Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Debate between Robert Neill and Paul Scully

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a moment ago.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Post Office wholly failed in its duties and obligations as a private prosecutor. It did so to such a degree that it constituted a gross abuse of that role. In consequence, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the role of private prosecutors within our system. Many behave responsibly and properly but, to learn lessons, will the Minister take away our report from October, sit down with ministerial colleagues from the Law Officers Department and the Ministry of Justice and look at further recommendations—for example, a binding code of conduct for prosecutors, including disclosure obligations; a register of prosecutors; notification to all defendants who are subject to a private prosecution that they have the right to a review by the independent Crown Prosecution Service; and extending the role of the inspectorate of prosecutors to large-scale Crown prosecutors? Those helpful measures could prevent such a disgraceful injustice from ever happening again.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. There are clearly wider lessons to be learned from this, as well as the direct lessons about who knew what in the Post Office. It is about justice and how private prosecutions work, although there has not been a private prosecution in this area for a few years now. We also heard stories about people pleading guilty to lesser charges to try to avoid prison. That is not justice as we see it. There are clearly wider lessons to be learned that I am sure the Government will look at.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Minister will appreciate, having had some hand in the amendments, that I have an interest in this matter. He will have seen that a statement has been put out by the Government—following the meeting of the Joint Committee earlier today—in which they undertake that they would, in effect, remove clause 44 and deactivate clauses 45 and 47, which were the subject of some concern in this place. Will he confirm that that is the case? Will he also confirm that were there to be any like clauses included in the taxation (post-transition period) Bill, which may come before us, they should, at the very least, be subject to the same parliamentary lock as was inserted in this Bill, if they were to be required at all?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions not just here and now, but in the earlier stages of this Bill, which allowed for that important lock. The taxation Bill and this Bill work in lockstep as well, and I can confirm his interpretation. I will come on to that in a second regarding the statement earlier today.

After the transition period ends, Northern Ireland will and must remain fully integrated with the UK’s internal market. There should be nothing controversial about that. The protocol expressly recognises that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK’s customs territory and qualifying Northern Ireland goods will enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. We will never accept additional burdens or barriers on goods moving from Birmingham to London, and neither should we accept those on goods moving from Belfast to Liverpool. Moreover, clause 46 would codify in legislation the existing practice where state aid is notified to the European Commission by the Foreign Secretary via the UK mission in Brussels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, we all want this to be dealt with through the Joint Committee. That is why the discussions are continuing, and that is why, in these crucial hours of negotiations between the UK and the EU, we wish them well in that regard.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I will not trespass on the Minister’s time again, but will he confirm that the deactivation of clause 47 would remove one of the areas—the “notwithstanding” clauses—that caused most concern, particularly to legal commentators? Does he agree that that is a significant gesture of good faith on the part of Her Majesty’s Government’s and that it will hopefully remove some of the real concerns that have, for legitimate reasons, been expressed in other places? Does he agree that this demonstrates that we want to find a constructive way forward?

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is right again. I know the debate that has surrounded the “notwithstanding” clauses, and it is important that we work in collaboration and partnership as we do these difficult negotiations, but, ultimately, that is where we want to solve these problems, rather than having to legislate for them in the first place. As I say, we will deactivate them when we get to the point that that is consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law. While we are hopeful of success, it is only prudent that until such time as the discussions have successfully concluded, we retain these clauses in their current form as a fall-back option.

As has been said many times, the Government are fully committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and we have already taken many practical steps to do this, but these clauses will ensure that, irrespective of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU on implementation of the protocol, we will always protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. They will ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom and that there is no legal confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Debate between Robert Neill and Paul Scully

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

What I am doing is announcing the inquiry; one of the big reasons I did not want it to be a statutory inquiry, although I can understand the impetus, is that statutory inquiries can last for decades sometimes and cause even more expense. In this way, we can get the answers within a year, I hope, so that we can put this issue to bed and get the answers that people want.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Minister is aware of the Justice Committee’s report on this matter. He will know that any wrongful conviction potentially undermines the whole of the justice system. Rather than waiting a year for the outcome of this review, will he meet urgently with the Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), to discuss the specific recommendations that the Committee makes in its report to ensure that safeguards are applied? Through that, we can ensure that the standards applied by those who have the power to bring private prosecutions are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, never less than those applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. Being judge, jury, investigator and victim potentially creates very great conflicts of interest.

[Paul Scully]

I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Justice Committee for all the work he has done and for the report the Committee published last week. I am always happy to speak to the Attorney General, and I will definitely take consideration in due course of that report.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Paul Scully

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We have been quite clear in the approach that we have taken in terms of the human rights impact, so I am confident that the Secretary of State has talked about that.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I press the Minister a little further in relation to amendment 13 and so on? I accept “preserving a remedy”, but it is a remedy by way of a declaration of incompatibility, as opposed to removing any offensive regulation in domestic law. It is a much harder burden or obstacle for a litigant—for every person—to go through to get a declaration of incompatibility. What is the compelling reason for adopting this unusual approach?