Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call our right hon. Friend, Kevan Jones.

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

Thank you for your kind words, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this will be the last time that I speak in this Chamber, and I cannot think of a more fitting debate in which to do so, because it is the culmination of many years of fighting. I played a small part in getting justice for the sub-postmasters; much of it was down to Alan Bates and the families who went through this complete nightmare. Hopefully, they will get justice and truth when the inquiry reports next year.

This Bill was always going to be important because of the individuals involved. Unless you actually sat with many of these victims, they would not have come forward to clear the stain on their reputations or to gain access to compensation. It has been a long fight, and my partner in crime was Lord Arbuthnot. Someone asked me how we had got together on this. If people look back, they will see that we both served on the Defence Committee—he was the Chair at the time. He has been a very effective advocate and I pay huge tribute to him.

There have been many Members from all parts of the House—some are no longer here—who made a contribution over the years, and I think that their support needs to be recognised as well. Turning to the Ministers involved, I would like to mention the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who showed such tenacity in his determination to get justice. He was followed very ably by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I have called him a poacher turned gamekeeper, but he is a very effective one. He has driven this case forward, not in a belligerent way, but with patience and determination to ensure that people who have been wronged get justice. That is something that we should all think about.

People can turn round and say, “No, you are wrong, the system cannot be questioned.” And there are times when you can feel like you are ploughing a lonely furrow. But if you know in your gut that something is wrong, it is important to just keep going. This was one of those cases. But it has certainly been championed by the Minister, who has been an excellent advocate on behalf of all these people. It has not been easy. I accept that some of the decisions that he had to make were not easy and were not always welcomed by everyone, but he tried his best and we have this Bill today because of him.

I have one final thing to say, and this is unfinished business. The Minister knows what I am going to say now and it is about Capture, the pre-Horizon scheme, which I have been investigating. Hopefully, we will get justice for those individuals as well, and, again, the Minister is determined to get to the bottom of that by appointing an independent investigator to look at the cases that have been referred to him. I shall be looking from afar with interest, but I know that whoever picks up his brief or takes on this case will not be able to put it down unless they get that justice.

In politics, people often ask whether you can actually achieve anything. There is a lot of cynicism these days. I say to anybody who is aspiring to be a Member of this place that they can change things, they can make a difference, but they have to be persistent. Most of the time, people across the other side of this House may be political opponents, but they are not our enemies. We do the best in this place when we work together, and, in this case, cross-party working has achieved final justice for these people.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

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

[Mr Jones]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

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

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will call the Minister at 4.27 pm, and the debate will finish at 4.32 pm.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that this was a good Bill—no, it is not. It is a bad Bill, and it is an unnecessary Bill. All of this could have been done within the Armed Forces Bill that is going through Parliament, but the Government chose, for their own reasons, to put forward this Bill. It does not get to the central point of the issue, which is around investigations. They are completely absent from this Bill and currently absent from the Armed Forces Bill. They were resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in this Bill and in the Armed Forces Bill. It galls me that yesterday he was standing outside a court in Northern Ireland, trumpeting the fact that he was on the side of trying to stop people being investigated, when he had been in a position to do something about it. I think of him as being a bit like an actor in a play who has been sat in the audience watching, rather than taking part.

Without investigation, the Bill is flawed. I have written to the Minister: he needs to ensure that investigations are put in the Armed Forces Bill, because without that, despite the protections that have been claimed today, servicemen and women will be watching our proceedings, thinking that they have more protection than they have. They will still be investigated if allegations are made. There is an opportunity now, with the Armed Forces Bill, to remedy that.

Part 2 of this Bill should simply have been scrapped. I am sorry, but the idea that we should all have Limitation Act rights and yet members of our armed forces should not—that we should take those away from them—is just not good enough. A Bill that is supposed to give things to our armed forces has been taking things away from them. Part 2 will be challenged in court; only the lawyers will benefit from it.

I welcome the change on war crimes because, like many across the House, I was concerned about our international reputation. I fully support Lord Dannatt’s amendment; I believe we should support anything that helps servicemen and women who are going through such a process.

The Bill claimed to do a lot but does very little. It is disappointing. It could have been vastly improved, or just ignored altogether and incorporated into the Armed Forces Bill. There is an opportunity to put right what is not in this Bill when the Armed Forces Bill passes through the House. I know that the Minister is open to discussions about that, but I urge him to ensure that that happens, because without that, people will still be investigated; they will still go through the agony that this Bill was intended to stop. We all sympathised with that intention. It clearly will not be achieved in the Bill’s present form.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I also warmly welcome the further concession that the Minister has announced. The Bill will now exclude all the offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. That has now fixed the worst of the problems that many have been anxious about during debates on the Bill.

It would be helpful to understand why it has proved so hard for the Government to realise how awful what they were proposing was. No Minister wants to give armed forces carte blanche to commit torture, genocide and war crimes, and yet it has required the most extraordinary struggle to stop the Government doing exactly that. The noble Lord Robertson—I welcome the Minister’s tribute to him—introducing his amendment in the other place, said:

“Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]

Yet they ploughed on until yesterday. Perhaps it was indeed the change of Minister that averted disaster, and with others I congratulate him on his achievement in a short time, but if he can, in winding up, shed some further light on what on earth has been going on, the House would be grateful.

I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on duty of care and investigations. I hope that we will come back to them soon if the duty of care amendment is lost this afternoon. I warmly welcome the progress on the Bill in the past few days and would be grateful for any light the Minister can shed on what has been going on.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take your advice, but is it in order to call a Member disingenuous?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If I had heard anything that was out of order, I would certainly have called it into order. It is part of the debate.

Policing (England and Wales)

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It is no good starting to take money out of certain parts of the system such as mental health services or local councils’ support to local communities if we do not tackle, for example, the social care agenda. I will give the hon. Lady the example of an individual who has dementia or Alzheimer’s and leaves her home. That takes up a huge amount of police time. They are the responders who have to look for that individual. That ties up resources. I totally agree that there has to be a holistic approach, but it has to be joined up. Austerity was not that. Austerity was to see what the Government could slash out of the system and where. This Government have taken too much out of certain parts of the system.

If the Minister wants to get back the mantle of the party of law and order, he has to put money back into the court system, back into policing, and back into the probation service—because the Horlicks that was made of that system, in which we want to rehabilitate people, has put the thing back even further. Yes, a holistic approach is fine in talking about the structures of what policing, ambulance and fire services do. They already work very closely together. But that will not save money if we are taking big chunks of 20% out of the budget overall.

Let me finally turn to financing, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). This is a debate that has to be had. How should our policing be funded? This Government have an approach that they have in local government as well—if anyone wants to wait until later on, they can perhaps hear my contribution to the next debate as well. The Government are moving away from centrally allocated moneys to locally raised finance. The argument behind this is that it is more democratic and allows local people to have a say. That is complete nonsense. It is about reducing the amount that central Government have to pay out and pushing the burden on to local taxpayers.

The Minister said that he will give local police and crime commissioners the freedom to raise the precept to a certain amount. That is holding a gun to their head. They have no option when they are faced with things such as the issue around police pensions referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), which they have to do to the maximum. That moves money around the country, from poor areas such as mine to the more affluent areas. In County Durham, under the way that the system works at the moment, because 50% of our properties are in band A, the ability to raise large amounts of additional revenue locally is limited compared with Surrey, or somewhere else that has a larger tax base and perhaps a larger number of band G and band H properties and so is able to raise a lot more money. If that continues, the ability of areas such as County Durham to raise revenue for policing will decline.

The big debate is partly about extra police numbers—yes, we do need extra police numbers: we need to restore the 20,000, and I look forward to the campaign by the hon. Member for North West Durham for the extra 154 police officers who are needed even to get back to where we were in 2010—but if we do not have a big debate about how our police are funded, then we will continue with this process that means that poor areas will get poorer, and the blame game that this Government want to play on the level of policing will continue. That will do nothing at all to help the professional people we rely on for our public safety at local level or to protect the communities that we all represent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Laura Farris to make her maiden speech.

Suicide Prevention

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this debate. It is a privilege to follow a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is right to say that the reasons for suicide are complex. The question that most families usually ask is: why? My constituency has a great organisation called If U Care Share, which was set up by Shirley Smith, whose 19-year-old son, Daniel, hanged himself a few years ago, having not showed any of the signs referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He was, the family thought, a perfectly happy, contented teenager. The family then wondered what they could do. They set up If U Care Share, and Shirley, her husband, Dean, and their children, Ben and Matthew, go into schools to talk to young people about suicide and people’s feelings. People should not be ashamed to open up and talk about their feelings. They also work with youth clubs and the Football Association to get their message across.

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) noted how the highest number of suicides seem to be among men, and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned the figure of 6,000. I have just looked up the figure and it is about 4,500 who are actually men. As the hon. Member for Pudsey has said, mental health is not an issue that we talk about. I might sound like a broken record, but we need to keep talking about mental health.

Today’s debate is good because, as the hon. Member for Foyle has said, we are talking about one of the great last taboos. The more we talk about mental health and the effect of suicide—not just on the individual and the lost opportunities for them and their family, but on society—the better we can draw up the systems to help.

There is nothing wrong about talking about mental health, or about people admitting that they need help. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North has said, that is the big step that needs to be taken in most cases. We need to get the message across, not only to young people, but to everyone, that if they are in distress they need to ask for help. In my area, the statistics show that an older generation of men in their 30s and 40s are committing suicide. A reason for that might be the issue of the economic role of men in society, which has been mentioned. Unless we talk about it and put it on the national agenda, we will continue to come up against these issues.

I have just one point to make. We need to join up the services, because the roles of the voluntary sector and the NHS are vital. GP commissioning could have great benefits, but it also brings great risks. I fear that when GPs commission services, mental health services might again be seen as the poor relation. We need a joined-up approach if we are to prevent the tragic losses that are now at a level which most people would say is unacceptable.

I will finish by saying—again, I will sound like a broken record—that the more we speak about these issues, the better it is, because it will help young people and others who are in distress to take the major step of getting the help that is there if they only ask for it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume his seat no later than 5.45, I call Mr Jim Shannon.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

As Members can see, there are at least six people trying to get in on the debate on this clause; we are incredibly time-limited, and I ask people to respect that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.

On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.

I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department. My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.

A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.

Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Let us consider Georgian and Victorian England. It might have been fashionable for someone with £5,000 a year in Georgian England to be married, but in many post-industrial cities of northern—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I fear that we are straying a little far from the point. Any chance of getting back to the 21st century?

[Mr Jones]

I think this is an important point, Mr Deputy Speaker. The main thrust of the argument that has been made is that marriage, and taxation in marriage, has been consistent throughout history, but it has not. Like a lot of things in this country, it has been looked at through a Victorian prism that seems to bend the reality of what took place way back then. However, I will move on to my next point.

[Helen Goodman]

I should like to back up what my hon. Friend says. In the major study of marriage in England from 1550 to 1750, Lawrence Stone demonstrated that in a commercial society with a commercial attitude—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I heard the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) say “not moved”. I think that I saw one of the Tory Whips at her beforehand, so I do not know whether they tried to persuade her not to have this debate, but I think we need to clarify this point before we move on.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The position has been made absolutely clear. Now can we please continue with the speech that is being made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Why, because you’re not up to it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The interventions are becoming very long. I have said that we are under real time constraints, as Mr Jones knows as well.

[Mr Jones]

I do know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is important to get these things on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) makes a good point. The two enterprise zones for the north-east will be in Tyneside and the Tees valley. That important piece of infrastructure is somehow supposed to be funded by the private sector, but that is exactly the kind of public expenditure that should be going into the region to create jobs and regenerate infrastructure. My concern about the enterprise zones is that places such as Durham and Northumberland have been left out. If we look back at the old enterprise zones, we see that all we got from them was a shovelling around of businesses and artificial borders. The zones will make it very difficult to attract inward investment to Durham and Northumberland.

As has been said, page 42 of the Red Book shows that funding for the 22 enterprise zones will add up to about £1 million each over their lifetime, which will not in any way help the regeneration of either Tyneside or Teesside. We will have the talking shops of the local enterprise partnerships, but no real money to do anything. The disastrous situation at the moment is that we have £106 million of European regional development fund but no money for One North East, local authorities or universities to match fund projects. The Government’s regional strategy is in a complete and utter mess, and the Budget will do nothing to assist.

One issue that has already been raised is—

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that the Liberal Democrats should now have two Front-Bench spokespeople on the Treasury? Is it completely out of order for the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to be rescuing and answering on behalf of his party?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If I had seen anything out of order, I would have called hon. Members to order myself.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

No, I think that first of all we need to have a debate on whether we should have September sittings at all, because some of us think they are a complete waste of time. Last time, they descended into farce, in that we had two weeks of basically Opposition day after Opposition day and endless pointless debates.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman does now seem to be going quite wide of the mark, and to be addressing the substantive debate. I therefore ask him to restrict himself to the particular motion under discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is way outside what we are talking about now. I ask hon. Members to restrict themselves to discussing the motion before the House.

[Mr Jones]

I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has tried to lead me down a path that I do not want to go down. I would shudder to incur your ire so early on in your time in the Chair. If we are to have a situation where the reforms that have been proposed actually will give Back Benchers and all the Opposition parties the chance to provide scrutiny and will give the power that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) supported when he was in opposition, we need more than the debate and time that we will have tonight. Therefore, I will oppose this motion. Ample time will be available to us between now and July, unless the plethora of commissions, working groups and others report back and bring back legislation, and it is important that we do not rush through these things tonight and that we can address the serious issues that have clearly been raised by the minor parties in this House tonight.