Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have always believed—and the hon. Gentleman is probably the same—that someone is always innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the Ministry of Justice is saying: “You are actually guilty. Now prove yourself innocent.”

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the matter. That is precisely the effect of the change implemented in 2014. It has devastated the number of successful applications for compensation, because if we consider the data for the period between 1999 and 2024, we can see that, prior to the introduction of the new section 133 test, 45.6% of applicants received compensation for their wrongful convictions, but, following its introduction, just 6.6% of cases were successful—a drop of 39 percentage points. This new test has virtually put a stop to compensation payouts for these kinds of miscarriages of justice—an insurmountable hurdle indeed.

Members may wonder about the purpose of restricting eligibility in this way, and I am sure we will hear arguments that it was done to prevent those exonerated on a technicality from receiving compensation, but the cynic in me fears that the restriction was introduced to cut costs. Prior to 2014, the Ministry of Justice made average annual payouts of £5.9 million. Following the change, we have seen the average annual payouts under the scheme drop by 95%, to an average of £297,000. Even successful applicants have seen their individual compensation payments fall, with the average pre-2014 payment totalling just over £267,000, falling to an average of £61,000 after the change.

I am reminded of Cicero’s teachings, over two millennia ago:

“Justice looks for no prize and no price; it is sought for itself”.

He also said, of course:

“The worst kind of injustice is to look for profit from injustice.”

It is for others to consider whether anyone profits from this injustice, but the savings that the 2014 test realises for the Ministry of Justice perhaps offer an answer to that age-old question of, “What price do we put on justice?” Well, I can tell you, Mr Turner: it is around £5.6 million a year on average, compared with the pre-2014 payments.

The current system therefore places an almost impossible burden on the applicant—one whereby they are required to find a new fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence for which they have been acquitted. The perverse situation into

The perverse situation into which the 2014 change forces the wrongly convicted can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime for which they have already been exonerated. I appreciate that this is an academic point, but it is worth considering whether some high-profile exonerees—the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—would receive compensation if they applied under the scheme today.

To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles underpinning our justice system, because it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know there might be a challenge to that assertion, but the fact remains that the current rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

In Mr Buckle’s rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejection of his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him. If you were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, Mr Turner, that response is a perfect example. It illustrates how the 2014 change, by reversing the burden of proof, undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive but legally illogical linguistic gymnastics.

For if Mr Buckle is in law presumed to be innocent, surely he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent who has spent more than five years in jail should be compensated. If the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man and deny him compensation, why should the burden not fall on to the state to prove his guilt? Claims by the Ministry of Justice—

Finance Bill

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady makes her point succinctly. I hope that the Minister has heard her comments about the impact. Her concerns are certainly my concerns—indeed, the concerns of all Members on the Opposition Benches. She referred to the review of the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. I understand that new clause 4 will not be pressed to a vote, but if it were, it is another that my party would support.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there seems to be a disconnect between some of the statements made by the Government about the impact, or lack of impact, of the measures on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the fact that, week after week, small businesses and family businesses tell us, as constituency MPs, that they will have to reconsider much of their investment and recruitment plans for the coming year as a result of the measures in the Bill?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is what my small and medium-sized enterprises tell me—and, I believe, everyone else on the Opposition Benches—about that.

Ultimately, whenever the national insurance contributions are passed on to businesses, they will pass it on again to the customers—the wee man and the wee woman. They are the people that the Labour party—the party of conscience—says that it represents, but it will penalise them.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake]

It is a pleasure to have the privilege of opening the debate on this clause. I rise to speak in support of amendment 54 in my name, which would require the Treasury to have received consent from the devolved Parliaments before it could designate freeport tax sites as outlined in clause 109.

Although the amendment will not be pushed to a vote, the very need for an amendment requiring democratic safeguards and devolved consent is sadly indicative of the Government’s disregard for devolution and the interests, rights and ambitions of the devolved nations. It is jarring that today’s debate, and its pursuit of powers, paid for by taxpayers across the UK, is happening despite the Government’s failure to achieve consensus across all four nations of the UK.

That unilateralism by the Government is not only disappointing but, I would argue, economically self-defeating, as the overwhelming body of evidence, some of which has been gathered by Committees of this place, including the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, suggests that freeports will lead to the redistribution of jobs and investment, rather than their creation across the UK, unless the policy is very closely and carefully co-ordinated.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: one of the prerequisites of the opportunity for freeports is to ensure that every part and every region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefits. Although every hon. Member is right to claim it for themselves, it is important that we all benefit. Does he agree?

[Ben Lake]

I agree with the point that the hon. Member makes. If the freeport policy is to have real benefit and ring true to the rhetoric of levelling up every single nation and region of the United Kingdom, it is clear that no port—or no nation or region—should be disadvantaged by the location of any other. In effect, we cannot have a situation whereby the Government are asking for Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish taxpayers, along with English taxpayers, to pay for freeports in certain parts of England that may actively disadvantage those in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. If they did, it would appear that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor would be willing to trample over the devolution settlements in pursuit of this freeport master plan.

The Wales Act 2017 largely devolved the regulation and supervision of ports and harbours in Wales to the Welsh Government, while economic development is also of course a devolved competence. UK Government demands, such as capping the number of Welsh freeports to one—an outcome that would likely lead to an overall reduction in the number of Welsh ports—are direct infringements on the Welsh Government’s responsibility for the Welsh economy.

It is therefore especially dangerous that Wales cannot count, it would seem, on its Secretary of State to defend its interests at the Cabinet table. Instead, rather than side with Wales’s democratic institutions, the Secretary of State for Wales has threatened that a freeport will be implemented in Wales come what may, including if Wales’s Parliament were to reject such a measure.



I am conscious that there are others who wish to make perorations on this topic this evening, so I will draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to summing up at the end. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote this evening, I hope that the Minister will consider my remarks and ensure that freeports are established with the consent of all four nations and supported by an engaged public debate. Refusal to do so would be a tacit admission that this Government will not hesitate to trample over Wales’s economic interests and aspirations if they run contrary to the plans drawn up in London.

Electricity Generation: Local Suppliers

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She rightly says that this has to be viable for these community schemes and partnerships if they are to fully realise the potential that so many of these schemes possess. I have put on record details of one local energy partnership in Cardigan in my constituency that I know is trying to grapple with some of these challenges.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I agree with his comments about community groups and the opportunity here. Does he agree that the monopolies of service provision by greater companies must be brought to an end, as we see many local people who are attempting to expand business being precluded from doing so by legislation that seems to be put in place only to frustrate, rather than to allow for competitive provision?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the issue and has anticipated the main thrust of my argument. At present, the regulations and the way in which legislation has been structured may be outdated and disadvantage some of the smaller generation schemes. His point will be key if we are truly to capitalise on the potential that the smaller projects possess.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not only do the breweries have an issue with how to sell their products; they also had a lot of their product in storage, which then went off and had to be disposed of in whatever way that is done. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the breweries had a double whammy in not being able to make sales and having their stock destroyed?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is particularly the smaller independent breweries, where storage is perhaps even more of an issue, that will have had to dispose of a lot of their stock at considerable cost. Then there is the relative uncertainty as to when they might reopen and, indeed, how much beer to brew again. That is another problem that small breweries in my constituency have tried to tackle. I still think that might be a discussion to have. It is at least worth keeping the matter under review. I would welcome the Government being willing to do that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned temporary events notices and licences. Another proposal would be to consider extending the authorisation of off sales to small breweries that do not hold a premises licence, but that are registered under the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme. That would be temporary and quite exceptional, but in these exceptional times there might be a case for it.

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and he may well speak to that at greater length in a moment, but I put on record my support for it. The Government need to recognise the need for sectoral flexibility as they review how to withdraw some of the support schemes and take stock of whether these measures, exceptional as they are, are working. Given the nature of the crisis we face, our focus must continue to be on protecting otherwise viable businesses and supporting employment, so I welcome new clause 1.

Finally, I turn to the provisions in the first part of the Bill relating to the consumption of food and drink outdoors. A few Members have referred to those provisions as ushering in an al fresco age, which I am sure we are all excited to see, weather permitting. That part of the Bill extends to Wales as well as England, but the wording of clause 1 has caused some confusion as to whether it will apply directly to Wales. In concluding my remarks, I ask the Minister to clarify in his summing up whether the provisions will apply to Wales directly. If not, is he content that the Welsh Senedd is empowered to introduce similar provisions to support bars and restaurants in Wales, so that we may also see an al fresco culture in Wales over the summer?

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and agree wholeheartedly with him.

Direct payments have made some really important environmental projects happen across Northern Ireland—projects that probably would never have seen the light of day and that tie into the Government’s policies on the environment and climate change. As I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) earlier, it is not possible to stop those environmental schemes, especially where tree-planting is involved, because it is important that a number of organisations continue that work over time. The National Trust has made a commitment to plant trees in 500 of the properties for which it has responsibility. The Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union are encouraging their members to do likewise. It is vital to ensure that those schemes continue. We cannot remove a tree-planting scheme and turn the land back to agricultural land; it is not possible.

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Surely this underlines the importance of ensuring that we get things right now, because as he just outlined, it is not easy to make up for any mistakes that are made.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. The Government and the Minister have ensured today that the regional Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of this project together. It is my hope that, under this Bill as it is coming forward, direct payments can continue. I would like them to continue long beyond that, but this process moves us towards where we need to be.

There is a very important point for Northern Ireland. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), referred to this earlier, and I want to conclude with this comment. In Northern Ireland, we have a history and a tradition of small farms. My farm —the farm we have in our family—is only 62 acres. Farms are getting bigger now because they have to do so to move forward, but I think it is really important that this direct payment scheme enables small farms to be viable and makes them sustainable for the years to come. Many, myself included, probably across all of Northern Ireland, were reared on a farm of 60 or 70 acres, with their children going to school, and their whole life was sustained on that. It is really important for the future that Northern Ireland and those small farms can be sustained, be viable and have a future. We wish to have that future within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We do not want to be any different; we want to be treated the same in Greyabbey, where I live, as in Gloucester or anywhere else.

Residents of Leisure Park Homes

Debate between Ben Lake and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall at any time, but this issue is one that I have a particular interest in, because I have a leisure and park homes facility in my constituency of Strangford, located in the village of Ballyhalbert. It has been there for many years.

I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for securing this debate. I am mindful that the last time I spoke in Westminster Hall on the issue of leisure and park homes, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), was not a Minister, but she is now. She brought this issue forward in that debate, and she and I both spoke then. It is a pity that some years have passed by and we have not seen the conclusion that she and I wanted to see.

I will speak on a very specific point, which relates to some of the problems that we have had in my constituency. They may not be the issues that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent has referred to, but they are issues that I feel I have to air in Westminster Hall today.

They relate to my time prior to coming to Westminster, when I was in the Northern Ireland Assembly, doing the job I had before this one. During my time in the Assembly, the Caravans Bill, which was a private Member’s Bill, was brought before us and I fully supported the rights not simply of those who owned holiday caravans but of those who chose to live permanently on site, of whom there were many. Caravans were a burgeoning business at that time, but from the local council to the Assembly and then obviously to here in Westminster, I have followed the issue. I was supportive of proper rights then and I am supportive of them now. The hon. Lady has put forward a very good and solid case today.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in Westminster Hall again. She seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as often as I am; this is two days running. [Laughter.] I jest.

Back in 2015, I questioned the then Minister—now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—about electricity prices for park home residents, outlining concerns about the lack of energy efficiency schemes for those living in park homes. I was ever mindful of the fact that the age of those living in park homes is from 55 upwards, perhaps up to 80, and I asked the then Minister to see what she could do to help those people, taking into account the fact that park homes cannot have electricity meters. That was just one of the many issues that I raised at that time. It was clear that there were indiscretions and difficulties, and I want to highlight some of those as well today.

We are considering another issue in this debate. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 gives protection, as do the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which protects consumers from enforceability of unfair terms in contracts—the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent referred to unfair terms in contracts. In addition, there are the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. There are all of these pieces of legislation, and yet residents are not protected and are unsure of their rights. I want to air those issues today.

For the record, it is important that I say that this matter is a devolved one in Northern Ireland, and so it is not the Minister’s responsibility to respond to all of my points. Nevertheless, I want to air these issues, because the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned are happening in England—that is why all the English Members are here today—and they are probably also happening in Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, they would be under the control of the Assembly—if only we had a functioning Assembly.

I have been dealing with an issue related to the park homes in my constituency, in co-operation with the local council, and these matters are certainly not straightforward or simple. As an example of the litigation and the problems that occur as a result of it, the removal of fences was a battle from beginning to end. The owners of the park homes site are required to operate under a licence issued by the council, which is displayed on site. The licence conditions relate to amenity and safety, and are based on model licence conditions issued by the environment Department in 1992.

I had a meeting with local residents. Again, many things happen at those meetings: some local residents come with problems, and others sometimes need some encouragement to follow the rules that are laid down.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have many holiday parks in my constituency, and it is important to put on record that not all are as unscrupulous as some of the examples that we have heard about. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point: often, the constituents who come to us with problems are not fully aware of their rights, or of some of the remedies that are available to them. Does he agree that we should be looking at how to raise awareness of those remedies?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. What he has said is what we are all trying to achieve, including the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent and myself.

All parks are inspected annually for compliance with the model conditions during the annual site licensing visit to the park homes. The licence states:

“Fences must not be erected around or near to individual caravans unless they are of non-combustible material and they do not present a safety hazard.”

I felt at the time, and still feel, that many of these people have had these fences in place for 10 or 15 years, and there was never a bit of bother until about three years ago. People planted their wooden palisades, their trees or small bushes, and some council staff then interpreted those things as dangerous.

The council stated:

“While the Council has a duty to ensure compliance…the responsibility rests with the park owner. In this case…the owner had failed to ensure compliance and to recognise that the presence of such combustible materials can assist the rapid spread of fire, and that”

enclosing individual sites

“does not allow for access for emergency vehicles.”

That was what the whole issue was about.