Post Office Horizon IT Scandal: Compensation

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal should be fully compensated, so that they are put back into the position they would have been in had they not been a victim of this miscarriage of justice in the first place. The Minister has agreed with that statement from the Dispatch Box before, but it is not happening. Can I say that it is not a complicated process to be able to quantify their losses and to be able to compensate them fully? My Committee, I understand the advisory board and the statutory inquiry have suggested that one way to try to improve this is to remove the Post Office entirely from this process and to make it an independent process, properly budgeted, with the requirement to fully compensate the victims in the way I have described. Why will the Government not just do that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member for his work in challenging us in this area. I would probably push back a bit. It is complicated to assess loss. Both I and the right hon. Member for North Durham sat in on a long call with the HSS panel recently and some eminent lawyers gave us a lot of confidence that this was being done right, on an inquisitorial basis, but it is complicated to assess those losses. I would refer to Sir Wyn Williams’s comments. He basically says that we should carry on what we are doing. He would not necessarily have advised this route in the first place, but what he says now is that the best thing we can do is push on with the frameworks we have in place. There are three different schemes. We need to push them on more quickly of course and I am very keen to do that.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

UK car manufacturers are currently changing their supply chains to buy components from either the EU or the UK so that they can continue to export their cars into the EU. However, under CPTPP, those same companies ought to be buying parts from Vietnam to export their cars to Mexico. That is quite confusing. Will the Department publish guidance for business that highlights the regulatory conflicts between trade with the European Union under the trade and co-operation agreement and trade with members of the CPTPTPP? Sorry—you know what I meant. [Laughter.]

[Nigel Huddleston]

It trips off the tongue eventually. The hon. Gentleman is underestimating the opportunities, but he has given me the chance to point out one of the key benefits of CPTPP, which is cumulation, with products and parts being used—of course, supply chains can be complex across CPTPP—and still benefiting from the lower tariffs. So there are huge opportunities with CPTPP for the reasons that he outlined.

Free Trade Agreements: Scrutiny

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The Business and Trade Committee has today published a report on the scrutiny of free trade agreements. The Select Committees of this House were recently restructured following the Prime Minister’s decision to restructure Government Departments. This resulted in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee becoming the Business and Trade Committee, with the International Trade Committee being wound up. My Committee therefore now has the responsibility, on behalf of the House, for scrutinising any future free trade agreements that the Government enter with other countries.

The report sets out how we on the Business and Trade Committee intend to do that work, and I will now update the House on a number of key points. First, when the UK left the European Union we took back responsibility for negotiating our own free trade agreements, which also meant that this Parliament took back responsibility for the oversight of such processes from the European Parliament. However, our Select Committees are structured and resourced differently from the committees of the European Parliament. Crucially, our powers are based on a convention agreed in the late 1920s, the so-called Ponsonby rule, which was to some extent codified in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The rule was codified at a time when we relied on the European Parliament to scrutinise trade deals on our behalf. Post Brexit, our powers are therefore out of date, inadequate and in need of reform.

The powers that exist today mean that Parliament does not, by right, have access to information during a negotiation period or to draft free trade agreements in advance, nor do we have the power to vote on or amend specific parts of a free trade agreement. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, all we can do in this House is delay the ratification of an agreement, in the hope that we might persuade the Government to change their mind during the delay. In reality, this power has never been used.

The International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other place secured a number of non-binding commitments from the Government by way of correspondence. We list these commitments in the report, on the assumption that my Committee will continue to enjoy the limited access to information granted to our predecessor Committee. Thankfully, although our constitutional arrangements are out of date and inadequate, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is looking at this issue. I look forward to reading its recommendations.

Secondly, when the Government publish the final draft of a free trade agreement, it is sent to my Committee. However, my Committee has neither the capacity, the time nor the expertise to conduct legalistic line-by-line scrutiny of such a complicated legal text. Until such time as the Government decide that such a parliamentary function ought to exist and be resourced, we will therefore not do it. Instead, we will take a thematic approach to any free trade agreement scrutiny and highlight any policy areas that we think warrant further attention or changes.

Thirdly, and lastly, with the Committee having taken a thematic approach to reviewing a free trade agreement, the question is what this House then does about it. As noble Lords will tell us, although the International Agreements Committee may review an international agreement, the other place does not have the power to take any action. Only this House can postpone the ratification of an agreement, through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process. That requires my Committee to request a debate on a substantive motion, asking the House to vote to postpone. Ironically, as I understand it, the Government must agree to such a substantive motion, and they never do, which is probably why the postponement power has never been used.

However, as we set out in our report, my Committee intends to call for a substantive motion to postpone the ratification of an agreement only when we conclude that substantive issues raised with the Government have been unanswered and when the consequences are significant. In more normal, but not all, circumstances, we will reserve the right to call for a debate on a neutral motion, to give Members the opportunity to debate the merits of a proposed free trade agreement on the record.

This is a technical, internal report about the scrutiny process in this House, but free trade agreements can have significant consequences for people and the economy, so we thought it important to update the House today on our conclusions about this scrutiny work.

While I have the Floor, I pay thanks and tribute to James Hockaday, who is one of the Committee’s trade specialists. He and his colleagues on the International Trade Committee spent many a night doing the legalistic review of free trade agreements that we have concluded we will no longer do. He is moving from my Committee this week to work with the Clerk of the House, and we wish him well in his new role.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the Committee time to update the House, and I thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to do so.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chairman on subsuming the International Trade Committee, and on running the Business and Trade Committee so effectively. I join him in sending my best wishes to James Hockaday following all the excellent work he has done, particularly on scrutiny.

I have two questions. First, does the Chairman have any concern that, if the Committee does not receive timely information on a free trade agreement, there will not be enough advance warning for us to know whether we will need a debate on the Floor of the House within 21 sitting days? Would it not be advisable, as other Committees are discussing, to consider whether we should put parts of these free trade agreements to other Select Committees, such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee or the Treasury Committee in the case of financial services, so they may review and report on them individually to ensure that the House has a full comprehension and understanding of the trade agreements we are signing?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Business and Trade Committee, following the demise of the International Trade Committee.

There are two important points. First, the 21-day period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act needs to be reformed. One such reform might be that the Committee needs more than 21 sitting days to be able to take a view on often complicated and full free trade agreements. No doubt the Minister for International Trade, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, will have heard that request.

Secondly, it is not for me to commit other Committees to a work programme, but it is right to point out that there are many issues, such as agriculture, defence, human rights and environmental issues, on which colleagues on other Committees take an interest.

I gave evidence this morning to the International Agreements Committee in the other place, and it does significant work on trade agreements among other things. One of the commitments we made was that, between our Clerks and between both Houses, we will co-ordinate our action to try to improve our capacity for reviewing trade agreements.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his Committee for their important work on this report. As the report points out,

“we operate within finite resources and recognise that attempting exhaustively to scrutinise every aspect of the Department’s work is impractical… We intend, therefore, to adopt a case-by-case approach to scrutiny of prospective free trade agreements in future.”

Given that important and entirely understandable finding, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to overhaul the wider scrutiny process on trade negotiations to allow greater opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of these agreements?

I applaud the Committee for highlighting the importance of a debate on negotiation objectives. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be timely and meaningful, so that Members have a genuine opportunity to contribute? Does he also agree that more should be done to allow scrutiny earlier in negotiations, so that the parameters of trade talks can be better informed? As a Welsh MP, I am particularly keen to ensure that the nations and regions of the UK are able to contribute properly.

The report notes that the former International Trade Committee criticised the Government for a lack of transparency on the timetabling of the CRaG period, and for the difficulty of securing oral evidence from the Secretary of State in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. Does my hon. Friend think the Government might have been concerned about a backlash, given the criticism of the Australia deal from some of their own MPs, such as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)?

Finally, does my hon. Friend have any concerns that the resource implications of the Committee’s scrutiny of trade deals will undermine any of its other vital work?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions and comments from the Dispatch Box, and I will take each in turn.

My hon. Friend is right about resource allocation. As I said in my speech, we have subsumed not only the responsibilities of the International Trade Committee but those of our former colleagues on the European Parliament committee that had power and resources to scrutinise trade agreements on our behalf when we were a member of the European Union. I gently suggest to the House that this is just one example of where, post Brexit, Committees ought to have greater resources, both financial and otherwise, for the additional work we have taken on after leaving the European Union.

The issue of time has been raised both by me today and by the predecessor Committee and our colleagues in the other place. These agreements are long and complicated, and the House’s Select Committees have other work to do in holding Departments to account. Having as much time as possible is always very welcome.

On access to information, let me add that I have learned, having taken on these responsibilities, that it is often easier to look at the press coverage in the other country to find out what is going on than it is to try to get information from the Government. If this information is on the public record, albeit in another country, it ought to be readily shared with us in this Parliament. I encourage Ministers to take that action.

Lastly, on Australia and New Zealand, my hon. Friend pointed out that an unusual approach was taken in the use of primary legislation and highlighted what that meant for this House’s ability to debate and intervene in the details of those agreements. I am not privy as to why Ministers chose to do that, but it is unusual. If it were a symbol, at least, that the Government are minded to update the processes for scrutinising FTAs, perhaps we could take the opportunity to do that.

[The Minister for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, all members of the Committee and the officials, whom he mentioned, for their work on this report. It shows how seriously they take their responsibilities, which is very much appreciated by the Government.

We believe that the level of transparency and scrutiny for trade agreements stacks up quite well, particularly when compared with the arrangements in other parliamentary democracies. I understand that there is no formal requirement for a formal response from the Government, but I would like to ask him whether he would like to meet me to discuss his findings further.

[Darren Jones]

We are always very grateful for Ministers wanting to appear before the Committee, and we would be delighted to have the Minister before us. There is definitely a debate to be had about how we update our rules. I make the point again that not only were our rules set at a time when we were part of the EU and therefore the European Parliament, but they were based on a convention from 1929. Free trade agreements have changed a lot since the 1920s, and therefore our rules should probably be updated as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his report on behalf of his Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

Last year it was the energy companies; this year it is the water companies. The sectors have changed but the taxpayers are still on the hook. So will the Secretary of State commit to undertaking a review of the financial resilience of all companies in each regulated sector and to present her findings to the House?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as set out on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to the Government for having reflected in the Bill so many of the recommendations in my Committee’s report on post-Brexit competition and consumer law policy. Although I am grateful to the Minister and shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for thanking me for my work, I should humbly put it on record that there would be no report were it not for my colleagues on the Committee, my Clerks, and the witnesses who gave evidence.

I will not test the patience of the House by listing all the Committee’s achievements in this respect, but I will focus on one area that our report talked about—oversight of the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators that operate in the digital market space—where provisions are missing from the Bill. The CMA is an independent regulator, but it is directly accountable to Parliament for the performance of its functions and duties. Only yesterday, we welcomed its chair and chief executive officer to the Business and Trade Committee to answer questions on topical cases, its annual plan, the draft strategic steer from the Department and, indeed, this Bill.

In practice, Committees such as mine only really scrutinise regulators, agencies and arm’s-length bodies on their day-to-day performance perhaps on an annual basis at best, or once there has been a failure. We recognised that ourselves in respect of issues at the energy regulator, Ofgem, which we only uncovered once there had been a multibillion-pound failure in the market. We gave ourselves an action in that report, as well as in our post-Brexit competition and consumer law report, to enhance our oversight of the CMA and other regulators to avoid this happening again.

It is not a new problem. As many Members will know, the noble Lord Tyrie, who chaired the Treasury Committee during the banking crisis, has written and spoken extensively about this issue. It is a challenge for most Committees. Gov.uk helpfully lists the number of agencies and public bodies sponsored by each Department, and that of my Committee has 21, including the Competition and Markets Authority, the Land Registry, Companies House, the Insolvency Service, ACAS, the Financial Reporting Council, the Trade Remedies Authority, and the Pubs Code and Groceries Code Adjudicators. That does not even include the Post Office or the British Business Bank.

[Bim Afolami]

I agree with everything the hon. Member has said so far. Does he agree with the proposal of the Regulatory Reform Group, which I chair, that there should be a specialist Committee to look at the regulators on an ongoing basis, in addition to the work that his and other Select Committees do in this House?

[Darren Jones]

If I answered shortly with the word “Yes” it would ruin the rest of my speech, so I am going to keep reading through my notes. However, the hon. Member, having asked that question, will understand the direction of travel.

The Minister was pointing at himself, I think noting for the House that he of course has responsibility for all those organisations. He will know, from our Committee perspective and the role that Parliament has in the oversight and scrutiny of the Minister’s performance and that of his Department, that we can have capacity challenges. Other Committees have the same problem: the Culture, Media and Sport Committee covers 42 agencies and public bodies, while the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee covers 33, and so on. The Bill before the House, which I welcome, is a great example of an agency being given new powers, a wider remit, more work to do and the job of taking ever more wide-ranging decisions, but there is nothing in the Bill about enhanced accountability and oversight of the CMA. The challenge there is that we have to get the balance right.

Parliament will want the CMA to be effective in its core duty of promoting and delivering competition. In our evidence session yesterday, there was an interesting tension about whether we deliver effective competition by regulation and intervention, or by deregulation and getting out of the way. I think that illustrated the interesting tension between oversight of the Competition and Markets Authority and its independence. While the regulator must take clear decisions based on its legal duties and the required technical assessments, what will Parliament think if, over time, a number of interventions taken together paint a picture of the UK as not being a good place to start, scale up or exit a business? How will we know in this House if that is the case, and how can regulators be held to account for the impact of their decisions over time?

This friction came up again only today. We took evidence yesterday on the Microsoft and Activision case, which is a major intervention by the Competition and Markets Authority, and I understand the Chancellor has said this afternoon, about the Competition and Markets Authority, that

“I do think it’s important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.”

If the regulator does not already understand that and if the Chancellor does not have confidence in the regulator, we have a problem. What view should Parliament therefore take in the context of this Bill going through the House?

Clearly, independent regulators should not be interfered with by Parliament in making their day-to-day decisions. Parliament should be crystal clear that it is not our job to take those decisions. Expert regulators should not be told what they should do or think by, with the greatest respect to many colleagues in the House, generalist Members of the House of Commons. However, with increased powers and responsibilities—not least following our exit from the European Union, where there was inbuilt enhanced scrutiny in the European Parliament of these decisions—it is crucial that this Parliament steps up to provide the enhanced accountability required.

In short, the right to exercise independence and the requirement to be accountable are not mutually exclusive. As we have heard, there is a certain cross-party support for this position and an increased demand for reform, but there is not much in the Bill or from the Government that I have heard to facilitate that. There have been suggestions, which I generally support, that either we have enhanced capacity and resources for existing Select Committees to do more work in holding regulators and arm’s length bodies to account for their day-to-day work, or that we set up a new specialist Select Committee that takes on the job of having oversight of regulators across Whitehall. Some people will be concerned by the suggestion of additional Committees, either because of the perceived need for regulators to have to engage, inform and appease parliamentarians on a day-to-day basis and the amount of time that may take, or because of the influence that lobbyists may have on a fixed number of parliamentarians on the Committee tasked with oversight of the regulator.

[John Redwood]

Is there not a clear distinction? We and the Government should not intervene in individual decisions that under the law are in the regulators’ remit, but Parliament and Ministers should take a timely and regular interest in the overall achievement—the cost, whether they need more resource or less resource, and whether we need to change the legal framework under which they operate—which should be a regular review item.

[Darren Jones]

I find myself in the unusual situation of being in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps that shows the cross-party support for the points I am making about the Bill.

[John Penrose]

I echo the points about the need for a careful balance between not interfering from this place, while also ensuring accountability. I believe—parliamentary historians will put me right if I am wrong—that about a decade ago there used to be a Regulatory Reform Committee in this place. It was rarely attended and was basically dropped because it failed to command much interest—let me put it that way. May I caution the hon. Gentleman that more committees might not always be the right answer? Perhaps tightening up some of the statutory duties that we apply to economic and non-economic regulators could be a way to ensure that the powers we are handing over, which as he rightly points out can mushroom, are properly applied. That would give Parliament a clear a brief to say “We want you to use these powers in this way,” and Select Committees would have a clear way to gauge whether such powers were being used in the way that Parliament has set.

[Darren Jones]

I do not claim to be a parliamentary historian, but the Regulatory Reform Committee is very modern history. About two years ago I got a call from the Government Chief Whip, telling me that the Government were collapsing the Regulatory Reform Committee and merging it with mine, but that I should not ask for any additional resource. The Business and Trade Committee now holds, by legacy, responsibility to scrutinise good regulation across the whole of Government. That is the problem. We do not have capacity to do that effectively beyond the remit of our own Department for Business and Trade. The hon. Gentleman is right that if we were to end up with a new Select Committee, being clear about what good outcomes or performance means, how that should be measured, and how regulators should be held to account against those measures, is an important conversation for us to have. If there were to be a new committee, there should be a requirement for it to meet and do that work, and it should be clear about how it was performing those duties.

The concerns that some have expressed about additional Committee oversight, administrative demand on regulators, or the influence of lobbyists, can be anticipated and mitigated. As we have discussed, the House is perfectly capable of drafting Standing Orders that make clear the powers and remits of a Select Committee, and the Committee would not be able to change or interfere with decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority. That clarity would, in turn, reduce the impact of lobbying that some people might be concerned about, and Members would need to declare their interests in the normal way. Even if a Joint Committee of both Houses—I will come to that in a second—were tasked with the oversight of regulators and other agencies across Whitehall, its capacity would be limited to a certain extent because of how many bodies and agencies it would need to look at. The amount of inevitable workload for an individual organisation would be fairly self-contained.

If there were to be a new Committee, I would have the normal expectation of collaboration and co-operation between Committees. Departmental Select Committees would still be able to call and engage with regulators when looking at particular issues, but we would be able to work with it to extend the scope of day-to-day co-operation. I am therefore most worried about whether the House, and by extension the Government, would support establishing such oversight and giving it sufficient resource to do the job properly. We would need additional budgets for additional staff and specialists to do that work; some have suggested that a smaller version of the National Audit Office could be one solution.

It is not only the Competition and Markets Authority that operates as a regulator in the digital market space. That is why a number of regulators have created the digital regulation cooperation forum, which is a welcome intervention and allows for co-ordination between digital regulators. Some have called for that to be on a statutory footing, but my Committee thought that was not necessary. Which Committee of this House is the DRCF directly accountable to? I do not think there is a clear answer. What is the cumulative impact of regulatory interventions in digital markets across digital regulators who are collaborating on their interventions? When I served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for the Online Safety Bill, we recommended that the House should consider a Joint Committee of both Houses. A number of noble Lords in the other place have great interest in this topic, and that could provide a space to consider such issues.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, any such enhanced scrutiny to assist Parliament in understanding the consequences of broader remits and decision-making regulators would require the support of Government, because we would need additional capacity to do so. I hope that when he sums up the debate, the Minister might be able to share the Government’s view in that regard.

While I have said that there is insufficient capacity and I have called for additional capacity, of course my Committee and I take our work on behalf of the House seriously. To mark our own performance, in recent years we have taken evidence from 11 of the current 21 and three of the previous additional 14 agencies and public bodies within our remit. I hope that hon. Members concur with my conclusions and that we can persuade the Government to take further action in this space.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that the steel industry is an important customer for critical minerals in this country, so will she confirm for the House the status of the Steel Council in her Department and whether it is actively meeting?

[Ms Ghani]

I served with the hon. Gentleman on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for many years. He will be very familiar with the fact that I meet the steel sector and the unions, and I have all the regular meetings, including those with the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The meetings are most definitely taking place.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and advance notice of it, and the members of the advisory board for their important work.

I want to focus on one particular sentence of the Minister’s statement, which is very important. He said that the intention of the compensation scheme is

“to return postmasters to the position that they should have been in had they not been affected by the Horizon scandal”.

He will know that that has an important meaning in law for the calculation of compensation. Some victims of this scandal feel that they have not been fully put back into the position they would have been in had they not been a victim of this scandal. Can he confirm for those victims what process they should follow to ensure that the compensation scheme delivers on its intention as stated on the Floor of the House today?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the Select Committee. There is a clear process in the GLO scheme for a claim being submitted and then settled. There is claims facilitation if a case cannot be settled, and an independent panel following that. Through those processes, there should be a mechanism to get fair compensation. If he has evidence of people who feel they are in the situation that he refers to, I would be keen to meet him to discuss those cases.