UK Trade Performance

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Secretary of State in the House again. I know she has a difference of opinion sometimes with the Office for Budget Responsibility, but can she confirm that the OBR’s figures for March 2024 show that the UK has the lowest trade intensity in the G7? There was important progress, as she has reported today, but much of it rests on progress in our services trade, which provokes the question of why we are not pursuing services-only trade agreements in a more expansive way, not least as the Minister for Trade Policy was unable to confirm whether any comprehensive free trade deals would be signed before the election when he came before the Committee yesterday. He said that services-only deals were not allowed under World Trade Organisation rules, which of course is flat-out wrong.

The question I want to put to the Secretary of State is about our goods trade. The Office for National Statistics figures show that our goods exports have fallen by about £31 billion over a year. The risk is that that number will be hit even harder by the chaos at the border. The new border operating model involves data that is submitted by traders, but then not shared with ports; sometimes two hours’ notice is needed for a journey that only takes 90 minutes; there is no standardisation of inspection charges; and British Chambers of Commerce says that many businesses will be hit by thousands of pounds-worth of customs bills that they did not know they were on the hook for.

The question is this: did the Secretary of State warn her colleagues in Cabinet that there would be complete chaos, and that the EU checks that we are introducing would be a disaster? That is what small business is saying to me, and I know it is what small business is saying to her.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asks why we are not pursuing services-only deals. We have done two of those: one with Singapore and one with Ukraine about digital trade exclusively. However, it is an area where we need both sides to agree, and most countries still want a goods deal; for many of the countries that we are negotiating with, goods are still the larger part of their economy. We have to bear that in mind, because trade deals are not a one-way story.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes my statement. He will of course know that I am not somebody who pretends that everything is perfect and nothing could be better. I do think things could be improved, but one thing we have to acknowledge, in reference to his comments about the border operating model, is that the people voted to leave the European Union. There will be opportunities and there will be costs. Farmers regularly tell us that they want better food standard checks and other checks at the border. That will impose a cost. We have done everything we can to minimise those costs—we have even found cost savings in doing so. I have heard many scare stories about what businesses will see at the border, but not all of them will apply. We are doing everything we can to minimise the burden, but the fact is that the EU imposed the same measures on the other side, and we need to give our producers a level playing field.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman is right to address the point about the 23 sub-postmasters. They are why we are here and why we are keen to act in this way. We recognise that there were specific circumstances in Northern Ireland that would have delayed the exoneration and compensation to those individuals, and that is why we are acting as we are today. It is always a pleasure to work with him, as I have on many different issues over the years.

Issues include the Executive’s recent restoration and additional public consultation requirements, which the House debated on Second Reading. In deciding to take this step, the Government recognised the extent of cross-community support for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. For those reasons, we have decided to put forward Government amendments which would extend the scope of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to have cross-party support from Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in co-signing Government amendments, specifically the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for North Down (Stephen Farry), for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna).

The amendments, which have been drafted in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, empower the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to implement the legislation in the same way as the Secretary of State will in England and Wales. The amendments would modify the criteria for the convictions which are overturned to ensure that the relevant convictions from Northern Ireland are captured within its scope. Specifically, they would add those secured by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and refer to distinct Northern Ireland offences. Additionally, this group of amendments would ensure that the relevant cautions will be deleted in Northern Ireland, as they will be in England and Wales. The amendments have the same intent as new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim, so I hope he will be happy to withdraw it on that basis.

On amendment 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I thank him for his continued engagement on the Bill and on wider Horizon matters. It is vital that we stay true to our objective of bringing justice to wrongly convicted postmasters, but it is also important to keep in mind the constitutionally sensitive nature of the Bill. We should legislate in a way that respects the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. This amendment would widen the scope of the Bill to include convictions that have been upheld by the Court of Appeal. It would automatically quash such convictions, thereby overriding decisions taken by the senior judiciary. These cases are excluded from the Bill because the Government believe that it should tread very carefully where judges in the senior appellate courts have considered a case on its merits. We do not consider it appropriate for Parliament to interfere with such decisions.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this point and, indeed, for the way he is approaching it. The Chairman of the Justice Committee sent him an excellent letter last week in which he underlined that almost all the witnesses before his Committee agreed that it was unfair for the Bill to take a restrictive approach, in the way the Minister has, while taking a rather expansive approach elsewhere. I know the Minister has written back to the Chairman of the Justice Committee, but his letter did not touch on this point. I wonder whether he will take the opportunity to wrap that up for us.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for their work. We take these matters and the independence of the judiciary very seriously. Where the Court of Appeal has upheld a conviction and declared it safe, we think that is a material concern. There will always be different opinions in these areas, but we think we are striking the right balance between overturning convictions that we believe to be unsafe in the main and ones that have been before a senior judge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course, and I am listening intently to the evidence before the inquiry. It is true to say there are some shocking revelations. As the right hon. Gentleman illustrated in his work with the advisory board, there was a maliciousness about some of the prosecutions, which is of great concern, as is the flawed Horizon system. Part of the reason why we are legislating as we are reflects that, but we will continue to look at the evidence that emerges.

[Liam Byrne]

If that is the approach that the Minister is going to take, could he tell the House a bit more about how his Department will support individuals who find themselves in this egregious position? As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, evidence will now have come to light that was not available to the Court of Appeal or, indeed, to courts that may have refused leave to appeal. Those individuals will be in a terrible state now. What can his Department do, and on what timetable, to support them through the process that he proposes they take?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point himself: as more evidence emerges, it may be that the CCRC takes a different view of cases that are brought forward. People who have presented their cases can revisit them by making an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can make recommendations as it sees fit. Clearly, we are happy to provide any information that we possess, and the Post Office will do the same. As I say, the inquiry’s revelations may bring information that would help in some cases. The CCRC may refer cases to the Court of Appeal if it considers that there is a real possibility that convictions would not be upheld. With the constitutional sensitivities in mind, I hope the right hon. Member will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I turn now to amendments 3 and 6, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to include details of available financial redress in notifications to people who have had their convictions quashed, or cautions deleted, by this Bill. The amendments come as part of a number of recommendations by the Business and Trade Committee, to which the Government have since provided our response. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole Committee that we will include information about redress in the notifications that we send to postmasters when their convictions are overturned. Our aim is that the redress process will follow seamlessly from the process of overturning convictions—there is no need to legislate for this. Those with cautions may have already sought financial redress via the Horizon shortfall scheme or the group litigation order scheme. We will provide them with the necessary guidance to identify the appropriate route to claim financial redress, if they have not done so already.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying these points as we go along. He will know that many sub-postmasters have not applied for the full extent of their potential claim because they are unsure about the case law involved, and I understand that the Department is using some guidance in making judgments—for example, the Dyson judgment, which is not publicly available, for perfectly good reasons. There is a bit of creativity going into how we solve this problem. The Post Office wrote to me last night to say that, on the Horizon scheme, it is recording the heads of loss and the averages of claims that are being agreed, which could be one of the ways in which sub-postmasters are given a sense of what the tariff is. Could the Minister say a bit more about how we absolutely guarantee in the notification that we maximise the chance of sub-postmasters claiming the maximum possible amount that they should be entitled to?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We have tried to design the schemes in conjunction with the legal firms that are advising most of the claimants on claiming redress. We will continue to work with them, as we do with the advisory board, and there are different mechanisms that we can use to make this process simpler, more transparent and easier to navigate. Clearly, cases will differ, despite similarities, so if we go down the full assessment route, it is important that all claims be assessed individually, which obviously takes time. If there are mechanisms that we can use—for example, the tariffs that the right hon. Gentleman describes—to expedite the process, we would be happy to look at them. We will continue to work with the advisory board on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said, I am happy to have a continuing conversation with my hon. and learned Friend on that point. I feel that it would be a serious injustice if we set, say, a three year cut-off period and somebody came along a day later. Those are the challenges that we have to meet.

[Liam Byrne]

In a way, this is the core of the debate about where the four corners of the Bill should stretch to. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) makes a very good point: at some point, there should be a sunset on such unprecedented legislation. At the moment, there are no limits to its expansiveness in terms of time, but the Minister has set a limit on its expansiveness in terms of the individuals involved, because he is ruling out those who have gone through the Court of Appeal. The Bill would benefit from further discussion, perhaps in the other place, about precisely where the four corners should be pinned down.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that this debate has to finish at 9 o’clock. I know some of the points are very detailed, but I am conscious that I have the four Members who are standing and the shadow Minister to get in. Colleagues should bear that in mind, because I cannot impose a time limit. It is about making sure that everyone has a chance to speak.

[Liam Byrne]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.

I will be very brief, because some of my points have been covered through interventions. There has been good progress since the Bill was published, which is testament to the Minister’s leadership and his officials’ support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, the more that we have heard in the inquiry and through the media since the Bill’s publication, the more horrified and more determined we have become to hold individuals, including the former chief executive of the Post Office, to account. It is pretty clear to many of us that the evidence she gave to the Select Committee on 3 February 2015 and 24 June 2020 has been flatly contradicted by the Channel 4 revelations that were published on 27 March. I hope the Select Committee will be able to bring options for the House to consider as soon as possible.

I wish to touch on three points quickly: the speed of redress, the stress of redress, and the scope of this scheme. The point about speed is lit up by a single fact: the total budget for compensation is about £1.2 billion, but as of last Wednesday £196 million has been paid out. The implication of that is that 80% of the compensation budget has not been paid out, after all this time, and all the heartbreak, trauma and scandal. This Bill will correct that imbalance substantially; about £780 million of the budget is earmarked for overturning convictions and this Bill allows us to move that money much faster. However, I remain concerned by what the Minister said today about the lack of any service level agreements for paying more out for the overturning convictions scheme. I would have expected a timetable for paying out that redress alongside this Bill today.

We should be concerned about that because the track record of making payments is not good. For example, if we look at the claims in the Horizon shortfall scheme submitted by the original deadline in November 2020—three and a half years ago—we see that 362 people have still not been paid, which is a sixth of applicants. If we look at the late claims, all 667 of them, we see that three quarters of them have not been paid. That is why the Select Committee looked hard at how we could introduce some strictures to ensure that people were paid much faster.

Since then, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has more experience in this House than pretty much anybody else, and indeed the Minister, raised serious and wise concerns about the risks of putting a legally binding deadline on the entire timetable. I have listened to those concerns with care, which is why the way that my amendment on this has been drafted takes aim at one part of the process: the timeframe between a legitimate claim being submitted and a first offer being made. The Minister’s target is four weeks and we are getting close to that now, but the reality is that a significant number of people are still not being paid within that timeframe.

In some of the anonymised evidence the Minister provided to the Committee, we can see that 13% of claimants in the GLO scheme are waiting more than 40 days, with 2% waiting more than 100 days. If my amendments, as I have drafted them, are not right and still run risks, I appeal to the other place to work harder on this to ensure that there is some legally binding stricture on the Department that means that when, God forbid, the Minister is no longer in his position, and we do not have his emollience and tenacity to rely on, his successor, whoever that may be, is bound by some kind of timeframe that ensures we are not still having this debate in years to come.

To check the point, I contacted a number of Select Committee witnesses this morning and found that there was some evidence that the speed of claims was improving. However, new issues were emerging; I am told that the time taken to table a second offer when the first is rejected is, frankly, not fast enough. There have been delays of up to three months or more in offering dates through remediation hearings, so the process is still running too slow. If I have failed to persuade the Committee today, I appeal to the other place to help us to find some legal mechanisms to ensure that there is stiffer timetable to which the Department must adhere.

My second point is about the stress that many people will face when putting claims in. Many people will not put claims in because legal assistance is not available before the claim is submitted. Many people, such as Christopher Head, are going out of their way to provide pro bono assistance to people in putting claims together, but often it will take hours and hours of work to get a claim form in and many people simply will not be up for that, as they do not have the patience and they want to put this behind them. They certainly will not have the legal assistance available to them. That is why I hope the Department will consider publishing some kind of tariff to help people ensure that they are claiming for the full amount. The Minister may well say that there is a risk that people will then under-claim, but I checked that with some of the lawyers this morning. Their response was expressed in rather unparliamentary language, I am afraid, Dame Rosie, but the upshot was that such an objection was utter nonsense.

I know that a lot of thought is going on in the Department about the way to do this, and I welcome the letter from the Post Office publishing average offers around the heads of loss that have been set out. Obviously, there will be bandings that are more appropriate, and perhaps that is a way to publish these things. Obviously, there is a judgment the Department is relying on—the Dyson judgment—and the neutral evaluation, which is not publicly available, for good reason. However, my plea to the Minister is this: let us try to make much clearer to claimants the full measure of redress that they should have available. If there are issues in people needing extra help before the claim form is put in, please let us make sure that that help is available right at the beginning of the stage and not simply made available once the claim is in and a contest is under way about what should be paid.

My final point is about scope, which we have already got into. There is a case for the Government to think again about the cases that have already gone to the Court of Appeal and were refused or were not given leave to appeal. The best evidence for that is the Chair of the Justice Committee’s excellent letter, in which he says:

“The Bill is in effect treating cases where the CCRC had credible evidence that Horizon data might have been essential to the prosecution case less favourably than those that the CCRC considered had no credible evidence and therefore no basis upon which to refer to the Court of Appeal.”

That is an extremely important point.

I can see what the Minister is trying to do. He is conjuring here with very radical legal remedies, and that is not something we want to be expansive, but the risk we are running is that we leave an injustice that takes years and years to work through. He has addressed some of the points the Chair of the Justice Committee made in his letter, but he has not addressed that one in writing. The objection and the goal of my amendments still stand. I will not press my amendments to a vote, because we are trying to maximise the spirit of collegiate working. I accept that my amendments, particularly on the issue of speed, may not yet be at the state of perfection that they would satisfy everyone in the Committee, especially those Members with more experience of working on these cases than I have.

However, the problem is there: people are not being paid fast enough; they are not being supplied with the right amount of information up front at the beginning of their claim; and the scope of the Bill has been drawn too narrowly. I look forward to working with the other place to try to get amendments in place that can improve the Bill and commend the consent of Members from all parties.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I, too, hope that I can be brief, Dame Rosie, because we have covered a deal of the ground in the interventions. However, I wish to make a few short additional points to those that have already been ventilated. They are all contained in the transcript of the evidence of the Justice Committee’s hearing with four distinguished witnesses, three senior academic lawyers and, in Mr Rozenberg KC, arguably the most distinguished legal journalist of recent times. Interestingly, the Government will perhaps take comfort from the thought that three of those distinguished witnesses were prepared, despite some of my misgivings, to say that this may be the least worst way of dealing with the position. Equally, however, all of them thought that more things need to be done with the Bill, which is what I ask the Minister to bear in mind.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for referring to the letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 24 April. It broadly encompasses what I think are the key points, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond in writing, so that we can then publish that, in addition to the transcript of our evidence and the letter, for completeness of the record before the Bill goes to the other House.

I come to the other issues we flagged up. A small but perhaps important one relates to the conditions that must be met before the conviction can potentially be quashed. In particular, condition D in clause 2(5) requires the offence to have been committed

“in connection with carrying on, or working for the purposes of, the post office business”.

The Government’s explanatory notes say that the provisions of the Bill are “intended to be unambiguous”, but the debate we had in the Justice Committee suggests that there is potential ambiguity there. Take, for example, the position of a post office worker who, during the course of the operation of the Horizon system, is convicted of theft of stock for personal gain. Is that in the scope of the Bill or not? It is not in relation to a deficiency. In reality, that means that the Secretary of State will have to be advised by officials, perfectly properly, as to whether any individual case comes within the scheme and therefore within the scope of the requirements of clause 4. Some judgment will have to be made, and it would be interesting to know on what basis.

--- Later in debate ---

The difference between the test in the scheme of the Bill and the test set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hamilton and others, and subsequent litigation, is really important. The Court of Appeal adopted a fairly classic and restrictive construction as to whether the Horizon evidence was essential to the conviction. As we have already said, this House has decided to take a more expansive approach in what it considers to be the broader public interest. If that is the case, some technical issues may arise from cases going to the Court of Appeal that are not fully captured.

[Liam Byrne]

The Chair of the Justice Committee is making a brilliant speech. The Minister characterised the decision and the conundrum here as a legal conundrum, but in a way it is in fact a political conundrum, because we are taking a political decision about the where the scope of the scheme should start and stop. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have any insight into how long it might take those who are currently left out of the scheme to secure justice if we do not amend the Bill to improve the scope?

[Sir Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the policy choice that ultimately gives rise to this issue. I pray in aid a quotation from Dr Hannah Quirk, who, of all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Justice Committee, was the most sceptical, but she conceded, in reference to people whose cases have gone to the Court of Appeal,

“If we are taking an expansive approach, it seems unfair to exclude them. The Court of Appeal might have been applying different criteria at that stage—the full extent of the scandal had not come to light.”

That is an important point to bear in mind. The Court of Appeal would have been considering a mixture of evidence and law at that stage. Professor Chalmers, who has also been mentioned, said:

“I obviously think it is unreasonable. I can certainly see the argument for cases from Hamilton onwards, but if someone had appealed at the time when the problems with Horizon were not documented, it seems to me to be entirely unfair to exclude them from the Act on that basis.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will tackle the points that have been made as briefly as possible. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), is right to say that £196 million has been paid out so far. This legislation will open the door to a lot more compensation, and it should go out rapidly to victims of prosecutions. Also, we expect that number to rise significantly with the introduction of the fixed-sum award of £75,000 for Horizon shortfall scheme claimants. To be clear, around 70% of claims submitted in time have been settled, following the final settlement for those individuals, so we are making progress, but we are determined to make more. Certainly, we are working with the Horizon compensation advisory board to ensure that that is the case. We are very happy to get into the weeds and nitty-gritty of this; we do that daily. The right hon. Gentleman said that, for whatever reason, I may not always be the Minister with this brief. I am very happy to help whoever takes over the brief when that happens, should more help be needed.

Yes, we are keen to accelerate the timescales right across the piece for the GLO scheme. As I say, we are hitting our target of making 90% of first offers within 40 days, but we will come forward with more service-level agreements for other schemes. I am very happy to work alongside the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill on that.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful for that reassurance. Does the Minister think that he will have the service-level agreements for the overturned convictions scheme on the table before the Bill is sent for Royal Assent?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman asked about tariffs. We are keen to do whatever we can to make the process quicker, easier, clearer and more transparent. We are taking that away and looking at it right now.

Of course, legal advice is available prior to the submission of a claim to the Horizon overturned convictions and compensation scheme, as it is in the GLO. It is only in the HSS, which was seen as non-adversarial, that that does not apply prior to the offer being made, but legal advice is available after that point.

We are obviously keen to continue discussing the cases that are before the Court of Appeal. We will certainly respond in due course to the letter from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking a final intervention. It is maybe a non-adversarial process, but it is none the less an intimidating one that involves a complicated 16-page form that takes several hours to fill in. That is the equivalent of several thousand pounds-worth of legal assistance. At the moment, such assistance is being provided pro bono by those with some experience, but I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to look at that. I should point out that a lot of the 16-page form is legalese. Only about four pages of it is actually stuff that needs to be filled in, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and the advisory board has made a recommendation for an independent appeals process for this scheme as well, which we are looking at.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for his work on the issue with the Justice Committee. I agree that what is before us is the least worst option, and I am glad that the legal fraternity is coming to the same opinion. We will respond to his letter of 24 April, particularly on the Court of Appeal cases. There are 13 cases—seven before the Court of Appeal, and six that have been refused leave to appeal—and I am very happy to look at them, and to continue our conversations. I understand the potential injustices around those cases. We will also have a look at his point about subsection (4)(b) of clause 2, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from the legislation.

I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work on the advisory board. He has talked about my persuasive powers; I think the ITV series was far more persuasive than I was in moving things on and getting us to where we are today, but certainly, following his recommendations, which were made before the series aired, we were looking at ways to expedite the overturning of convictions, and some of the Bill is based on those recommendations. As I say, we are looking at the Capture software through the independent review. We have both met with Mr and Mrs Marston, and their story, like many others, was compelling.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the date range, which is dealt with in subsection (2)(a) of clause 2, under which the offence has to have taken place between 23 December 1996 and the later date. If an offence was committed at an earlier date, it would be excluded under the legislation. We need a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman about that, but the independent review should inform our debate going forward. It is easier to include Horizon than other things that were not directly connected to Horizon, as the court has found convictions unsafe on the basis of Horizon evidence. That is why we are able to legislate in this way.

I thank the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for his kind words. It is important to recognise that all of us are here to do the right thing, and it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to do so in this way, on a cross-party basis. We are very pleased to be able to agree with the DUP’s wishes that Northern Ireland be included in the legislation, particularly for the sake of the 23 postmasters in Northern Ireland who have suffered as a result of Post Office actions.

I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), and her Front-Bench colleagues for their support. We are very keen to make sure that Fujitsu contributes—it has agreed to do so, and has a moral obligation to do so. My Secretary of State, who has been massively supportive of all my work on these issues, has met Fujitsu’s global chief executive officer, and we expect to provide more news to the House in due course.

With that, I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments made: 27, page 1, line 9, after “Appeal” insert “in England and Wales.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 26.

Amendment 26, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) This Act also applies to a conviction in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence where—

(a) the conviction took place before the coming into force of this Act,

(b) the offence was prosecuted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and

(c) the conviction has not been considered by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment provides for convictions in Northern Ireland for relevant offences to be quashed.

Amendment 28, page 1, line 12, at end insert

“in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 26.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Meaning of “relevant offence”

Amendments made: 29, page 2, line 32, at end insert

“or section 17 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;”.

This amendment, and amendments 30 to 33, add the equivalent offences for Northern Ireland to the list in clause 2(3).

Amendment 30, page 2, line 35, after “1968” insert

“or section 15 or 15A of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.

Amendment 31, page 2, line 37, leave out “that Act” and insert

“the Theft Act 1968 or section 19(1) or (2) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.

Amendment 32, page 2, line 41, at end insert

“or section 21 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.

Amendment 33, page 3, line 1, at end insert

“or section 1(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Determining when a conviction has been considered by Court of Appeal

Amendment made: 34, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6) In this section “the Court of Appeal” means—

(a) in the case of a conviction in England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in England and Wales;

(b) in the case of a conviction in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Identification and notification of quashed convictions

Amendments made: 35, page 3, line 17, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment, and amendments 36 to 43, provide for the functions of the Secretary of State under clause 4 to be exercisable in Northern Ireland by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 36, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section “the appropriate authority” means—

(a) in the case of convictions in England and Wales, the Secretary of State;

(b) in the case of convictions in Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 37, page 3, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 38, page 3, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 39, page 3, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 40, page 3, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 41, page 3, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 42, page 3, line 36, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 43, page 3, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.

Amendment 44, page 3, line 37, leave out “in England and Wales”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Deletion of cautions for relevant offences

Amendments made: 45, page 4, line 3, after “has” insert

“before the coming into force of this Act”.

This amendment makes it clear that clause 5 applies only in relation to cautions given before the coming into force of the Act.

Amendment 46, page 4, line 5, before “criminal” insert “UK”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC2.

Amendment 47, page 4, line 27, before “criminal” insert “UK”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC2.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Power to make further consequential provision

Amendments made: 48, page 5, line 7, leave out

“an Act of Parliament passed”

and insert

“primary legislation passed or made”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 49, page 5, line 8, at end insert—

“(2A) But regulations under this section may not make any provision which is transferred Northern Ireland provision for the purposes of section (Power of Department of Justice to make further consequential provision).”

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC3.

Amendment 50, page 5, line 15, leave out “an Act of Parliament” and insert “primary legislation”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 51, page 5, line 20, at end insert—

“(6) In this section “primary legislation” means—

(a) an Act of Parliament, or

(b) Northern Ireland legislation.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Interpretation

Amendments made: 52, page 5, line 23, at end insert—

“(a) in the case of England and Wales—”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.

Amendment 53, page 5, line 30, at end insert—

“(b) in the case of Northern Ireland, any caution (including a restorative caution) given to a person in Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;”.

This amendment makes provision about the meaning of “caution” in relation to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 54, page 6, line 9, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 55, page 6, line 21, at end insert—

“(c) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)).”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Extent and commencement

Amendment made: 56, page 6, line 25, leave out “only” and insert “and Northern Ireland”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment provides for the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland (as well as to England and Wales).

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Deletion of cautions for relevant offences: Northern Ireland

“(1) If it appears to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (“the Department”) that a person has before the coming into force of this Act been cautioned in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence, the Department must direct the Chief Constable to delete details, contained in relevant criminal records, of the caution.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a direction under subsection (1), the Chief Constable must delete the details of the caution.

(3) Where the Department gives a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a person’s caution, the Department—

(a) must take all reasonable steps to notify the person, or, if the person is no longer alive, the person’s personal representatives, that the direction has been given, or

(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to give a notification under paragraph (a), must take all reasonable steps to—

(i) identify some other person whom the Department considers it is appropriate to notify, and

(ii) notify that person that the direction has been given.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the Department must, in particular, consider any representations made to it which claim that a person has been cautioned in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence, whether or not made by that person.

(5) In this section—

“the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

“the Northern Ireland criminal records database” means the names database maintained by the Department for the purpose of recording convictions and cautions;

“relevant criminal records” means—

(a) the Northern Ireland criminal records database, and

(b) the UK criminal records database;

“the UK criminal records database” means the names database held by the Secretary of State for the use of constables.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that made by clause 5.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Power of Department of Justice to make further consequential provision

“(1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations make provision that—

(a) is consequential on any provision made by this Act, and

(b) is transferred Northern Ireland provision.

(2) For the purposes of this section “transferred Northern Ireland provision” means provision that—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and

(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

(3) The power to make regulations under this section may, in particular, be exercised by amending or modifying any provision made by or under primary legislation passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different purposes;

(b) may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.

(5) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).

(6) Regulations under this section that amend any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(7) Any other regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

(8) In this section “primary legislation” has the same meaning as in section 7.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause confers power on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make consequential provision as a result of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: 23, line 1, after “Wales” insert “and Northern Ireland”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 24, line 4, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point about the final condition in the Bill. That is something that we considered, but it would likely have required a case-by-case, file-by-file assessment of each prosecution. That would have added significant time and complexity, which is what our solution avoids. One thing that I have been keen to emphasise is that speed and pace are critical. This has taken far longer than I would have wanted, and I would not have gone for a solution that would have impeded this and created complications.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I put on the record my thanks to and commendations for the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for the way in which he has approached the groundwork for the Bill.

Among those excluded from the scope of the Bill are those who went to the Court of Appeal and lost their case, or were not given leave to appeal to the Court. What we now know would have been quite useful in many of those cases. Should we enlarge the scope of the Bill to include those who lost their case at the Court of Appeal or were not given leave to appeal in the first place, as many of them may well be truly innocent?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. That is also something that we considered carefully. It is part of the trade-off that we had to make in doing something unprecedented: Parliament overturning convictions. We respect the judgment of the Court of Appeal—it has gone to an appellate judge. We are willing to consider some of those cases individually just to ensure that nothing has been missed, but the Bill has been drafted in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. We want to ensure that we are bringing everyone with us. Concerns such as his have been raised, but this is more or less the consensus that we think will get the Bill done, and allow redress, as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I take the point the hon. Member makes very seriously. We do understand, but we want to make sure that we do not create any possible unintended consequences by legislating on devolved issues, so we are working hand in glove with the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure this goes through as quickly as possible. We know that the numbers there are much smaller, and that the postmasters there have been identified. He is right to raise the point, but I want to reassure him that we have every confidence that we will be able to get this done at the same pace.

[Liam Byrne]

Could I put that question in a slightly different way? The Minister for postal affairs has set out an ambitious timetable for the passage of this law, the overturning of convictions and the dispensation of compensation, with it all possibly being done and dusted—with hope, and a following wind—by the end of July. Could the Secretary of State commit to a similar timetable when it comes to the cases that have been raised in Northern Ireland?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is certainly something we can encourage the Executive to work to, but I cannot personally make that commitment because it would not solely be up to me. However, I just want to reassure the House that this is something we care about. We are not prioritising England and Wales because it is England and Wales; we are doing what we can as quickly as we possibly can to make sure that we do not create problems later by rushing and not doing things properly. I think that that is a good and ambitious target, but it would not be up to me to make such a commitment.

I am aware that the approach we are taking in this Bill is a novel one. With it, Parliament is taking a function usually reserved for the independent judiciary, as my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) have said. However, I am equally aware that the postmasters’ long and punishing fight for justice must now be swiftly drawn to a close. The circumstances surrounding the scandal are wholly exceptional, and they demand an exceptional response from Government, so I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that the introduction of the Bill is in no way a reflection on the courts and the judiciary, which have dealt swiftly with the cases before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that many people had their reputations traduced because of what happened with the Horizon scandal. Where shortfalls were falsely made by the Post Office and they had to pay, we have compensation schemes to address those sorts of wrongs. Because this Bill is specifically about overturning convictions, it cannot apply to them, but where they have suffered other damage, we have compensation schemes that we hope will apply in those circumstances.

We have not taken the decision to legislate in this way lightly. Given the factually exceptional circumstances of the Horizon scandal, the number of postmasters involved and the passage of time since the original convictions, it is right that the state now acts as quickly as possible. Any further delay would be adding further insult to injury for postmasters who have already endured what I believe is an arduous wait. Indeed, some have lost trust in the system, and want no further engagement. In many cases, the evidence they would need to clear their names no longer exists.

However, I must make two points clear to the House. First, the Government’s position is that it will be Parliament, not the Government, that is overturning the convictions, so there will be no intrusion by the Executive into the proper role of the judiciary. Secondly, this legislation does not set any kind of precedent for the future. It recognises that an extraordinary response has been necessitated by an extraordinary miscarriage of justice.

On this Bill receiving Royal Assent, no further action is required by the victims of this scandal to have their convictions quashed. The Government will take all reasonable steps to notify the relevant individuals and direct them to the route for applying for compensation. Further details of this process will be set out in due course.

[Liam Byrne]

The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous in giving way again. The evidence the Select Committee heard was that many people seeking compensation for the injustice they have suffered found it very complicated and very confusing to understand the range of case law required to put in particular kinds of claim—for example, for loss of reputation. When she triggers the notification provisions, would she reflect on something she could add, which is a tariff to help people put in claims for the right kind of compensation? What none of us would want to do, having overturned the convictions, is to let people get short-changed on the compensation. Providing a standardised tariff could cut through so much of the complexity and help people get what they are due.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I know that is a recommendation from his report, and it is something we are actively looking at and considering. As the Bill progresses through the House, there will be many suggestions that we will be able to look at to see whether it can be improved in any way. However, we must make sure that we do so in a way that does not jeopardise any of the objectives of the Bill—any of them at all.

As I was saying, further details will be set out in due course, and there will be a process for anyone to come forward where their convictions meet the criteria but we have been unable to identify them. The new primary legislation will be followed by a route to rapid financial redress on a basis similar to the overturned convictions scheme, which is currently administered by the Post Office, so we do not need provisions in the Bill to deliver that scheme. My Department, not the Post Office, will be responsible for the delivery of redress related to the quashing of these convictions. The Minister for postal affairs will return to the House at a later date to provide details on how we intend to deliver that redress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will say something specifically about the territorial extent of the Bill, but the straightforward answer is yes, there are circumstances here to which we should listen. I hope the hon. Member will not mind me saying this, but when all political parties in Northern Ireland are in agreement on something, it is usually worth listening and understanding why that might be the case. I will address specifically how we might deal with that matter later in my remarks.

[Liam Byrne]

The shadow Secretary of State is making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that we might want to reflect on measures to de-risk the speed of paying compensation? It is important that we overturn convictions, but it is also right that we accelerate compensation. Just because the Department is running the scheme is not necessarily a guarantee that payments will flow quickly. This morning, the Business and Trade Committee crunched the data on the GLO scheme, and unfortunately it would appear that 14% of offers have taken more than 14 days, 4% have taken more than 80 days, and 2% have taken more than 100 days. We obviously need to get the measures right, and there are lots of issues at play, but de-risking the speed of compensation sounds like something we should reflect on.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks and for all the work the Select Committee has done to assist this process. He is right to say that while it is one thing to pass the Bill, what everyone wants is for it to be a route to speedy compensation as soon as possible. I welcome some of the changes we have seen, such as the optional £600,000 up-front payment available to people to get through some of the complexity of the cases. When the Select Committee published its report, it looked at the recommendation to include in the Bill deadlines for the Government to pay compensation, but we have since received useful information about how binding limits might restrict the most complex cases in an undesirable way. In his closing remarks, will the postal affairs Minister undertake on behalf of the Government to reflect on that point, because everyone will want to be able to say, “We care, and we have pushed forward the need for compensation payments to flow smoothly.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Davis]

My hon. Friend has more experience of this issue than anyone, and he reinforces my point. Frankly, if I had a magic wand I would force the Post Office to re-audit every set of accounts for the last 20 years and give back the money, but that will not happen: it would drag on forever, and we know the stress that it is causing postmasters even today. My worry is that we may feel at the end of this process that we have solved the problem, but there will be some—perhaps only dozens or hundreds, not thousands—who will be left not absolved or exonerated, but who deserve to be. That is the risk of this approach.

[Liam Byrne]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, will he reflect on whether we should include in the scope of the Bill those who went to the Court of Appeal initially but lost, or those who were not given leave to appeal, on the basis that we simply did not know then what we know now? Should we provide for that handful of cases—perhaps under 40—in the Bill rather than exclude them?

[Sir David Davis]

Those are precisely the cases I am focusing on; there may be others that we do not know about but they are the most obvious ones. I agree but, again, if I had a magic wand, I would use the mechanism that I mentioned of unretiring a few Supreme Court justices and saying, “These are more complicated and require a bit more insight. You can’t deal with these en bloc. Will you please reconsider them?” On the one hand, I want to exonerate people who are truly innocent but, on the other, postmasters still call me up and say, “Whatever you do, don’t exonerate the guilty.” It seems to me that the best way is a judicial or quasi-judicial route over and above what we are doing here. No doubt we will debate that at some length on Report.

I will still support the Bill because, at the end of the day, it is the difficult compromise that the Government have found. They have got to where they are by talking to everyone, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, who is not in his place just now, and taking all the expert advice. The Bill is necessary.

I had a telephone call just yesterday from a victim of the scandal, which I mentioned in my earlier intervention. Her name is Janet Skinner, and she is not my constituent but she called me anyway. She told me that 15 years later, she is still going through misery and, despite having promised me that they would not, Post Office management are putting her through an inquisition, demanding documents from her from 15 years ago. During that time she was in prison and had to sell her house, so she probably has no documents, given the disruption of all that. The Post Office itself will have those documents somewhere, and if it does not, it ought to have them.

That barbaric mindset is still going on from, frankly, a sickeningly inadequate and self-absorbed Post Office management, as we saw when they gave evidence to the Committee of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). That is a problem, and we have to get the Bill under way as fast as possible. I pay enormous credit to both the junior Ministers who have dealt with this, my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Sutton and Cheam. They were both formidably good at their job at a time when the whole Whitehall and Post Office system was desperately trying to ignore the issue. They did a heroic job of dragging it back up the priority list. The Minister needs to force the Post Office to solve the problem, or, as the right hon. Member for North Durham said, force someone else in its place to put this right quickly, easily, gracefully and with minimum stress for the postmasters.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I enjoy the idea that my hon. Friend puts such trust in Government never to take other arrangements into consideration. We know how that works. It will be fine today with my right hon. Friend the Minister here, but there may be others in charge in future, and I am not sure I would always want to rest my defence in Ministers.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for this new clause. Was he as surprised as I was that when we asked the Secretary of State whether she would block China’s accession to CPTPP she was unable to give us an unequivocal answer?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I think the right hon. Gentleman makes my point. I sat in Government and all I can say to him is that one cannot always say that Ministers will necessarily do the right thing; rather, they will do the right thing by the Government, which is sometimes not the same. I do not mean to cast aspersions on my party’s Government by any means, but that has happened in the past. I simply want to make the point that China’s potential accession has huge implications for all sorts of things, including because of its immense economic and political influence in the region and the pressures on the UK if we were almost isolated in our observations.

China is not a likeminded party—there may be other countries that are rather similar. It openly seeks to revise the liberal, open and rules-based order and establish itself as a regional hegemon. If admitted, it would be the largest economy and dominant economic and trading partner in the CPTPP, with unrivalled political influence. It could block a future US entry. As we join it is important for us to make way for the US and bring it in, which will help in a whole range of areas. China’s accession would help to cement Beijing’s desired leadership in global trade. I will remind the House that China is next up for the CPTPP, so this is not something conjured up.

China’s entry also risks further increasing economic dependence on it, which is already too high, and building resilience into the Chinese economy to weather sanctioning should tensions over Taiwan escalate, which they almost certainly will. That would run counter to the UK’s strategic efforts to de-risk and maintain the status quo in the region. Serious human rights abuses are and continue to be embedded within Chinese supply chains. China is the most egregious offender in this regard, with its actions on religion in Xinjiang and in Tibet, where slave labour is also practised. Slave labour undercuts the World Trade Organisation and normal trade. Those are good commercial reasons why the membership of any country with the views China happens to have would have a real impact.

China’s accession is unlikely to drive economic reform in the country. There is no political ability to drive such reform under President Xi, who has moved China further away from the spirit of the CPTPP on labour rights protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is, although I cannot follow my hon. Friend through Lithuania and the atolls of the far east, because I would be ruled out of order by the Chair. I hope he will forgive me, but he makes a strong point.

I say gently to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), that it was a Labour Member, Lord Leong, who tabled the amendment in Committee in the Lords. Labour said that it would whip for the amendment if it were reworked to not mention China. Strangely, the new clause does not mention China, so I would have hoped that Labour would support it, but it does not. I understand that Labour has tabled its own new clause.

Parliament should be able to make its voice heard on a matter of such national significance. The new clause does not overturn constitutional conventions by a long way. Having a report, a debate and a non-binding vote would not determine Government policy, but it would determine the House’s view on the elements of this particular trade deal. I note that Opposition new clause 4 also seeks to look at this, but there are other issues that I will not bring up now.

There are elements in the Government who believe that debate is not a bad thing, because it allows them to make their case for why such a trade deal is important. I urge the Government to be positive about this, because being positive about debate in the House of Commons is a restatement of democracy. It allows people to decide whether they agree. More importantly, this is about accession. If those who follow us in seeking to join the treaty are defined as a threat, as they are in the review, that will at least inform the Government. It will also allow the House to pressure the Government over its real concern about what they might be doing. In future, a Government from either side of the House or of whatever form may choose, under pressure from China over economic issues, to let it accede to the treaty. Who knows? I do not say that that is the mood, but it is for Back Benchers to make their point about what the Government should do and for them to take note. In that regard, I commend my new clause to the House.

[Liam Byrne]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I will speak in support of new clause 1, which he tabled, as well as the new clauses tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I welcome this debate and the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, but I lament the fact that we have not been permitted a full debate on the treaty—something the right hon. Gentleman argued for very eloquently. We needed a debate today not merely on the three chapters of the CPTPP covered by the Bill, but on the full 30 chapters of the treaty, with all the associated annexes and bits of analysis and argument.

I do not want to detain the House for very long, because the Business and Trade Committee went to the length of writing and publishing a report earlier this year. However, I want to underline the point about the lack of scrutiny. Of course, it was the Government themselves, in the Grimstone rule, who said that no new free trade agreements would be ratified by His Majesty’s Government without a full debate on whether we should agree to them. When I asked the Secretary of State on 23 January whether she would agree to a debate under the terms of the CRaG process, she said she would be “happy to support” such a debate. Her officials then wrote to the Clerks on the Select Committee to say that such a debate had been requested, only to be told by the Leader of the House that no time was available. The Leader of the House confirmed that in writing to me last week in a letter in which she said:

“it has not been possible to find time for a debate in Government time.”

The House of Lords is having a debate on the treaty today on the recommendation of the International Agreements Committee, so why can’t we? Are we second-class representatives in this House? Are we unqualified to have a debate on all 30 chapters of the treaty? Are we not qualified to speak, on behalf of the people we came into public life to represent, about how the treaty will affect their future? I think we are. I think we should have a debate on the full treaty.

And I cannot believe that we are out of time. Members will have seen the report in the Financial Times last week, which said that the working day in this Chamber

“has been shorter on average this parliamentary session than in any other in the past quarter century”.

Are we seriously saying that we have not been able to find time for a debate, which it is the Government’s policy to support, on one of the only free trade agreements that His Majesty’s Government have been able to bring forward since we left the European Union?

On Twitter, the Minister—I am a keen follower of the Minister on Twitter, he will be pleased to hear—said last week that there have been four parliamentary debates on the treaty, but I wonder if he is sure about that. When I asked the Clerks on the Select Committee to check that, they were left scratching their heads a little bit. They could not find all four that the Minister referred to. We have to accept that there is no shortage of controversy in the Bill, not least because the Secretary of State herself resiled from the figures that describe the benefits of the treaty to the country.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with him. I thought I might just throw a bone in the form of cross-party support on this point. Having a debate is not just about pointing out controversies; it is about having the opportunity to justify and debate things about which our constituents care. These trade deals make a difference not only to the businesses, but to the services and agriculture sectors in our respective constituencies. That is why it is damaging not to have a debate: it fails to allow us the opportunity to persuade people that trade deals can be a force for good.

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I commend his contribution both to the Committee and to the report that we published on the CPTPP earlier this year.

There are a number of important new clauses and amendments not only about the future expansion plans of the CPTPP and what our policy on those might look like, but also, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, about investor-state dispute settlement. This is important because in all the fanfare, arguments and passionate bits of literature and speeches offered by the Government about the virtues of the treaty, it was always positioned as a gateway to the fastest-growing economy on Earth that will represent a significant fraction of economic growth in the future. Of course, what was often missing from those eloquent descriptions was a recognition that the countries in the CPTPP represent only about a fifth, at best, of the Indo-Pacific region.

We are surely right to worry that there could well be a Government drive to expand the orbit of the treaty to a much wider group of nations. If the Government really want to take aim at the biggest economies on Earth, they may well encourage China to join. However, when I asked the Secretary of State whether it was her policy to agree to or block China’s accession, she said that that was not something we could discuss on the Floor of the House or in the Select Committee. That is why safeguards are needed. We might even be so bold as to merely ask for a little bit of clarity on the Government’s future strategy. That is why the amendments on the future pathway of the treaty are so important and why I hope we will have a vote on some aspect of that today, even if it is not on the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

I will talk briefly about new clause 3, which relates to ISDS. It is important, because His Majesty’s Government have agreed side letters with a number of countries to take us out of the ISDS process. That is not an exemption or safeguard that we saw when it came to agreeing to the treaty, yet the treaty includes countries such as Canada—I think we are just about on fraternal terms with Canada at the moment; we may have failed to agree an FTA with it, but quite why is a matter of some dispute between the Canadian Government and the Secretary of State. Canada is home to some of the biggest pension fund investors on the planet and we know that those funds are especially litigious. Although the Minister was right, when he answered these questions in earlier conversations, to say we have never lost an ISDS case, the reality is that many fear there will be a chilling effect on the regulations we bring forward because of a fear of the peril of ISDS procedures.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My right hon. Friend is speaking very well on some of the new clauses I have tabled on ISDS. It is of course true that getting the side letters for all member states was good enough for New Zealand, so it was protected more—not fully protected, I grant him. If it was good enough for New Zealand, it should have been good enough for us. Is it not a sign that Ministers have lacked ambition, or is it a sign of complacency?

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps it is because we did not want to overly annoy the Canadians, but the truth is that the talks with the Canadians have broken down—at a cost, by the way, to the UK automotive industry. In fact, UK cars will be hit on average by a £3,000 tariff in about a month or two, because of the breakdown of those talks. It is important for us to have a vote on why we do not have those procedures, why we do not have those safeguards and why we do not have those side letters.

Finally, I want to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a House, we must become far more skilled, far more ready and far more adroit at debating the kinds of treaties we will be asked to sign. Once upon a time, when the Berlin wall came down, we promised ourselves that we could look forward to a new world of free trade, and we hoped that that free trade could bring political progress and a democratic process—Wandel durch Handel, as the Germans liked to say.

However, that reality is now smashed; that era ended with the second invasion of Ukraine. We are now in new times, when we have to debate not just military security but economic security, and economic security questions are always freighted with dilemmas. We are a small nation and our adversaries are big, so we must always act with our allies, but not all our allies are good, and many of our friends would prefer not to pick a side. Our adversaries plan for self-sufficiency, but we cannot. We prefer open, free trade, but global supply chains are risky. We like markets to decide, but security always requires state action. We know that we need to work proactively to shape the long term, but democracies frequently entail a short-term change of Government, and too often our politics is reactive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is generous in his description of my speech—I am grateful to him—and absolutely right about the importance of Labour’s plan for the creative sector.

Reform of the UK’s copyright framework should not be taken lightly, and it should only follow proper and well-considered consultation. Otherwise, we risk endangering our gold standard of protection for our vital creative sector. I gently suggest to the House that the reforms allowed for under clause 5 should not have been shoehorned into this Bill, and certainly not without a thorough consultation having taken place first. In that regard we are sympathetic to the merits of new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. We will continue to scrutinise developments in this area, and we hope that Ministers will reach a final decision, after the consultation, that will not have the adverse impact that is feared by some outside the House.

As I have said, I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown in new clauses 2 and 3, and I therefore hope he will join us with enthusiasm in the Lobby later today. Similarly, I share the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for much greater adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We raised this issue in Committee, and as I said earlier, I share his frustration—and that of other Members—that Ministers have not allowed the House a substantive debate under the CRaG process.

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, is right to underline the point about ILO obligations. In the 2022 Queen’s Speech we were promised an updating of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that would have required much stronger action and transparency on supply chains in order to eliminate forced labour. That measure seems to have disappeared, so we must insist on more robust action in our trade agreements if we are to wipe out the scandal of modern slavery.

[Gareth Thomas]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers will have heard his point; whether they will act on it remains to be seen, but I certainly hope they do. If we are lucky enough to be elected at the next general election, we will certainly work with the ILO to try to drive better adherence to its conventions.

Last but not least, I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who made a powerful speech, for a much more open dialogue on trade and the axing of more of the red tape, bureaucracy and barriers to trade with European markets thrown up by the poor negotiating skills of the last Prime Minister but two.

There remain, in particular, serious concerns about scrutiny of trade agreements and about the damage that ISDS provisions could do, so we will, with the leave of the House, press new clauses 4 and 5 to a vote.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debates on this important Bill. Let me begin with the new clauses relating to new accessions to the CPTPP: new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who always demonstrates his passion on this important matter—new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green).

As the House may know, there is no rule within the CPTPP that requires new applicants to be dealt with on a “first come, first served” basis. Rather, it has been agreed within the group that applicant economies must meet three important criteria—called the Auckland principles—and it is on those key principles that applications will be assessed. Applicants must: first, be willing and able to meet the high standards of the agreement; secondly, have a demonstrated pattern of complying with their trade commitments; and thirdly, be able to command consensus of the CPTPP parties. Those strong criteria will be applied to each accession application. It is right that we in the United Kingdom, as a new member of the CPTPP group, work within the principles of the group to achieve a consensus decision.

I remind the House that while the UK rightly participates in discussions on this topic with CPTPP parties, we will only have a formal say over an application post-ratification and entry into force of the agreement. It is therefore crucial that we ratify the agreement and become a party, so that we can work with CPTPP members decisively on each current and future application. With that in mind, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give a running commentary on individual applicants, not least because to be drawn on individual applicants now, ahead of the UK becoming a party to the agreement, could have an impact on our ability to achieve that important goal of ensuring that the CPTPP enters into force. I should also make it clear that our own accession process has set a strong precedent. The robust experience that the UK has undergone has reinforced the high standards and proved that the bar is not easy to meet for any aspirant.

Regarding the scrutiny of any hypothetical future accession, I can assure the House that any accession of a new party to the CPTPP would require an amendment to the terms of the CPTPP. Therefore, as with the UK’s accession protocol, our firm intention is that such a future accession would be subject to the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the CRaG process. I assure the House that CRaG is applicable to plurilateral agreements such as the CPTPP. The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral treaties as outlined in section 25 of CRaG.

[Liam Byrne]

The Minister is being characteristically generous in giving way. We obviously sought a debate under CRaG for this treaty. The Secretary of State, who is now in her place, told our Committee that she supported that, but the Leader of the House then refused to make Government time available for that debate. What further assurances can the Minister give us that there would indeed be a debate if the treaty was changed in the way that he described?

[Greg Hands]

The Government’s position is unchanged. It is always the desire of the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State in writing to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Select Committee, to urge and to ask for there to be a debate, but that will always be subject to the availability of parliamentary time. In a little bit, I will discuss the opportunities that there have been to scrutinise the CPTPP, which have been manifold in recent years.

[Greg Hands]

I will give way a little later.

The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral treaties. In addition to Parliament being able to make its views clear through the CRaG process, let me remind the House that, as a dualist state, any legislation necessary to implement the treaty—such as alterations to tariffs legislation, to take a hypothetical example—would need to be fully scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way. It is the long-standing policy of His Majesty’s Government not to ratify international agreements before all relevant domestic legislation is in place. Were Parliament to refuse to pass any necessary implementing legislation, ratification of an agreement would be delayed.

I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for their opening speeches. Both are strong supporters of the UK joining the CPTPP. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, who is the former Secretary of State, initiated these talks back in 2017 with me at his side, and successive Secretaries of State have given maximum priority to doing so. I am now in my fourth stint in this role, and it is fantastic to see his and my vision in 2017 now nearing fruition and being very close to UK ratification.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I know that Parliament is perfectly capable of expressing a view on an international agreement and whether a country might join it, and the Government of the day would be very likely to take notice. In debates in this House over some years now, he has made clear his views on trade with China, has gained support and attention, and been effective in doing so. Indeed, he has helped to achieve changes in policy in relation to supply chains in Xinjiang, and I agree with his support for Taiwan —a full member of the World Trade Organisation—as an important trade partner for the UK. We are positive about this kind of debate in the House.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned the scrutiny that there has been in this House for the CPTPP agreement, and he doubted whether there had been four debates. I had a slightly nagging feeling that I may actually remember each of the four debates, so I went back and checked the four debates, which started with the very first one that I responded to in April 2021. There have been four debates in this House and in the other House on the CPTPP. There have also been two oral ministerial statements and 16 written ministerial statements, and five separate Select Committees have taken evidence from Ministers and senior officials on the matter. There has been a Trade and Agriculture Commission report and a section 42 report. This is not an under-scrutinised trade agreement—rather the opposite. As has always been clear, we want the CPTPP to expand to fast-growing Asia-Pacific economies. I also agree with the Auckland principles.

[Liam Byrne]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

Of course I will give way—if the right hon. Gentleman first concedes that this has been a well-scrutinised trade deal.

[Liam Byrne]

Not quite. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the full history, but will he accept that the Secretary of State believed that we should have had a debate, under the CRaG principles, on the full treaty? This Bill covers only three of 30 treaties. It is a matter of disappointment to many of us in the House that even though the Secretary of State no doubt argued vigorously and passionately for the debate, the Leader of the House was unable to grant us time. That is not necessarily the precedent that we want to establish for further trade treaty scrutiny.

[Greg Hands]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Labour Government, and he will remember that there are the vagaries of time available. Making an application to say that we would like there to be a debate is not the same as those who run the parliamentary timetable agreeing to there being one.

Let me move on to the new hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), who made a very accomplished and well delivered maiden speech. He spoke fondly of predecessors whom I know and like, such as Roger Berry and Rob Hayward. He won a keenly contested by-election—I have been to a few by-elections in recent years, and I was grateful to be given a bit of time off and to not go to Kingswood. None the less, I have great admiration for those who win by-elections. I have seen at close hand that they are a different kind of contest.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of his support for free trade and for rewarding hard work, and expressed sympathy for the Government, who have faced the challenges of covid and Ukraine. I agree with him on all of those issues, and the Government do too. I look forward to his continuing the tradition of an independent-minded Member for Kingswood—but please do not tell the Labour Whips Office.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke passionately about trade and CPTPP. He is always probing on those issues.

Various amendments and new clauses that have been tabled ask for additional impact assessments. Before addressing some of those amendments directly, I would like to reassure the House that the Government will publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement within five years of our accession.

Amendment 1 and new clause 12 would introduce commitments to publish impact assessments on the performers’ rights provisions in this Bill, and I will set out why we consider them to be unnecessary. The impacts of the rules depend in large part on how they are applied in particular cases through secondary legislation made under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That secondary legislation may restrict or extend particular rights to particular countries. Wherever the Government intend to make significant changes to the secondary legislation, we will engage with affected industries and carry out an impact assessment. The Intellectual Property Office has done that recently with its consultation and its assessment of the impact of potential secondary legislation on the broadcasting and public playing of recorded music. A commitment to assess the impacts of the measures in this Bill is therefore unnecessary, and risks overlooking the effects of the secondary legislation.

I will now turn to new clauses 2 and 6, which broadly focus on environmental and other standards. I can provide assurance that the UK will continue to uphold our high environmental standards in respect of all our trade agreements, including CPTPP. As I have previously mentioned, the Government intend to publish a comprehensive ex post evaluation of the agreement within five years of the UK’s accession, and I can confirm that this evaluation will include an assessment of the environmental impacts of our accession. In addition, the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission was asked to scrutinise the UK’s accession protocol and produce a report. The TAC concluded in its advice, published on 7 December 2023, that

“CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”

in relation to the aforementioned areas.

Post Office Legislation

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and all his work on this subject. Our engagement with him throughout the process has been very important. He has much expertise in this area.

We agree that this is unprecedented and undesirable, but we believe it is the least worst option. We want to see this delivered more quickly as, of the 790 or so sub-postmasters whom we believe this legislation will affect, only around 100 convictions have so far been overturned. We think that situation is untenable, which is why we decided to take this route. Of course, I will continue to work with him and listen to his wise advice.

I think I am right in saying that, for convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal, the record is marked “Overturned by the Court of Appeal”. We foresee these records being marked in a similar way—“Quashed by Parliament” or something along those lines. Again, I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend to make sure we get it right.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for the collegiate way in which he is working across the House to try to secure justice for those who have suffered.

This is a welcome step forward. I am glad to see the Minister taking on board some of the recommendations made in the Business and Trade Committee’s report last week, setting out how we can deliver fair, fast and independent redress. The Government have today proposed how they will overturn convictions. They have taken the Post Office out of some, but not all, claim processing and, crucially, they have increased the number of people who can apply for fixed-term remuneration. However, the Post Office is still handling the claims of at least 100 people with overturned convictions when it is patently not fit for purpose.

For those who seek to contest their claim, the Minister says there will be no legally binding timeframe between the submission of a claim and an initial offer being made by his Department, which is a problem. There is no standard tariff proposed for compensation under key heads of terms, such as loss of reputation. That, too, is a problem. The Bill is far more than a half measure, that is true, but it is not yet a full solution.

I leave the Minister with the words of Jo Hamilton, who messaged me last night to highlight the plight of the GLO litigants, in particular, and the way in which they

“have to justify every last penny even if some of their claim is for actual monies stolen from them by the Post Office… Why can’t the Government do the right thing before even more victims die?”

Those words need to ring in our ears as we seek to perfect this Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and collaboration. It is important that we listen to his Committee’s recommendations and its very informative evidence sessions—I sat through all five hours.

At this point, we believe the Post Office should continue its work on the 100 or so cases before it. We currently have no capacity in the Department to handle those claims, although we clearly will by the time the Bill comes into effect. We do not want to pause between the Bill coming into effect in July and compensation payments being made. We think we can get those payments to people in August using that route.

There may be some people left in the first tranche of overturned convictions, for people who have been through the Court of Appeal. We will certainly look at the Committee’s recommendations on whether we should bring those cases back in-house or leave them with the Post Office. We will keep an open mind on that.

We already have fixed timescales to respond to offers or service level agreements in the GLO scheme. We commit to responding to 90% of full claims within 40 days of submission. I am happy to look at how we might put some benchmarks in place to make sure the new scheme has a similar speed of response. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said about our new pilots under which lawyers can submit claims without forensic accountants and medical reports. That may do something along the line he says, and I will happily have an ongoing conversation with him.

Thus far, 128 of the 490 claims have been submitted to the GLO scheme, and 110 of them have been settled. To my knowledge, only one claim has gone to independent dispute resolution before going to the independent panel, which hopefully indicates that, generally, the offers are fair and have been accepted almost straightaway.

I understand what Jo Hamilton says, and I met her to discuss some of the processes she had to go through to prove her claim. We are determined to reduce those frictions and evidence requirements, certainly for things that are not essentially material. There are three things that we have to get right in delivering compensation: we have to be fair to the individuals and families affected; we have to be fair to all the other sub-postmasters to make sure there is consistency across the scheme; and, of course, we have to be fair to the taxpayer. There is no cap on what we will pay people, as long as it is fair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will have seen the recommendations that our Committee set out this morning for ending the circus of the Post Office administration of the redress schemes for victims of the Horizon scandal. I know that she takes this incredibly seriously and so I know that she will study our cross-party recommendations for the new legislation that she is about to bring before the House. The question for today is this: if we put all the ongoing investigations to one side, on the basis of the facts as they are known today, does she still have full confidence in Nick Read as the chief executive of the Post Office to run the redress schemes currently under way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work. I have taken a quick look at the report, although it was only issued this morning. All the recommendations he makes in that report we have either fixed or are fixing with the assistance of the Horizon compensation advisory board. We agree with him that we need to bring the compensation schemes in house. The GLO—group litigation order—scheme is already being delivered by the Department for Business and Trade. We believe that further compensation will flow from our overturning of convictions. We will be overturning hundreds of convictions through legislation in this House very shortly, as quickly as possible, and that will provide a flow of hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for those individuals. That will be done by the Department for Business and Trade.

Post Office Board and Governance

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for joining us for most of the five hours of hearings yesterday, but he will know as well as I do that what we saw yesterday was complete chaos at the top of the Post Office, when what we needed was a clarity of purpose about paying redress fast and fairly. Not a single witness yesterday said that they were satisfied with the speed of any one of the three processes. In fact, the lawyers for the claimants said that it may now take one to two years in order to complete the payment of redress, and we heard evidence of offers being made that were, frankly, insultingly low. That is true across each of the three schemes.

Most worryingly, we heard that the Post Office chief executive had not had regularly meetings with the Secretary of State or received a clear written instruction to accelerate every one of the three schemes; there were no deadlines and no targets, and there are no incentives to get the redress schemes done and dusted. That is not good enough. Will the Minister again reflect, when he brings his Bill before the House, on the need to eliminate the Post Office from this process to the maximum possible extent and ensure that there are a legally binding set of timescales under which claims are given the information they need and processed, with offers made and offers settled? I say that, because we cannot go on like this.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do think the chaos was caused by one individual. I sat through the whole session; for the bit I was not in the room with the right hon. Gentleman, I was watching on television. It is right for people to be able to say that they are not satisfied with the speed of compensation. I have said that time and time again from this Dispatch Box, and we are keen to accelerate the process and make sure it is fast and fair.

We are aware of the recommendations from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on an appeals mechanism for some of the schemes where people feel the compensation is too low. We are looking and will continue to look at that. Every compensation scheme I have dealt with, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland global restructuring group scheme and the Lloyds-HBOS scheme, has been too slow, because of some of the complexity involved. We heard some good suggestions yesterday about how we might remove some of that complexity, which I am very keen to do. We heard some positive remarks from the individuals concerned, for example, from some of the solicitors, and from the Post Office on the fixed-sum awards—the £650,000 for the overturned convictions and the £75,000 for the GLO scheme. We heard how that was reducing the amount of disclosure that was required—that is one of the limiting factors. This should mean that the timescales that some people put on the table of one to two years should be rapidly reduced, and I am very keen to build on that work.

As the CEO confirmed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) yesterday, I meet him every month, and we speak about the need to accelerate compensation every single time. We have targets for when to pay the compensation by: August for GLO cases, and for all cases ideally by the end of the year. As we heard yesterday, 1,000 new claimants have come forward since the ITV series, which makes it difficult to put deadlines on payment. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman wants a legally binding target. I am happy to discuss that with him, but we have just removed one legally binding target because not everything within the process is within our gift.

Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

May I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for the speed and attention he is paying to this issue? The bottom line, however, is that redress is too slow and the offers are too low. Papers that the Select Committee is publishing this afternoon show that at the core of the problem is a toxic culture of disbelief of sub-postmasters, which still persists at the top of the Post Office. Indeed, the board minutes for March last year show that board members lamented that the board was tired and constantly distracted by historical issues and short-term crises. I am afraid that that is not good enough when only 40% of the allocated budget for the Horizon scheme has been paid out and only 4% of the budget for the overturned conviction scheme has been paid out. When the Minister brings forward his Bill, will he make sure that the Post Office is now taken out of every single one of the compensation schemes, and that a hardwired instruction to deliver, with a fixed, legally binding timetable to deliver compensation agreements, is written on the face of the Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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. 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. 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. 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.

UK Accession to CPTPP

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful for the chance to make a brief statement about an excellent report that the Business and Trade Committee published on Monday, to coincide with the opening of the period of reflection, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

It is timely for me to make this statement because, like many in the Chamber, I am old enough to remember that a major Brexit benefit was, allegedly, the freedom for us to negotiate free trade agreements more quickly than the EU, and to sign those free trade deals in a way that suited the UK. It is fair to say that, since Brexit, we have learned some hard truths about the difficulties of negotiating free trade deals, not least because the world has changed since then. Economic security is now a much more significant issue, which makes trade barriers harder to bring down. We have to navigate new imperatives on economic security and there are new dilemmas, which is why statements such as this are so important.

The Government have discovered that they cannot just rely on bluff, bluster and a bit of boosterism to get trade deals over the line. I remember the manifesto produced by His Majesty’s Government at the last election, which said that 80% of our trade would be covered by trade deals. We are at about 60% now. The Government promised around £1 trillion in exports by 2030—I am not sure that we are on track to hit that. The Australia trade deal was criticised by UK farmers for being a giveaway, and the Canadian trade talks are in a state of some confusion. The India trade deals, after 14 gruelling rounds, have some hurdles before the Indian elections. The broad point is that we have all learned a lesson about how difficult trade deals are. That is why it is important that the Government do not oversell the deal before us. The role of the Select Committee is to throw some light on what has been put before us, so that we can have a proper debate in this House.

I have five brief points that I want to draw from our report. The first is about precise gains, which in the short term are hazy, and in the long term are hazier still. Without doubt, geostrategic gains are to be had from joining the CPTPP. That was the objective set out in the integrated review, and it is a good and real one. There is a prize there. The impact assessment on economic gains said that the boost to UK GDP would be about £2 billion a year—less than one tenth of a per cent. by 2040. Even that number is in doubt, because in the evidence we took from the Secretary of State, she resiled from the models used by her Department and was unable to give any alternative numbers.

We heard evidence from exporters that the treaty would be good for export growth, but we noted that it would be limited because we already have many trade agreements in place with CPTPP members. Some UK sectors could lose out because of international competition: electronic equipment, transport equipment and semi-processed food. In our conclusion, we asked the Government to explain what steps they will take to ensure that UK businesses fully exploit the treaty.

The second point is about the future. Much has been made about the future possibilities of the CPTPP because it is a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region, which is expected to account for the majority of global growth between 2021 and 2050. We made the point that the members of this particular trade treaty account for about 15% of the Indo-Pacific market. That is quite small. Perhaps we were expecting to hear more about the Government’s game plan for using this treaty to grow. China will apply to join, but the Secretary of State is not willing to go on the record to explain the Government’s road map for expanding this trade agreement in future, or say whether they would endorse or block China’s application, if it materialises. We are at risk of willing the ends and not the means, which is not necessarily good policy. In our report, we asked that the Government update their trade model, give us some numbers to look at and set out their idea of what a future road map might look like. If the great prize in the Indo-Pacific tilt is economic trade of the future, let us understand how we will use the CPTPP in a strategic way to cover a bigger fraction of that market with free trade agreements for our country.

Thirdly, we looked at trade standards and food standards. We took lots of evidence and noted the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s advice to the Secretary of State. We noted that there was lots of evidence about the risks of maintaining UK bans on imports on beef and pork. We noted that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was pretty confident that existing protections could be kept in place. We also noted that protections on imports using more pesticides were unlikely to be diluted. There was evidence on either side of the argument about increases in palm oil, although the Minister addressed that rather well in the Bill Committee on Tuesday.

The fourth point on which we took evidence was the investor-state dispute settlement. That was the subject of lively debate in the Bill Committee on Tuesday. Again, we flagged that there are arguments on both sides of the debate. The Government are within their right to say that they have not lost a case like this, but the big strategic concern is that if such provisions are in a treaty, it may have a chilling effect on regulatory innovation in the UK. The point is that there is an argument to be made.

That brings me to my fifth and final point. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of the UK joining the trade agreement, the Government must allow that House to play a meaningful role in scrutinising trade policy. There are contentious issues raised by this treaty—there is no doubt about that. That is why my Committee recommended that Government should permit the House a debate on the ratification of the accession protocol. That debate, we said, should be on a substantive motion; it should take place during the 21-day scrutiny period under CRaG, which would give the House the option of exercising its power under that legislation to delay ratification. When we asked the Secretary of State about this in evidence, she said that she was happy to support a general debate. I very much hope that those are not hollow words, and that the House will get to debate this treaty in the way that was initially envisaged when CRaG was passed by this Parliament.

Those are the key five points; I hope they are of use to the House. Let me conclude by thanking, on behalf of my Committee, all the trade officials at the Department for Business and Trade for the hard work they have put into getting this treaty signed and over the line. It is in the national interest, and it is appreciated. I commend this report to the House.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

On behalf of the Labour party, I thank my right hon. Friend and indeed the other members of the Business and Trade Committee for their sterling work. We referred to much of the Select Committee’s work in the Bill Committee earlier this week. The Minister will be aware of some of the amendments tabled by Labour, and of the concerns not just of the Labour party, but of civic organisations and bodies such as the Trades Union Congress, on issues such as workers’ rights and investor-state dispute settlement. I hope that the Minister will take on board all those various points.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that before the CPTPP is finally ratified—Labour is firmly of the view that that would be in the national interest—it is important to iron out those concerns? To do otherwise would be to the detriment of our country. We also look to the Minister for clarification on issues around parliamentary scrutiny, on which there was an amendment in Committee.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I think the Minister made the point in the Bill Committee on Tuesday that this is not necessarily an under-scrutinised treaty, as it has been the subject of quite a lot of debate; my Committee has certainly taken lots of evidence on it. However, when we left the European Union, one of the big arguments made was that this Parliament would reassert its sovereignty and—in those infamous words—take back control. That means that this House needs to have a strong hand in scrutinising trade agreements.

We hope that there will be many more free trade agreements to come. I know that they are getting harder, but this House none the less needs to develop expertise in scrutinising free trade agreements, so that we can ensure they are genuinely in the national interest. That is why I hope the Government will, within the 21-day CRaG period, find Government time for debate on an amendable motion, to give the House the opportunity to delay ratification, if that is the judgment we all come to. That is the process; we have to test it, use it, and make sure it works.

We have to get much better as a House at navigating the dilemmas of free trade in a world where economic security is a much sharper imperative than before. That means we have to have better debates, but also better numbers. We cannot have a situation where we produce models using very old data—going back to 2017 in the case of the models used for this treaty’s impact assessment —and when the Secretary of State comes to our Committee, she resiles from the models of her own Department. That is not a good way of producing evidence-based policy.

I hope we can have a discussion across the House on how to ensure that the economic models that we use are good. Free trade agreements are choices, and sometimes free trade agreements in one part of the world rule out those in other parts of the world. We have to judge what is in the best interests of the country, and it is difficult to do that if the numbers are flaky.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I would like to pick up on the point from the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). During the passage of the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill through this place, many concerns have been raised about investor-state dispute settlement arrangements. It is good to see that the Select Committee is calling for a debate to resolve some of the contentious issues around that. However, does the Select Committee Chairman consider the provisions of the CRaG legislation to be sufficient, or might this be an opportunity to look again at how the specific requirements of trade deals are dealt with by Parliament?

[Liam Byrne]

That is an excellent question. The hon. Lady may have seen a really good report produced by not our Committee, but the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on 29 January 2024, which makes precisely that point. We need a better way of scrutinising trade agreements. The CRaG structure allows us to delay things, but not necessarily veto them. When CRaG was introduced back in 2010, it was an innovation, because in the past, that was something that Governments did without any scrutiny whatsoever. Now we are in a different kind of world, in which we are signing free trade agreements at, I hope, increasing pace. However, the House will still have to navigate when we want open trade, when we want to de-risk trade, and when we put economic security first and free trading second. These are dilemmas in which there is not an obvious answer. We cannot prejudge the answers to those questions; they will have to be debated case by case. It could well be that a Government will come to the wrong conclusion about that balance between open and free trade and maximising our economic security as a country, and therefore we in this House must be able to apply a brake —put a hard stop—to trade deals that we think are ultimately not in the national interest.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I represent a rural constituency in Devon. Farmers in the west country were alarmed at the sorts of concessions made in the Australia and New Zealand trade deal. Until yesterday, we thought that the UK and Canada were negotiating a roll-over trade agreement. Canada is a member of the CPTPP and it will be crucial, if the UK-Canada trade talks resume, for the UK to avoid paying twice, because we will want to avoid further market access concessions. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any reassurance that, through CPTPP accession, we will not open up our markets to unmanageable volumes of produce that will damage British farming and put farming businesses in danger of going out of business?

[Liam Byrne]

The way that we approached our analysis was to look at food standards and whether they would be diminished by our joining the treaty. The Trade and Agriculture Commission looked at three questions, which are talked about in paragraphs 40 to 42 of the report. We reported the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s advice, which was that there would not be a diminution in the statutory protection of food standards in this country, and that we would, in fact, be allowed to reinforce some of those protections.

However, as the hon. Gentleman importantly flags, we are now finding that sometimes the devil is in the detail. Despite having joined CPTPP with Canada, we now appear to be struggling to get in place a free trade agreement with Canada. The Canadian Government are very clear that technical discussions have stopped. I understand that the Secretary of State, or a spokesman for her, told the Financial Times yesterday that discussions were ongoing, but discussions are not trade talks. If discussions were trade talks, we would be having trade talks with the entire world right now, because our diplomats around the world are in constant engagement with their counterparts in different parts of the planet. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to flag that issue. The reassurance that I can give him is that we do not see this treaty lead to a softening of the trade standards that we so treasure in this country.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

I welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and his report. I think that this is the first time that I have had an interaction with him since my return to the Department and since he became the Chair of the Select Committee. Of course, as two former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, we are well used to a bit of sparring over the years. His report is good, strong and constructive, and he makes some strong points about FTAs being, of course, choices. I welcome his statement that CPTPP has been well scrutinised in this House.

I do not intend to give an answer to any general questions raised, because it is not me who is being asked. However, I point out to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) that the National Farmers Union does welcome the UK joining CPTPP. I say to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that a new FTA implementation unit in the Department for Business and Trade is looking at the important point he raised about how, post-signature, we ensure that the agreements work for British businesses and British consumers. On investor-state dispute settlement, nothing prevents a right to regulate in this country and it can be of benefit to British businesses overseas, guaranteeing jobs at home.

My only question for the right hon. Gentleman is really just a clarification. He says that CPTPP represents 15% of the Indo-Pacific area, which I think is true in the sense that China and India are not in CPTPP, and that therefore it is quite a small economic bloc. But if I can just take issue with him, CPTPP is currently about 12% of global GDP and the UK joining would make that 15%. So he is not wrong in what he says, but if he could just acknowledge that the part of global GDP in CPTPP is also 15%, not just a portion of the Indo-Pacific trade.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for that question and for welcoming the report. We look forward to welcoming him before the Committee at some point in the near future to talk about some of our forthcoming reports on export-led growth. The point he makes is right and I am glad that, for once, he and I agree on the numbers—that has not always been the case. The reason we wanted to flag it is that the Government’s impact assessment states:

“CPTPP membership acts as a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region which is expected to account for the majority…of global growth between 2021 and 2050.”

We appreciate that all Governments need to hard-sell their policy achievements—that is the nature of the game we are in—but it is important that we do not oversell the treaty. The reality is that it accounts for only quite a small fraction of the Indo-Pacific market, which is trumpeted in the impact assessment and in the integrated review as one of the treaty’s virtues. We must be clear-eyed and hard-headed about precisely what gain comes from this treaty specifically, and it would help us all, frankly, if the Government set out their road map for growing the treaty in future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for making his statement and responding to questions.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the words of praise for the Minister’s speed and attention on this issue. I think a legally binding instruction for the Post Office and the Department to deliver at speed is a necessity in the new Bill. The Minister has told us today that about £160 million has been paid in compensation, but there is provision for about £1.2 billion, which means that only 13% of the money has been paid out. He updated the House on the number of claimants, and there were 555 people in the GLO group and 700 who were convicted. As the Minister told us, only 73 people have had their final compensation fully paid, which is only 6% of the two groups.

The confusion at the beginning of the week about who said what to whom shows there is confusion about the instruction to deliver at speed. When the Bill comes before us, will the Minister reflect on the necessity for a legally binding deadline under which the Post Office must make information available in 20 to 30 days and an offer must be made to settle within 20 to 30 days, with a legally binding deadline for final resolution? Otherwise, frankly, I worry that the ambiguity will still cause delays. He knows as well as I do that justice delayed is justice denied.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for paying regular attention to this issue. I know that the Committee has a session next week and will be asking some of those questions.

We are keen to get compensation to victims as soon as possible. We are somewhat at the mercy of claims, and we cannot offer compensation if claims do not come in. Like others, I am very keen for people to come forward to submit a claim. One of the reasons why we put forward the fixed-sum awards of £600,000 for overturned convictions and £75,000 for members of the GLO scheme is to try to accelerate the payment of compensation, which contradicts the claim that people are trying to slow things down.

I am meeting the Horizon compensation advisory board this afternoon to look at its recommendations for accelerating compensation. We have taken nothing off the table, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House recently voted to extend the compensation deadline from 4 August, on the recommendation of Sir Wyn Williams, because we do not want people to be timed out of compensation. The maximum budget for compensation has, thus far, been set at £1 billion.

One of the issues we are trying to resolve urgently is the fact that people are reluctant to come forward to have their convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal, which is one of the reasons why we have not compensated enough people with convictions. We cannot compensate them until we overturn their convictions, which is exactly why we have proposed the legislation. Once we have done that, the door will be opened for compensation to flow freely. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman and I want to see.

There has never been any confusion in our mind about the need to deliver this quickly. I have focused on that every single day, both since I have been in office and before. I have never been resisted by anyone in my Department or in other parts of Government. There may be confusion, but I promise that there has been no confusion in Government.