Kevin Hollinrake
MP for Thirsk and Malton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq. One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is.”
“The UK economy went through many challenges, of course, some of them caused by Brexit; the reality is that a change like that was bound to have a short-term effect—but only a short-term effect. The country grew faster than Germany and France during that period of time.”
“As I said before, governing is not easy; we had many challenges ourselves, and we did not get everything right, but what we did during that difficult period of time—those 14 years—was get 1.2 million more people employed in our economy. Unemployment was halved during our time in office.”
“Of course, many Government Members supported his leadership challenge. We are here now, looking forward to a general election coming down the track. We are ready for a general election when the Government are, because, unlike them, we have a strong leader—against their weak leader.”
“I was, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition.”
“Members on the Government side of the House also feel betrayed and angry with their own leadership, for marching them up to the top of the hill and marching them back down again on many of these issues, but they do not feel as betrayed as the businesspeople in this country in particular.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,516 lines we hold for Kevin Hollinrake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 71.
“RLEs are effectively the same as people with significant control, but are corporate entities rather than individual people. Like the registered office address regulations, these two sets of regulations establish flexible processes around the rectification of false or erroneous addresses. However, there is one significant difference: service and principal office addresses are a requirement for those with some kind of role in relation to a company, rather than for the company itself, so it would not be appropriate to include the ultimate sanction of striking the company at issue off the register because of the persistent non-compliance of individual parties other than itself.”
“Although the registrar currently has the ability to correct a bogus registered office address by defaulting it to and therefore replacing it with the address of Companies House itself, she has no such ability in respect of service addresses or principal office addresses. For context, service addresses are required for all company directors, company secretaries and any individual registered as a person with significant control. Principal office addresses are required for corporate director and corporate secretary companies that opt not to provide their registered office addresses. They are also an option for what are termed companies’ relevant legal entities. An RLE is a company or organisation that has a significant degree of influence or control over another.”
“The regulations establish the framework for applying criminal penalties to companies and their officers who fail to take steps to provide an appropriate address when the registrar has replaced an erroneous one with a default address. They set out the process that the registrar can follow to strike a company off the register if corrective action is not taken, thereby ultimately dissolving the company and terminating its existence. Both the draft Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 and the draft Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 build on the regulations on registered office addresses by establishing a more comprehensive framework for rectifying erroneous addresses across the register.”
“I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this policy area and on the particular case he referred to. Some of the sanctions available under the 2023 Act include custodial sentences, of course, which I think he would welcome. There is no official totting-up system as he describes it, but the Insolvency Service, for example, can take a number of different offences into account in judging whether somebody is fit to be a director in the UK. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I am happy to have a conversation with him offline to see what else might be done. We have certainly impressed on the Insolvency Service in meetings the need to act swiftly and decisively when we see inappropriate behaviour by company directors.”
“Gentleman talked about proving an address. As the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill went through the House, we looked at that issue in Committee and in the remaining stages, and we thought it would be too bureaucratic and unfair to legitimate businesses. Most of the 5 million companies registered with Companies House are legitimate businesses, and they would all have to prove that address, which we think would be the wrong approach.”
“1 thing about the provisions of the legislation is the deterrent effect on bad actors and their inappropriate manipulation of addresses, for example. I hope that the impact on individuals will diminish. The hon. Gentleman asked about information sharing and whether work with other agencies will be possible to identify some of the abuse; that is absolutely the case. The ECCTA provision is very much about the ability to share information between agencies, including HMRC and the National Crime Agency. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes, asked a number of important questions. He is right to say that an address already has to be provided, but the requirements in the regulations are to move from just an address to an appropriate address. There will be obligations to provide an appropriate address, as discussed. The hon.”
“That includes extra staff at Companies House and in the Insolvency Service. The hon. Gentleman referred to low-hanging fruit, and yes, there will be some. We expect the registrar, who has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the register, to look to identify different opportunities to clean up the register. That will be done very much on a red-flag basis and by cross-referencing information. We will of course continue to have conversations with Companies House about its progress. I meet it regularly on such issues. The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the impact on individuals. We have all had experience and examples from our constituents of where addresses have been used inappropriately. The No.”
“Member for Glenrothes, that sanctioning an individual could be a better route to ensuring compliance than striking off a company. On the number of companies we are referring to, about 26,000 companies are currently registered with Companies House as their default address, so that would be a place to start. On resources, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston may have noticed that we recently laid an instrument to increase the fees at Companies House for both incorporation and things like confirmation statements. The increases were significant, although the fees are still affordable—between £30 and £50 for various different things. That was done to increase resources, as he set out, both in terms of the numbers of people looking to ensure that the information is accurate and undertake investigations and in terms of enforcement.”
“It is a pleasure to respond to Members’ comments. Points were made on appropriate addresses and email addresses, and I think the same response covers both issues. Our definition for that is that when acknowledgment is requested in correspondence, that request is responded to. That applies whether it is an email address or an actual address—for example, it is not a post box or a virtual post box; it has to be somebody who represents the company. The key thing is that it meets the registrar’s obligations to notify the parties involved. There is a responsibility on the entity itself to make sure that it gives an address or email address that will be responded to when requested. On the disqualification of directors, that can be done for repeated offences against company law, for example. I agree with the SNP spokesman, the hon.”
“—(Kevin Hollinrake.) Draft Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 Resolved , That the Committee has considered the draft Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. —(Kevin Hollinrake.) Draft Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 Resolved , That the Committee has considered the draft Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. —(Kevin Hollinrake.)”
“From that point, the registrar will be empowered and equipped to be much more proactive in defence of the register’s integrity, and in a position to begin the process of examining and proving its accuracy. That will mark a step change in the registrar’s status as a heavyweight player, alongside law enforcement and other agencies, in the concerted fight against corporate abuses and economic crime. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That the Committee has considered the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024. Draft Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 Resolved , That the Committee has considered the draft Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024.”
“Gentleman’s point about using people who may not have been born yet; that would be a requirement on companies. It will be pretty tricky to do in that particular scenario once we fully implement the requirements of this legislation. As for when the registrar may act expeditiously, such action may be taken, for example, to change an address immediately if evidence suggests that the address has been targeted multiple times. I think I have covered all the points that Members made. We are committed to implementing the ECCTA as quickly and as effectively as possible. My Department and Companies House have been working since Royal Assent last October to be in a position to commence a significant proportion of the Act on 4 March.”
“Thank you, Mrs Murray. I would love to respond to that point, but clearly I would be told I was out of order by the Chair if I did so. To be clear on limited partnerships, I think the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned Scottish LLPs, but I think I am right in saying that he meant Scottish limited partnerships. There is a distinction between English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish limited partnerships. The main difference between them is that SLPs have their own legal personality, separate from the partners in them, while English LPs do not. Unlike English and Welsh LPs, SLPs are covered by the “persons with significant control” framework and must submit beneficial ownership information to Companies House, including— as we get to that stage—identity verification requirements. That goes back to the hon.”
“I will advise the House when we reach decisions about those proposals, and I will doubtless return again with further updates as part of our unceasing determination to deliver justice for everyone caught up in this long-running and tragic scandal. I commend this statement to the House.”
“If initial GLO offers are not accepted and independent facilitation is then entered, we shall forthwith pay postmasters 80% of our initial offer, to help ensure that they do not face hardship while those discussions are completed. We have always been clear that our first offers of compensation should be full and fair. It is early days, but the numbers suggest that in the GLO scheme we are achieving that. More than 70% of our offers in that scheme are accepted by postmasters without reference to the independent panel. We will also ensure that postmasters are kept regularly up to date with the progress of their claims. The advisory board has made a number of other helpful proposals. Those are set out in the report of the meeting, which my Department is publishing today. I have undertaken to give them serious consideration.”
“To encourage early submission of claims, once the Post Office receives a full claim from someone with an overturned conviction, it will forthwith top up their interim redress to £450,000. Of course, if they have opted for our £600,000 fixed-sum award, they will get that instead. Similarly, on the GLO scheme, where claims are typically smaller, we have implemented fixed-sum award offers of £75,000, helping claimants to move on with their lives. Those who are not satisfied with this fixed offer can continue to submit larger claims, and they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have committed to provide offers on a fully completed claim within 40 working days in 90% of cases.”
“Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues on the board, including Lord Arbuthnot. The board met on Thursday. We were joined by Sir Gary Hickinbottom and Sir Ross Cranston, who will be the final arbiters of claims in the overturned convictions and GLO schemes respectively. At the meeting, the board strongly supported the proposals in my written statement for legislating to overturn convictions. They also proposed sensible measures to accelerate compensation for those impacted. One of the biggest constraints on the speed of redress for those who choose to take the full assessment route is that it takes time for claimants and their representatives to gather evidence and develop their claims.”
“On the use of the Horizon system at the date of the offence, the convicted person will need to have been working, including in a voluntary capacity, in a post office that was using Horizon system software—including any relevant pilot schemes—at the time that the behaviour constituting the offence occurred. Such legislation is unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive, but this scandal is unprecedented too. I am clear that this legislation does not set a precedent for the future, and nor is it a reflection on the actions of the courts and the judiciary, who have dealt swiftly with the cases before them. However, we are clear that the scale and circumstances of the miscarriage of justice demand an exceptional response. We are also receiving invaluable support from the Horizon compensation advisory board in this effort.”
“That means that only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be in scope. On offence dates, a set timeframe will ensure that convictions are quashed only where the offence took place during the period when the Horizon system and its pilots were in operation. The criteria will also cover the contractual or other relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd, so that only sub-postmasters, their employees, officers or family members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within the defined class of convictions to be quashed.”
“We continue to develop our response to the scandal, and on Thursday I made a written statement detailing the way that we plan to legislate to overturn Horizon-related convictions en masse. We expect to introduce that legislation as soon as possible next month. My statement set out that the new legislation will quash all convictions that are identified as being in scope, using clear and objective criteria on the face of the Bill. Convictions will be quashed at the point of commencement, without the need for people to apply to have their convictions overturned. The criteria will cover the prosecutors, extending to prosecutions undertaken by Post Office Ltd and the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as offence types, ensuring that those align with offences known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office.”
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement to update the House on the progress that has been made to support victims of the Horizon scandal. Since this terrible miscarriage of justice was first exposed, the Government have been working tirelessly to put matters right for postmasters. We have set up an independent inquiry and funded various redress schemes that we have continuously improved to speed up compensation for all affected. That work has been taking place for many months, and long before ITV aired the excellent programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. The work included our announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who have been wrongfully convicted.”
“We are taking very serious measures to overturn the convictions. We should never resort to this kind of approach lightly.”
“It is fair to say that the trailblazing 555, who successfully took their case to the courts in the first place, set a high bar for anyone to emulate or replicate. We will be clear in the legislation that convictions will be overturned based on objective criteria, as another way to deal with this. That speaks to the hon. Lady’s last point on Capture, which I am very aware of and I have discussed with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on several occasions, including immediately prior to this statement. We need to ensure that we have the right evidence base. I am happy to continue the dialogue on that, but it is important that we do not include cohorts where we do not have the evidence base, as we have for the cohorts that we have set out—where the CPS and the Post Office prosecuted cases.”
“Those DWP cases relied on evidence independent of Horizon such as the surveillance of suspects, collation and examination of cashed orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, handwriting comparisons and witness statements. Those cases were very much not simply relying on Horizon evidence. My engagement with the Lord Chancellor has been extensive, and our engagement with other stakeholders—including the hon. Member’s shadow Front-Bench colleagues—has also been extensive. We decided that was the right thing to do. Having said that, these are unprecedented steps. I think that again speaks to the fact that we are keen to make as much progress as possible, rather than as little. The hon. Lady mentioned safeguards. The standard of evidence is critical to get to this point.”
“I thank the hon. Member for her collaborative comments. I am keen to work with her going forward, as we have every step of the way on this issue. I do not accept that we have made little progress. Let us be clear that 78% of all full claims that have been submitted have been settled—that is 2,700 claims that have been settled. Nor do I accept that there have been delays at every turn. That is not a correct characterisation of the situation. With regard to our next steps, as I said, we expect the legislation to be tabled next month, which is as quickly as possible. I am working on this on very much a daily basis. On the differences between Post Office and CPS cases—those we are seeking to overturn with this legislation—and DWP cases, I think it is fair to say there was a different standard of evidence.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had serious conversations about the future of the Post Office, which I am keen to continue to engage on. The current UKGI representative who sits on the Post Office board is Lorna Gratton, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect. Clearly it is important that the inquiry does its work to determine who did what in the past. As we look to the future, there are different opinions on how the Post Office should be governed. I am happy to keep those discussions ongoing with my right hon. Friend.”
“We need to see exactly what the inquiry makes of that and of many other issues.”
“Taking action to interfere with the independent judiciary is a very, very serious thing to do, of course, but we believe that it is the right way. We are working closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure they understand our legal approach and we are very happy to assist with any legislation they may seek to undertake in their own Parliaments. On redress, there is a single UK-wide scheme, so once somebody’s conviction is overturned they can access redress in exactly the same way as anybody in England and Wales. On the investigation or investigators, that is initially a matter for the Post Office but also for the inquiry to see what happened in the past. There is little point in the huge expense of setting up a public inquiry, as Members called for, and then seeking to do the inquiry’s work ourselves.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her work and for her points, including on the devolved issues around Scotland and Northern Ireland which she is right to raise. We considered that very carefully. When we originally set out to legislate, we were very clear that it would be for England and Wales only, but that we would work with our counterparts in the other parts of the United Kingdom on what they might do. Indeed, we have responded to them already. We met them last week before we announced the legislation in this statement to the House. We decided to legislate for England and Wales only, because justice is a devolved matter. As she said, the Post Office is UK-wide, but justice is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of course they have different legal systems in those areas and different prosecutors.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his point and for his work on the Select Committee. He is right that we will take those steps very carefully and very much as a last resort. He concluded his question on exactly the right point. This is about sub-postmasters and the speed of overturning those convictions: the speed to justice. We looked at doing that through other means, but did not feel that they would achieve the same level of speed. He may be aware that hundreds of people have passed away—there was a report in the newspapers over the weekend—waiting for compensation and justice. That is just not acceptable. We made the difficult decision to deal with this situation in this particular way. As we have often described it, this is the least-worst option but it is still the right option.”
“Once those hundreds of convictions have been overturned, en masse, people will have access to rapid compensation via either the fixed-sum award, whereby compensation takes only days, or the full-assessment route, which takes longer. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a legally binding route, and of course we will look at all the various suggestions that are made. We have just legislated to extend the timescale for GLO compensation because we did not want to be bound by an arbitrary date, and I think he supported our legislation. I would therefore caution him against suggesting a legally binding date, because not everything is in our gift, in terms of when we receive a claim and how fast it can then be processed.”
“Nevertheless, we are looking at recommendations from the advisory board for an independent appeal process. The GLO scheme is independent of the Post Office; it is within our Department, and we are working to ensure that the offers are fair. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we are considering bringing the overturned conviction scheme back in-house, and we will have more to say about that in due course. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 40% of the budget. We set a maximum budget of £1 billion—not a cap, but a maximum budget at this point. Part of the reason why only 4% of overturned convictions claims have been settled is the fact that the convictions have not in fact been overturned, which is why we are legislating in this way.”
“Of course people will not take my word for it—they will only accept it when those cases have been resolved—and there are bound to be high-profile cases, as indeed there have been, in which people say that the offers are too low. However, we are determined to ensure that everyone has full compensation that is also fair to the individual, fair to the other individuals within the schemes and, of course, fair to the taxpayer. As for the people who are running the scheme, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Horizon shortfall scheme was set up as a scheme run by the Post Office, with an independent panel including eminent KCs such as Lord Garnier. I have met its members, as has the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and we have confidence in it.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, his kind words earlier, and his work on this matter. I know that he will be chairing a Select Committee session on it tomorrow, and I look forward to his recommendations. I agree that compensation has been delivered too slowly. We are trying to accelerate its delivery every single day, and we are, I think, doing good work with the advisory board to ensure that that happens. I do not accept that the offers are too low, although I am not saying that there are no exceptions; no compensation scheme will be 100% perfect. In respect of the GLO scheme, for example, 58 full claims have been submitted and 41 have been accepted without reference to the next stage of the process, involving the independent panel, which would seem to indicate that the offers that have been made are fair.”
“All the compensation schemes with which I have been involved during my time in this place have been complicated, but we are trying to simplify this one. Only last week we discussed with the advisory board measures to accelerate the process, but the fundamental principle is that claimants such as Mr Ward should always be given the benefit of the doubt.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her constant correspondence and engagement with Mr Ward. I wrote to her recently about the case, and asked to be kept updated on his progress. The £75,000 is one of two routes that people can take. If they feel that their claim is below £75,000, they do not have to submit any evidence and can simply opt for the £75,000, take that money off the table, and move on with their lives. If they feel that their claim is significantly higher than that, they can opt for the full-assessment route, which inevitably takes more time because assessing someone’s loss is a complex process. The submission of a claim for financial loss will require forensic accountants on behalf of the claimant, and other assessments of the type that my right hon. Friend mentioned will also be needed.”
“I can assure colleagues, any claimants out there and the wider public that every single process—not least the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions scheme—has an independent reviewer. It is Sir Gary Hickinbottom for the overturned convictions scheme and Sir Ross Cranston for the GLO scheme. These are very highly regarded individuals, who will make sure that postmasters who come forward are fairly treated and get the redress they deserve.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his tireless work over the years and, indeed, for his work in recent months on the advisory board. It is hugely important for accelerating this process. We have discussed Capture on a number of occasions. It is important that we have the right body of evidence on that, and I am keen to work with the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that we do. Clearly, intervening in matters that were independently decided by the courts is a step we take very rarely—it is unprecedented in this context—but I am happy to discuss that further with him and to help him seek evidence from the Post Office where he needs more evidence on this issue. We discussed it last week, and I am keen to make sure that we have the process running as independently as possible.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with this issue and for her work on behalf of her constituent, whose case I am very aware of. Yes, we absolutely should be taking a view where evidence is impossible to obtain. Of course, it is fair to request certain bits of information to support a claim, but where such information is not available because it pertains to 20 or 25 years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect that as the basis for a claim. As I said earlier, where there is an absence of evidence but a broader claim that is compelling, there is no doubt that the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, and I am very keen to make sure that her constituent gets compensation as quickly as possible.”
“A significant amount of money will be paid forward on that basis while the remainder of the compensation claim can be properly assessed.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Full and fair compensation lies at the heart of this matter, and we do not want people to feel that the £600,000 is the only option for getting compensation in quick time. It is there for those who want to take the money, walk away and draw a line under the matter, particularly where they think their claim is below that figure. As the hon. Gentleman might have heard me say earlier, on the recommendation of the advisory board and others involved in the process, as soon as a full claim is received, individuals in the overturned conviction cohort will get their interim compensation of £163,000 topped up immediately to £450,000. That will ease the financial pressure and reduce what he suggests might be an incentive for people to take a lower amount than they deserve.”
“We have looked at this very carefully. In all the appeals based on DWP cases, the convictions have been upheld thus far. Clearly it is rare that we take the kind of route that we are taking now, in summarily overturning convictions. We see that the evidence bar was much higher in those cases. As I said earlier, there was surveillance of suspects and collation and examination of cash orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, so there is a significant evidence base for these convictions. I would point out that people can still technically appeal their convictions. They can go through the normal Court of Appeal route. I would be happy to have a discussion with my hon. Friend afterwards to discuss this further if that would be helpful.”
“The hon. Gentleman outlines particular scandals, but my responsibility extends only as far as the Post Office in that regard. As he knows, I come to the House quite often and I probably have enough on my plate in dealing with this issue right now. I thank him for all the campaigning he has done from the Back Benches on this issue and I very much hope that Mr and Mrs Rudkin get the compensation they deserve as soon as possible.”
“Lady’s specific question, but I very much hope we will do so. Our original date was August, and we hope to get everybody compensated by the end of this year. We will do everything we can to ensure that is the case.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for all her work on this subject and on the infected blood scandal. I contributed to that work as a Back Bencher, and I understand that £400 million has been paid out in interim compensation, but I know she will not rest until all the people she represents get full and final compensation. On overturned convictions, not everything is within our gift. We are summarily overturning convictions en masse, and we hope to do that very quickly. We plan to table legislation next month, and we hope to overturn all the convictions by July. That will open the door to compensation through the two different routes. We are somewhat at the mercy of claims being submitted, which can take time. The £600,000 route is much quicker. I cannot say when the general election will be, so I cannot answer yes to the right hon.”
“It is fair to say that we can all now see a significant body of evidence showing that these were wrongful convictions, which is why we are acting in this unprecedented way. If the hon. Lady is referring to the Capture cases, we do not have that body of evidence thus far. We think the DWP cases are a different cohort because of the evidential standard. We are acting in this way because we do not think the evidential standard for Horizon was of the right level, and clearly a number of different factors were involved in these convictions. The DWP cases are different. There are around 70 to 100 cases in the DWP cohort, which means that the vast majority of the 983 convictions will be overturned by this legislation.”
“I will chase that correspondence as soon as I leave the Chamber. I thought I had signed the correspondence, and I apologise if the hon. Lady has not received it. I will ensure that she receives it at the earliest possible opportunity. I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s case, having read about it and about the times she has raised it in the House and elsewhere. I am keen to look at this. The advisory board made recommendations about how we can make sure everyone feels that their settlement is fair. We are looking at those recommendations, and I will get the letter to her as soon as I can.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I believe he has contributed to every debate in which I have been involved in this House on this matter, so I thank him for his work. Clearly, justice and the judicial system are devolved to Northern Ireland. The difference here is that this is not simply legislating for general matters across the piece; it is about overturning individual cases, which I understand is unprecedented—it certainly is in my experience. We have engaged with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to continue to do so and to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the points he has raised. These are difficult decisions to make. This was the decision we have taken but, as I say, I am happy to have a further conversation with him.”
“Under the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions schemes, that is provided by retired judges, Sir Ross Cranston and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, in order to ensure that those schemes are independent of any “undue influence”, as she puts it. Clearly, the GLO scheme is not being run by the Post Office; it is run by my Department. We are looking at recommendations from the advisory board about what we do with new cases of overturned convictions. On timescales, we have been clear today that we will table the legislation in March and we hope it completes its passage through both Houses by July at the latest. Again, that is not entirely within our gift.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue. Again, she has been a key part of the campaign to ensure that people receive justice. Let me deal with the point about fair compensation. As I say, on the GLO scheme, 41 of the 58 full claims that have been submitted have been accepted without even going to the next stage. That would tend to indicate that those first offers are fair. I am aware of some people who feel that their offers are not fair, but I think it is wrong to look at individual cases in this context; it is right that we look to make all the schemes fair. As for undue influence, let me be clear that every part of this process has an independent element to it.”