minister gave on the coal example. Let us assume that the coal example, which he described as being a prohibition on sale but not use, did not come in a pre-existing requirement and that it had been entered into after this Bill became law. I would be right, would I not, in assuming that such a requirement would offend against the non-discrimination principle under Clause 8? It is obviously a disadvantage to be able to sell coal to people who cannot use it. In those circumstances, it is valid only if that was a provision entered into after the Bill became law if such a provision was justified by one of the legitimate aims identified in Clause 8(6). Would I be right in assuming that? Would I be right in assuming that the question of whether the ban on the use of coal survived would depend upon a private law action between the supplier of the coal and the buyer of the coal?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not think the noble and learned Lord is correct in his assumption, but it is a detailed legal point, so I will take further advice and reply to him in writing.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I am asserting that Parliament voted to hold a referendum. The referendum took place, and we all know the result. We believe that that referendum should be respected. I am sorry that noble Lords do not agree with me, but that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Am I not right in saying that the Government have taken power to extend the exit day beyond the date in the Article 50 notice? That is contained in Clause 14(4). Why did they take that power if they were determined, as the Minister is saying, never to change the date?

[Lord Callanan]

We are leaving the European Union on 29 March next year in accordance with the Article 50 notification and we have made it very clear countless times. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Article 50 notification will not be revoked.