Ben Lake
MP for Ceredigion Preseli · Plaid Cymru · United Kingdom
“First, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important urgent question. I have spoken to coastguard rescue officers from Ceredigion Preseli in recent weeks, and they all share common concerns.”
“One of my constituents submitted a request for their pension just over a year before their proposed retirement date, but is still waiting—sadly, it is little wonder that the June date has been missed.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement on the actions the Government will take to try to restore the public’s faith in our democracy. She mentioned that the “know your donor” rules will be strengthened, in particular with regard to the location of potential donors.”
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the way that he has outlined the issue at hand. I also commend him on the Bill that he brought forward.”
“For the inquiry to secure justice for victims and survivors in Wales, it is essential that it fully understands the devolved context in Wales and the various lines of accountability that arise from it. One way to achieve that would be for Wales to receive a specific investigation as one of the inquiry’s designated local areas.”
“I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reiterated that point, and I will do likewise. Many of my constituents who have been affected and infected by this scandal have asked me to emphasise the point that even the updated scheme does not properly recognise the long-term consequences of interferon treatment.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Ben Lake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“We cannot delay any further because estimates suggest that over 300,000 1950s-born women have already passed away since this injustice came to light. That is equivalent to one 1950s-born woman dying every 12 minutes. There is an opportunity here to get back round the table, and I urge the Minister and the Government to do so.”
“I understand from representations made by the campaign groups in my constituency—both WASPI and the 1950s Women of Wales—that they are keen to seek this resolution to ensure some justice for them and their fellow 1950s-born women. They are being very pragmatic. They are willing to speak with and discuss the matter with the Government. I plead the Minister today to reconsider the opportunity that has been presented by these groups to discuss other ways of bringing a resolution forward, so that 1950s-born women can at long last have some justice. We should not force them to go through the judicial review process and drag them through the courts. Far too many years have already been spent trying to right this wrong.”
“We asked them to diligently undertake the various processes that were available to them to right this wrong, and it all culminated in the ombudsman process. The ombudsman, as we have heard, found that there had been maladministration and an injustice and that far too many 1950s-born women have suffered as a consequence. It is therefore absolutely outrageous that we have a Government not only disregarding the recommendations in part or trying to water them down, but dismissing them outright. As other hon. and right hon. Members have eloquently said, this goes to the heart of our democracy and, indeed, faith in the administrations and institutions of the state to right these terrible wrongs.”
“First, we are talking of a generation of women that I highly admire. They were women who suffered injustice and great disadvantages throughout their working lives. They were often not paid in line with their male colleagues. They were not entitled to the same opportunities when it came to private pensions, for example. That injustice itself is important to highlight because it bears relevance on what we are talking about. We are of course aware of the challenges initiated by the two pension Acts that caused the change in the state pension age for 1950s-born women. After this injustice was brought to us, Members of Parliament from across the island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland asked many women in our constituencies to organise and to campaign.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate, and on being such a champion of this cause for many years. Indeed, we have had to debate this injustice in this House for too many years, whether on these green Benches or in other Chambers on the estate. It is a point of great sorrow for me personally that one of my first speeches as a Member of Parliament back in 2017 was on this injustice, and little could I have imagined back then that I would be a little older, three elections down, and still having to debate the injustice that has befallen so many 1950s-born women. The hon. Lady covered the entire injustice so eloquently that I only want to emphasise a few points.”
“Q2. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in thanking members of the armed forces community for their service. I have had the privilege in recent months of meeting many veterans in my constituency, some of whom still carry the trauma of war. Some, including amputees, have told me how repeat disability assessments are too often required of them in order to access financial support. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that veterans with life-changing service-related injuries should be exempted from repeat disability assessments?”
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and also for emphasising the importance of restraint and de-escalation at this perilous moment. What steps is he taking to try to align and co-ordinate his diplomatic efforts with those of our European and G7 allies, in the hope of presenting a united diplomatic front?”
“I welcome the Minister’s statement, not least because it will offer much support and reassurance to so many of my constituents. As he knows, no system is perfect and mistakes will be made, so may I ask whether there will be an appeals mechanism for those who are entitled to the winter fuel payment but, for whatever reason, do not receive it?”
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for reiterating the Government’s commitment to take further concrete action in concert with international allies should the Israeli Government fail to cease their military offensive and, indeed, lift restrictions on humanitarian aid. Given the immediacy of the crisis and warnings that up to 14,000 children are at risk of starvation, could the Foreign Secretary please reassure the House that those further concrete steps will be taken at such a time as to prevent the mass starvation of innocent children?”
“I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing to lead on this matter and bring justice to all the victims, and indeed for his statement today. Is it his understanding that victims of the infected blood scandal should not be worse off in the transition from the interim payments to the new compensation scheme? I have spoken to one victim, a constituent, who seems to have been offered a compensation offer that is much, much reduced compared with the offer he previously received under the special category mechanism.”
“The Home Secretary will be aware of the funding crisis that affects many of the UK’s universities. Last year, when the Migration Advisory Committee reviewed the graduate visa route, it concluded that it should be retained, stating: “Under the current higher education funding model, closure or additional restrictions could put many universities at financial risk.” What is the Home Secretary’s assessment of the impact that these changes will have on the financial sustainability of our universities?”
“If we are to maintain a diverse, geographically sparse and accessible network of small abattoirs in this country, the Government need to support it. If they are serious about treating small abattoirs as a key piece of infrastructure—let us not forget that they are critical for our farming businesses and rural economies—Government support through grants to improve infrastructure and with regulatory burdens is well overdue. I, for one, would welcome it if the Government made moves in that direction.”
“The Welsh Government have responsibility for infrastructure development, so I will not ask the Minister to help us in that regard, but the UK Government can help small abattoirs in Wales with the cost of regulation and the inspection regime undertaken by the Food Standards Agency. The owners of Cig Oen Caron have approached me in recent years to explain the pressure that that added cost places on their business. More recently, there has been an 18% increase to their costs, so the importance of retaining the small abattoir discount is pressing. I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister can offer, not only that the discount will be retained but that the Government will consider with an open mind expanding it for the smallest abattoirs in recognition of the fact that the general costs are increasing.”
“It has already been said that larger operators seldom offer multi-species or rare breed services. Small abattoirs fill that gap in the market. If we were to lose small abattoirs, a number of business models that are so important in all parts of the United Kingdom, including my own, will become unviable. It is also important to note that if we lose more small abattoirs, the distance that farmers must travel to take their animals to slaughter will increase. Average journey times are already unacceptable, given the added stress, the animal welfare concerns and the carbon footprint. In Wales, we need to ensure that the existing very small network of proud and, in many cases, family-run small abattoirs is supported.”
“In areas such as Ceredigion Preseli, in which agriculture is a key pillar of the local economy, there would be an economic hit for the wider population, so it is urgent that we maintain the network of small abattoirs and hopefully expand it through Government support. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned the disproportionate regulatory burdens that small abattoirs face. That complaint and that experience is echoed by some constituents of mine who run a very small abattoir near Tregaron, Cig Oen Caron. They provide an invaluable service to local famers. They not only provide private kill services of a kind that larger operators do not offer, which allow them to diversify their income and build their business, but ensure high animal welfare standards and cater to a variety of farming models.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this very important debate. We have heard about the situation for abattoirs in general, and in Wales it is just as stark. The number of operational red meat abattoirs in Wales has dropped from some 60 in 1990 to just 17 last year. As other Members have eloquently outlined, the importance of small abattoirs to our rural economies cannot be overstated. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton underlined how important they are as a cog in a vital supply chain for the rural economy. We should not forget that if we were to lose more of our small abattoirs, many of which face extinction, we would also see the demise of the surrounding agricultural industry.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that this deal will not in any way undermine the nation’s SPS rules and regulations, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that there will be a degree of nervousness among British and indeed Welsh farmers, especially beef farmers, for although the tariff rate quota agreed is modest compared with that agreed under the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, it does of course come as an addition, and farmers will be worried about the cumulative impact. I think the Minister has mentioned this, but will he confirm that the 13,000 tonnes represents the maximum tariff quota for beef that has been agreed, and has any tariff quota been agreed for lamb, pork and poultry?”
“I commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts to maintain dialogue with both countries and, in conjunction with international allies, to de-escalate the situation. Given the urgency for de-escalation, is there a reason why this matter cannot be taken to the UN Security Council for a more urgent discussion than is currently planned?”
“The UK Government were right to state at the International Court of Justice last week that Israel has a responsibility under international law to provide food and essential humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, and yet we know that Israel has blocked all aid shipments for the past two months. Given the catastrophe unfolding before our eyes, is it not worth resurrecting negotiations and discussions with international allies about the possible airdrop of humanitarian aid, so that, at the very least, we cannot say that we sat idly by and watched an entire population starve?”
“What steps are the Government taking to address the concerns of overseas companies that are evading VAT and online sales by fraudulently registering UK addresses?”
“The university also plays host to two of the big events in the town: the St David’s day march and the annual food festival. All that is now in jeopardy. When we consider the importance of higher education providers, let us remember not just the economic impact but the wider social and community consequences.”
“The university in Lampeter has announced its decision to relocate undergraduate teaching from the campus in the town; more than 200 years of history is going down the pan. The point is that the university also sustains a whole load of extracurricular community benefits, from the arts hall to the sports facilities. We often make the point that universities are important to the economy, and they are—that is where I had my first job, so perhaps I should declare an interest—but as a young student at sixth form I was able to benefit from the resources at the library and the extracurricular courses that the university provided to enrich my own learning and prepare myself for university. Many of my sports teams trained in the university sports hall during winter months.”
“Universities also help ensure that we have the skills we need for a prosperous society and economy. A report by Universities UK estimates that more than 400,000 extra graduates will be needed in Wales by 2035 to respond to the skills gaps and workforce challenges of the future. That is clearly a problem if institution after institution in Wales announces severe reductions to teaching provision and staff cuts. We should also bear in mind that universities are crucial to train the workforce of key public services, particularly in education and health. From my personal experience, not just as an MP but as someone born and raised in a university town—Lampeter, the birthplace of higher education in Wales —I know we face a very uncertain future.”
“That should worry us all because, as well as the incredible research and teaching they provide, universities make an important contribution to the economy of the United Kingdom. In Wales, higher education supports more than 60,000 jobs, contributes more than 4.2% of Welsh GDP and has an overall economic impact of nearly £11 billion. The new Government have identified growth as a key mission, and as such research and development will be key. In Wales, just as in other parts of the UK, universities are critical to ensure that research and innovation benefits not just communities but the economy. They account for 37% of all Welsh research and development expenditure. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency of Ceredigion Preseli, from the good work of the AberInnovation centre, associated with Aberystwyth University.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this very important debate. As we have heard, a great number of higher education institutions across the United Kingdom face very worrying times indeed, and I am sure we will hear of other examples from Members. Many who are more learned than me will say that the situation has been developing for quite some time. Scarcely a week goes by without yet another announcement of significant job cuts at a university somewhere in the UK, so there can be no doubt that the situation is unsustainable. If we do not act, and if the Government do not intervene to get a grip of it, a great number of higher education institutions face collapse.”
“My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. University towns in communities such as mine benefited from those cultural exchanges, and visitors from the EU enriched many of our communities.”
“This is such a high bar that, in the words of the joint dissenting opinion of judges in the European Court of Human Rights case of Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom, it: “represents a hurdle which is virtually insurmountable”. Such a claim is not solely a matter of opinion, but an observable fact. The data on applications to the miscarriage of justice application service shows that less than 7% of applications submitted between April 2016 and March 2024 were successful.”
“The test for eligibility for compensation under the statutory scheme, as set out in section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was amended by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in such a way as to restrict compensation to those who can prove innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Therefore, for applications made to the statutory scheme on or after 13 March 2014, there will have been a miscarriage of justice “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”. That modest rewording of a single section of an Act of Parliament has proved devastating. Indeed, it is legally illiterate to effectively reverse the burden of proof in this way, for it places a burden on the victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove their innocence.”
“The discretionary scheme was abolished in 2006, but the statutory scheme afforded the Justice Secretary the discretion to pay compensation to a wrongly convicted person when: “his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” for the purposes of the statutory scheme should not be restricted to applicants who are able to conclusively demonstrate their innocence, and should be extended to cases where a new or newly discovered fact “so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it”. However, in 2014, the then UK Government legislated to reverse the effect of this decision.”
“After years of legal battles following his wrongful conviction, he has been told that, although he is not guilty, the state will not compensate him for the years spent in prison because it does not believe that he has proven his innocence. One does not need to be a King’s Counsel to see the unfairness of this situation. There can be no doubt that such a decision prolongs the miscarriage of justice in Mr Buckle’s case. That is a wrong that this new UK Government can and, indeed, must put right. Before I discuss how the Government can do that, it is worth our reflecting briefly on how we have arrived at the current situation. Before 2006, the Government operated two compensation schemes for victims of miscarriages of justice in England and Wales: a discretionary scheme and a statutory scheme.”
“There was no reference to the harm he has suffered, to the impact on his family or to the Court of Appeal being concerned that the original trial was so flawed that the jury had failed to approach their task correctly that it ruled the conviction unsafe, such that the new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence were ultimately unnecessary. All that Mr Buckle received was a pretty meaningless reassurance that the matter had been “carefully considered.” If this is what comes from careful consideration, I dread to think what would result from reckless handling, but it surely could not be much worse for Mr Buckle.”
“He produced a detailed defence, including new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence, at retrial, at which the jury unanimously returned not guilty verdicts to all 16 counts in just over an hour. Having been subjected to that ordeal and having jumped through all the hoops that one could expect him to jump through, the Ministry of Justice’s response was not only to deny him compensation but, worse, to state that it does not consider that his case “demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted”— the same offences of which he was acquitted.”
“I am sure we would all agree that that is a difficult dilemma, but it was not difficult, it would seem, for the Ministry of Justice, which issued a cruelly simple response to Mr Buckle after he applied for compensation under the statutory scheme. In the decision letter, which was issued almost a year after the application was submitted, the MOJ rejected his claim out of hand: “Having carefully considered the particular circumstances of the reversing of your conviction, I do not consider your case demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted.” Mr Buckle spent five years and four months in prison, and he had his conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal.”
“Prior to this awful state of affairs, Mr Buckle travelled every week from west Wales to London because he was in charge of an engineering firm. He performed this very important role, which had a lot of responsibility, for more than 15 years. He made the weekly journey on the great western main line or the M4 that the Minister and I also make. This travesty of justice could befall any of us, through no fault of our own. Although it is difficult to comprehend the nightmare that has befallen Mr Buckle and his family, one can estimate the financial impact of his ordeal in terms of the income and pension that have been lost. Perhaps we can also put a figure on the costs incurred for appeals and legal defences, but how can we begin to calculate the impact on his health or the loss of precious time with his family?”
“Let us remember what the wrongly convicted must go through and its impact. He missed important family milestones, such as his daughter’s 18th and 21st birthdays. His imprisonment cost him over £500,000 in lost income and devastated his plan to retire at 55 with a private pension, because he had been unable to make any contributions following his imprisonment. Furthermore, his state pension is now in jeopardy, given that he was unable to make any national insurance contributions for more than five years. The impact on Mr Buckle is not limited to the period in which he was deprived of his liberty. Indeed, I am afraid to say that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the impact of his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. His mental health is such that he has been unable to work since his release.”
“In May 2017, Mr Buckle was convicted on 16 counts of historical sexual offences and sentenced to a total of 15 years’ imprisonment. He had always maintained his innocence, and in September 2022 the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a retrial. He was immediately released on bail, having served five years and four months of his sentence. The retrial took place in May 2023. Mr Buckle and his defence team, led by Mr Stephen Vullo KC, who is also in the Public Gallery, prepared a detailed defence and presented new witnesses and forensic evidence. After three long weeks in court, the jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts in just over an hour. I cannot fathom the strain that Mr Buckle has endured as a result of years of legal proceedings and the travesty of being imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit.”
“A 2018 report by the campaign group Justice, “Supporting Exonerees: Ensuring Accessible, Consistent and Continuing Support,” underscores the grave hardship and difficulty that the wrongly convicted have in adjusting to life after conviction, and the trauma that they have gone through, which they must deal with for years after the event. The report highlights how victims of miscarriages of justice struggle to adjust. Having spent time in prison, becoming institutionalised and grappling with the fact that they should not be there, they struggle to trust authorities. The unfairness of the current system was brought into sharp relief for me when I met my constituent Mr Brian Buckle and his family and learned of their experiences. I am pleased that they have made the journey from Fishguard to join us in the Public Gallery.”
“Many will therefore be appalled to learn that this is not the case, that victims of miscarriages of justice seldom receive compensation for the wrong that has befallen them, that the wrongly convicted often have to fight for years, at great cost, to clear their name, and that the justice system unnecessarily forces the innocent to suffer continued injustice. The issue in this debate is the failure of the state to right these wrongs. We should be clear that a miscarriage of justice inflicts considerable harm on the wrongly convicted.”
“The current compensation scheme enables only some people in England and Wales who have had their convictions overturned, or been found not guilty at retrial, to receive compensation. I make it very clear that my concern is not that miscarriages of justice happen. Sadly, no system in the world is perfect. Miscarriages of justice happen—we cannot get it correct 100% of the time—but when they occur, citizens expect the state to right that wrong. In a survey by Opinium in December 2024, 71% of those asked believed the Government should ensure fair and swift compensation for those who are wrongly convicted.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I wager that the majority of citizens are unfamiliar with the workings of the criminal justice system, and still less familiar with miscarriages of justice. Perhaps, if they are aware of miscarriages of justice, they are aware of certain high-profile exonerees or miscarriages of justice, such as the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six. Most people will understandably and reasonably assume that victims of miscarriages of justice are compensated, particularly if they spent time in custody before being pardoned or having their convictions quashed. However, this is not the case. In England and Wales, compensation for the wrongly convicted is the exception rather than the rule.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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”.”
“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.”
“I ask the Minister to be kind enough to agree to a meeting to discuss how we can ensure that Mr Buckle is granted that opportunity, so that this miscarriage of justice and the ordeal that he and his family have endured is finally brought to an end. Urgency is key, because justice delayed is justice denied.”
“Such an individual is not best placed to decide on such applications. Surely it is the trial jury that is best placed to decide whether the evidence proved Mr Buckle—in this case—to be both not guilty and innocent. I request that the Minister meets us to discuss the handling of Mr Buckle’s specific application and also the merits of amending the law to allow a judge to ask the trial jury, in circumstances where they have acquitted the defendant on all charges, to consider also whether they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is innocent of those same charges. If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that true victims of miscarriages of justice are fairly compensated, asking the trial jury to make the decision must be the fairest way. It is difficult to see any rational argument against it.”
“Although I cautiously welcome to the intervention of the Law Commission, and agree that it would make the current situation fairer, it still does not explain why someone presumed innocent has a further obligation or burden to prove it, nor would it address the failings made by the scheme in determining Mr Buckle’s application for compensation, or prevent other claims from being rejected after similar careful consideration. If the Government maintain that it is necessary for a person presumed innocent to prove it to receive compensation, I do not believe the appropriate authority to make that decision is an official at the Ministry of Justice, someone who, through no fault of their own, will be unfamiliar with the facts of the case and will not have witnessed the evidence given under oath, but who instead must work solely from the papers.”
“In its consultation, the commission suggests that, if the burden is to fall on an accused to prove innocence to obtain compensation, it should be to the civil standard, rather than the criminal standard, as is the position in every other situation in a criminal case where the evidential burden shifts to the defence. That would bring things into line with the normal state of affairs. Will the Minister offer the Government’s position on the Law Commission’s proposal? Would the Government accept such a recommendation? If they are minded to accept, will they ensure that the recommendation is applied retrospectively to those wrongfully convicted since 13 March 2014?”