← Back to House of Commons Debates
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill - Instruction to the Committee on the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill that it has power to make provision in the Bill for it to extend to Northern Ireland.
29 April 2024
Lead MP
Stephen Farry
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Northern IrelandBusiness & Trade
Other Contributors: 28
At a Glance
Stephen Farry raised concerns about post office (horizon system) offences bill - instruction to the committee on the post office (horizon system) offences bill that it has power to make provision in the bill for it to extend to northern ireland. in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key Requests to Government:
Question put and agreed to
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Expressed gratitude on behalf of Northern Ireland MPs and ministers towards the Government for including Northern Ireland in the Bill, stating it has made an enormous difference.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Agreed with Stephen Farry's sentiments, thanked the Minister and recognised the collaboration between parties. Emphasised that Northern Ireland should be included in a UK-wide system to benefit constituents affected by the Horizon scandal.
Gavin Newlands
SNP
Paisley and Renfrewshire North
Mr Newlands intervenes to support Ms Fellows, highlighting a case where a constituent lost her liberty, good name, house, family, and life due to wrongful conviction. He argues that the Government is denying this person justice.
Patricia Gibson
SNP
North Ayrshire and Arran
Ms Gibson supports Ms Fellows, accusing those opposing her of petty partisanship and criticising chuntering behind her during her speech.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Mr Carmichael argues that accountability lies with the Scottish Parliament due to its role in prosecution, suggesting that a legislative consent motion would be more appropriate.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Ms Cherry intervenes to correct Mr Carmichael on the independence of Scotland’s prosecution service from Parliament and questions his understanding of Scottish constitutional law.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow North East
Mr Stephens points out evidence given by Professor James Chalmers to the Justice Committee, suggesting that this legislation should go through Westminster due to its direct tie to the UK compensation scheme.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Ms Cherry supports Professor Chalmers’ evidence, arguing that Scotland’s two Governments should collaborate on this issue with the UK Government taking a lead role.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Mr Hollinrake defends the position of excluding Scotland, citing legal controversy and emphasising that due process must be followed according to Scottish law.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Rotherham
Expressed concern about long interventions limiting debate time for other MPs. She thanked her colleague for the work done in this area and acknowledged the impact on constituents.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Opposes including Scotland in the Bill, arguing that it is more appropriate for the Scottish Government to bring forward proposals to address prosecutions. He cited concerns about overturning court decisions in Scotland and highlighted existing legal jurisdiction issues.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
While agreeing that Scottish sub-postmasters need exoneration and compensation, she believes it is not appropriate for the UK Parliament to overrule the Scottish judiciary. She supports Northern Ireland's inclusion but abstains on Scotland’s due to judicial-legislative disagreements.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
While supportive of the motion for Northern Ireland, he argues that including Scotland would leave unresolved issues, potentially leaving Scottish postmasters in a poorer position than those in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Ms. Cherry interjected to highlight that the concerns expressed by the Lord Advocate are similar to those from lawyers across the UK, questioning why the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with Professor Chalmers’ opinion that exoneration is necessary for innocent people to receive quick compensation.
Mr. Grant noted that Scottish legislation needs to mirror UK legislation and asked about the potential delay if Scotland were not included in this Bill, arguing it would be outrageous to prevent the Scottish Parliament from considering the matter immediately.
Marion Fellows
SNP
Motherwell and Wishaw
Ms. Fellows reiterated that politics should not influence decisions on justice for sub-postmasters, emphasising the need to provide compensation quickly across the UK.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Stockport
Ms. Winterton pointed out that interventions need to be questions and clarified an earlier point made by Ms. Cherry.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
The right hon. Gentleman supported the SNP motion, praising Marion Fellows for her dedication to the cause and arguing that including Scotland in the Bill would ensure speed, fairness, consistency across the UK, and send a positive political signal.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Ms. Jardine questioned why SNP Members were bringing the argument to Westminster instead of addressing it directly with the Lord Advocate and Scottish Government.
Mr. Ross pointed out that the situation in Scotland differs due to the stance taken by the Lord Advocate against mass exoneration, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures in Scotland.
Mr. Grant interjected to support Sammy Wilson’s argument, referencing the judicial principle that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent one to be wrongfully convicted.
Patricia Gibson
SNP
Aberdeen East
Ms. Gibson sought clarification from Sammy Wilson on his argument.
Mr. Hollinrake pointed out that legislation for Scotland has already been drafted and that the requirement to mirror UK legislation is up to the Scottish Parliament, highlighting that both the Lord Advocate and First Minister oppose including Scotland in this Bill.
Michael Shanks
Lab
Rutherglen
Mr. Shanks argued that there is consensus across the House to right a huge injustice. He highlighted the importance of speed and accountability, noting that Scotland has its own legal system responsible to the Scottish Parliament. He emphasised that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, accountable to the Scottish Government, could take swift action using emergency Bill procedures if necessary. Mr. Shanks disputed suggestions about dubious lectures from the SNP and clarified the distinction between prosecutions handled by the Crown Office in Scotland versus those managed directly by the Post Office in England.
Marion Fellows
Lab
Motherwell and Wishaw
Ms. Fellows interjected to challenge Mr. Shanks' assertions, arguing that he misunderstood the nature of the legislation which overrides Crown Office procedures in Scotland just as it would elsewhere in the UK. She pointed out that the responsibility lies with Post Office Ltd, wholly owned by the UK Government, and questioned why the UK Government should not be held accountable for fixing an issue they caused.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Dunfermline and West Fife
Ms. Cherry interjected to argue that Mr. Shanks was misunderstanding the nature of the legislation, which overrides Crown Office procedures in Scotland just as it would elsewhere in the UK. She questioned his political motives for making these arguments.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Mr. Jones interjected to correct Ms. Fellows on how prosecutions are handled, distinguishing between the Post Office managing cases in England and the Crown Office involvement in Scotland.
Patricia Gibson
SNP
Aberdeen North
Ms. Gibson interjected to express distaste at claims suggesting postmasters in Scotland might be guilty of theft, implying such scrutiny is not applied to postmasters elsewhere.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.