Football Governance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am pleased to have reached the part of the Bill where we can discuss the owners and directors tests. Football clubs are historical institutions with deep community ties; thus we must be careful to ensure that owners are people who view themselves as caretakers of an asset that has existed long before them, and we hope will continue to exist for years afterwards. As such, it is right that owners and directors are subject to fitness tests to ensure that the custodians of beloved football clubs meet certain standards.

At the moment, the tests are operated by different authorities depending on the league a club plays in. The Premier League, the EFL, and the FA on behalf of the National League all administer owner tests and have powers to disqualify unsuitable individuals. While those tests have been in place, many successful owners have been appointed, making selfless and sustainable investments in their clubs, which have brought about rewards on the pitch. However, not all owners have the same outlook, fortune, capacity or capability. Despite ownership tests, too many clubs and fans still have to deal with malicious, absent or incompetent ownership.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I commend what my hon. Friend is saying. She knows full well the issues of my local club, Reading, which sadly was bought by the current owner. He was disapplied from buying Hull City but went on to buy Reading, despite a history of being involved in two clubs that went out of business overseas. I hope the measures in the clause will address this and stop other football clubs around the country getting in a similar predicament; I would not wish that on anyone. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking about the issue.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments and his work with his local club. I have met its supporters, and that is one example, although not a lone one, because it has been confirmed, in another example, that both Bury FC’s owners, Stewart Day and Steve Dale, passed the EFL tests. The fan-led review took a number of such case studies into consideration, concluding that things needed to change.

Alongside other measures in the Bill, which will be vital in giving owners a better landscape in which to operate and invest, the review made some distinct suggestions regarding the owners and directors tests, such as: ensuring a consistent and independent approach across all men’s football; giving tests the backing of the regulator to enable access to information not otherwise available to competition organisers, such as that from the National Crime Agency; splitting the tests into two parts to recognise the difference in the obligations and duties of owners and directors; and strengthening the qualification criteria to ensure that prospective candidates have integrity and the intention of running a club sustainably. Overall, I think the clause and this part do a good job of achieving those aims and recommendations.

I have one brief question at this stage. The EFL has indicated that it will stop conducting its owners and directors tests once the regulator is running its tests. However, Richard Masters told the Committee that the Premier League would continue to run its tests alongside those of the regulator. Putting aside the issue of clubs paying twice for the same regulation and the lack of efficiency involved in duplicating structures, a dual system could pose a dilemma. If two tests yield different results, whose decision would ultimately be adhered to? That is difficult to tell from the Bill, and I hope that this is something that the Minister can confirm for us today, or that he will write to the Committee about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will not commit to introducing a new clause, but I will commit to going away and having another look at the points that he has raised, if that will satisfy him.

The Bill also allows for senior managers to be held accountable if they are responsible for the club breaching the requirements. That means that enforcement action could be taken against an owner of a club who was also a senior manager of the club and responsible for the club failing to comply with clauses 46 and 48.

[Matt Rodda]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, in some cases there may also be an issue with training grounds being separated from the main organisation of the club. The current owner of Reading was trying to sell the training ground separately from the ground itself and from the club. Can the Minister write to me on that matter? It does not currently appear to be covered by the Bill, and I would be very grateful if he could reassure local fans.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am happy to commit to writing to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that it is really the perimeter of the stadium, the car park and so on. I will happily give him further details.

When the regulator is testing the fitness of prospective new or incumbent owners of clubs, it must have regard to any action of a regulatory or disciplinary nature that is being or has been taken in relation to the individual. The regulator already has the power to consider that as part of an owner’s suitability termination. For those reasons, I cannot accept new clause 3, and I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East will not press it.

Football Governance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

No. The point I am making is that, as we heard in the evidence sessions, lots of clubs have lots of good structures and some best practice that we can learn from, but this particular part of the Bill lists the groups that the regulator should have a relationship with, and I am simply suggesting that we could strengthen that. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the importance of fans and players, and indeed, by implication, football club staff. As we heard this morning, fans, players and others have suffered from enormous challenges when there have been problems with ownership. It is difficult to describe the full level of stress and pressure that many fans of clubs have suffered over long periods, sometimes for more than one season. I believe that my hon. Friend is making a very worthy and important point, which I hope the Minister will consider.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. I know the amount of work that he has done with his local football club and with fan groups.

Football Governance Bill (First sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Q You mentioned very serious issues with the behaviour of some owners. I wonder if you could say how big a challenge this is for the game and how far you feel the Bill will go in tackling these potential problematic behaviours.

Kieran Maguire: The issues with owners are that if an owner’s personal circumstances or intentions change and they have been subsidising or funding clubs, however you want to describe it, it means that under the current environment, things are very precarious. I do not think that the football authorities themselves have sufficient powers to go in and effectively do an Ofsted to the extent that they would perhaps like to at times. That is where the regulator could be broadly more of a benefit than a cost, because it would have regulatory powers and the ability to send in a forensic team to take a look and offer guidance to clubs that may not be willing to listen to it under other circumstances. There is also the stick as well as the carrot in terms of issues with licensing or ownership, which are very much a last resort. That would perhaps focus some minds where people have historically tended not to listen and take no advice.

Dr Philippou: A lot of the issues we have seen with ownership have been in relation to sources of income. I am from the University of Portsmouth, and Portsmouth has unfortunately had two of its former owners jailed for various things relating to fraud and money coming from sources that it perhaps should not have come from. That is quite difficult if you do not have deep access to do proper due diligence. What appears to be in the Bill is access to that information and the ability to request that information, which should hopefully mitigate against some of these issues.

[Matt Rodda]

Q Do you feel then that the Bill goes far enough in tackling these issues?

Kieran Maguire: As an investigator, you would always want more powers than less, so I think you have to be honest there. At the same time, in terms of protecting the game from over-regulation and being mindful that FIFA does not allow government interference in football, I think we have probably hit a reasonably good sweet spot with regard to the proposals to date.

Dr Philippou: I agree with that.

[Robin Millar]

Q Dr Philippou, you describe a industry that is reliant on patronage. If I could remind you, Mr Maguire, you said that a collective inability to control costs characterises the industry. How do you reconcile the two? Is it the inability of owners to control costs? Is it the structure that has the problems? Is it actually an inability, or is it an ignorance of costs or an unwillingness to address them?

Dr Philippou: I think it is a combination of various things. Ultimately, what you have is poor cost control and poor monitoring. Owners have to be mindful of that because, ultimately, at least half of them are putting money into football clubs every year to keep them running, so they are aware that there are cost problems there. You cannot be propping up a technically insolvent club and not know that you are propping it up, so there is that element there. You also have general cost controls —people are aware that they are losing money. It is not something where you can say there is a lack of awareness there; it is a lack of a willingness to do something about it. We saw UEFA bring in financial regulations back in 2010-11. The Premier League brought them in around about 2014. But we are still seeing these problems, even with the financial regulations in place, which tells you that there is an ongoing issue.

Kieran Maguire: What we have in terms of the present model is one of self-regulation, and self-regulation is normally walking hand in hand with self-interest. As far as owners are concerned, and I can understand this from an owner’s perspective, if I bought a football club as a trophy asset and I have unlimited funds, then why should I not spend as much money? What there has been is a trade-off between those owners willing to put in unlimited amounts, those owners wanting to put in limited amounts, and those owners wanting to put in nothing because they see the football industry as an extension of the entertainment industry, with a view to making it profitable on a longer-term basis. That is where we are at present.

The rules have effectively failed to address the loss-making in the business. Loss-making is sustainable until it is not sustainable—until those owners, either individually or collectively, decide to change the rules. Without any form of assistance from the regulator, that would mean that the industry is naturally precarious, because you only have to have, as we said earlier, a change in circumstances, as we saw with Chelsea. We have seen a club such as Bolton Wanderers have a very beneficial owner. His personal circumstances changed due to illness, and then you have a crisis for the club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

Q How would you respond if you were overruled? What would be the effect if the regulator took a different view from you?

Richard Masters: Maybe a bit like “The X Factor”, you need two green ticks to get in. That is it, and in terms of the Premier League operating its own test, in the unlikely event that the regulator said yes and we said no, that person could not take over that club, and vice versa.

[Matt Rodda]

Q This question is for Rick Parry. Where a potential owner has a track record of being associated with clubs overseas that have got into difficulties, do you believe the Bill has enough powers to prevent that in future?

Rick Parry: I think so. I do not think there is any reason to be doubtful at this moment, and within football we have been refining the tests that we apply over time. A decade ago, I think the tests were probably inadequate and overly simplistic. We have definitely refined them. We take a closer look at people’s track records, and I am not fearful that the regulator will be unable to do the same.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Q Gentlemen, one thing that has been raised is international investment and creating a level playing field with other leagues. Do you still have any particular concerns there? One of the previous witnesses we interviewed suggested that, at the moment, what we are doing is very light touch. Do you think that is still the case? Richard, perhaps I could ask you that first.

Richard Masters: As you know, professional football exists in a global marketplace, and the Premier League is, by most available metrics, currently the most popular in the world. We want that to continue, but it is a competitive marketplace. You could not say that 20 years ago, but it is true today, and we would like it to be true in 20 years’ time. We have been able to do that by collective effort, and the clubs continue to invest in creating a really exciting football competition.

I think the key difference between the Premier League and its other European competitors is the competitive nature of it. We can talk about full stadiums, home and away fans, fantastic brands, and the history and tradition of the English game—all those things are incredibly important, but the key difference between us and the Germans, the French, the Spanish and the Italians is that you have jeopardy from top to bottom. That goes to the funding of football and the financial mechanics behind it, and the key ingredients that go towards that competitive nature and the jeopardy in English football. We do not want to damage that jeopardy at all.

In order to be able to better fund the pyramid, we have to be successful, and to be successful, we have to be able to continue to find football-led solutions to the problems we have. The regulator has a specific role, which is to step in when individual clubs have problems and to oversee certain aspects of the game, but I still believe that football needs to be football-led. The three bodies—or four, if you include the FA—can do a good job of that in the future, in the same way that they have done a good job of it so far.

Football Governance Bill (Second sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Q Sharon, your passion is obvious, and I am sure that if the Clerks could craft an amendment to the Bill to have you cloned, we would all support it. Ian, you sort of answered this question, but I will ask it again: there has been a lot of scaremongering about the impact of the Bill and some of the unintended consequences—the duplication and so on—but is there anything in the Bill that you fear? That question is to both of you.

Ian Mather: The thing that I fear is that it does not work in key places. On the parachute payment clause, protecting that does not work. I know that Rick has made the point, but I would endorse it: we are not against the concept of parachute payments if they are right. I do not believe that they are right, but let’s have a state of the game review and find out whether they are right, or whether they are an impediment to fair competition in the football world as we want it. But do not then hamstring the regulator so that it cannot deal with that problem, if indeed it is a problem.

The problems here are few: they are about who can trigger it, the parachute payments and how often you do a review. Those are the key issues. It comes down to the money. The other bits in the Bill, such as those about protecting heritage, are really good. We were looking at introducing a golden share in Cambridge United to give fans protection against things such as stadium moves and so on, but the Bill probably makes those redundant.

Sharon Brittan: Tracey, what you said about unintended consequences is really interesting. I have looked at the situation closely, and I like to look at both sides of the story, so we get a clear, honest picture from the Premier League side and the EFL side. I do not even understand unintended consequences; I cannot work out what he is referring to, unless I am missing something. I can understand the EFL’s argument, which is very clear and concise. From the Premier League’s point of view, I have so far not been presented with anything or read anything that has made me think, “What they are saying actually makes sense.” They have put together a very weak argument —I do not think there is an argument—and have conducted themselves poorly. I do not think they have presented themselves in the right way. They are arrogant. They think they are an island, on their own, sailing off and forgetting that 14 of the clubs in the Premier League have come from the EFL.

On how the pyramid works together, we loaned two players over the last two seasons. Both of them—James Trafford and Conor Bradley—went back to their respective football clubs, and they are absolutely flying in the Premier League and talking about their time at Bolton Wanderers. I could bring players to the table who will say to you that they have never worked in such a culture. People need to work in the right culture to bring out the best in them. There is enough stress in the world today.

On unintended consequences, I would love to sit down with Richard and for him to explain it to me because I do not understand it. They are just words, and there is no substance or arguments behind the words. I have not yet come across a cohesive argument to which I can say, “Actually, that’s a fair point.” I am not going to talk about the numbers—we all know the numbers. In my opinion, that this goes back to greed, envy, jealousy and thinking about me, myself and I. I cannot comprehend how someone can view this through that lens when we are a football pyramid, and what we do as custodians affects this country and beyond. We should be cherishing what we have here.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Q You have spoken so eloquently. I am looking at this from the perspective of my local club Reading, which has had very serious problems with the current owner. The previous owner was absolutely wonderful in creating a positive culture. My question is: how do we find more owners with the right intentions and motivation, and help them to play a bigger role?

Sharon Brittan: I completely agree with that. Even in the five years that I have been involved, I have seen better owners coming into the game because the EFL has changed the rules. You cannot having a bankrupt owning a football club, and you cannot have somebody who has been struck off; the rules are much more stringent. I do not want to talk about the numbers, and I do not like talking about them, but the problem we have is that in five years we have put a huge amount of money into the football club. Any sensible businessperson probably would not do that, because they would look at it and say that it does not make any financial sense.

Ian Mather: In direct answer to your question, I would say that it is the numbers. If an owner can look at a football club and think, “Broadly, if I run that club properly and well, with the income I get from running a football club and the sustainability payments from the Premier League, I can roughly break even. I may want to be ambitious and build a new stadium here, or improve the training ground, but broadly I can balance the books.” If you cannot balance the books, or worse, the books get more unbalanced each year, you are reducing the pool of people who can buy into being a football owner.

Sharon Brittan: I agree with Ian.

[Damian Collins]

Q I think I have to ask this, given everything you have said in your very compelling evidence. How has Ipswich Town managed to do what you called the “near impossible”?

Sharon Brittan: Isn’t it fabulous? That is what I love about football: the near impossible can happen.

Ian Mather: I would also answer it by saying that a North American pension fund has provided—

Sharon Brittan: I did not want to say that!

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Q We have heard, in these sessions and beforehand, about the scope of the Bill. Some feel it goes too far; some feel it does not go far enough. Can you talk about your perspective of its narrowness in terms of financial regulation, and why that matters in relation to the relationships and statutes that FIFA and UEFA have?

David Newton: It is common knowledge around the room that UEFA and FIFA have statutes of their own, which basically prevent state interference in the running of football and football competitions. We have worked closely with UEFA and FIFA, and with the DCMS staff who have worked so hard on this Bill. They have been taken through where we have got to. Although we have not had a definitive view as such, it is reasonably clear that a tightness of the Bill relating to football governance is not likely to present huge or significant problems, subject to any changes that may occur. However, anything wider would increase the risk of FIFA or UEFA intervention. That is obviously a place we do not want to be, because of the sanctions that may flow, in theory, from that. We continue to work closely with both those bodies and keep them abreast, along with DCMS, of where the Bill has got to, but I think the narrowness of scope is very important.

[Matt Rodda]

Q To return briefly to the point that Clive made, there is enormous strength of feeling among many fans and clubs about the replays. What is the process for reviewing that decision?

David Newton: The decision has been signed off, effectively, by the FA board for next season. Indeed, the fixture calendar is so full that the spare slots, if you like, have already been allocated. At the moment, there is no review of that position. We are obviously aware of the strength of feeling, and I hope I have gone some way towards explaining how we take that decision. We take the custody of the FA cup extremely seriously.

[Matt Rodda]

Q What will you be able to do for seasons in the future?

David Newton: In fairness, I do not think the calendar shows any let-up. As has been mentioned, we have a FIFA Club World cup involving 32 teams in the summer next year. That will continue to sit in the calendar, as will the expanded Champions League format, with extra midweek matches. We still operate three domestic cup competitions, which all have to be accommodated as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Q I want to ask quickly about grassroots football. My constituency has benefited from the Football Foundation, as I think most people’s around the table have. What positive role do you see this as having in encouraging more partners to work with organisations such as yourself? Is the Independent Football Regulator in a good place to help drive that, or is this again something where we are looking at the overarching security of other organisations that are going to be the ones pushing it? Is there a role for the football regulator to do more with your organisation?

Robert Sullivan: To be honest, I am not sure yet. I would be cautious about passing a judgment on that. If you pull back a level, what does the Football Foundation need? It needs two things really: it needs a very healthy and thriving elite end of the game that generates lots of excessive revenues that can be distributed back into the grassroots; and it needs the grassroots of the game to be excited, growing and wanting to have lots of kids getting out there and playing. To answer in a very broad sense, if the regulator is allowing that ecosystem of English football to continue to thrive—not only at the top end with more sustainability, and all the things that people talked about today, but with the game still generating crazy passion and demand from kids getting out there— that is brilliant for English football and the Football Foundation. There are going to be lots of people needing great pitches, and we are going to get out there and give everyone a great place to play.

[Matt Rodda]

Q Do you think the Bill does enough at the moment to ensure that fans have a meaningful say on what matters most to them? Also, are there areas where you would like to see the Bill go further, with further say for fans?

Niall Couper: I think there are gaps. We heard of one earlier, about the club heritage and the name. To my mind, these are simple amendments. Making sure that there is a proper fan consultation about a proposed name change is, to me, important. You strike on a cause that is close to my heart—I am an AFC Wimbledon fan. Today, 14 May, is a significant day for me: in 2002, the three-man FA commission began its deliberations about moving the club to Milton Keynes. I have had loads of messages about that—they all knew I was coming here—and for me, making sure that a club cannot move from its area is fundamental.

At the moment, that is not clear enough in the Bill, and I think it needs to be made fundamentally clear. It talks about financial considerations still being part of the conversation. As a Wimbledon fan, it was the financial considerations of a three-man commission that allowed us to lose the club. We would describe it as our place in the Football League being given to a town in Buckinghamshire. Effectively, that is what happened. For any other club, that needs to be addressed, and fans need to have their voice heard first in that particular conversation. At the moment—I will use this phrase, although I was trying desperately not to say it—the unintended consequence of the Bill is that it legitimises franchising. That is the bit that needs a red line put through it.

[Matt Rodda]

Q I will ask a second question about grassroots football. I was thinking about this, because I have two kids who used to play and had regular problems with waterlogged pitches and other issues: how would you describe the state of grassroots pitches and provision across the country?

Robert Sullivan: It is a huge challenge for the game, but we are definitely on an upward trend. For the first time, we have been able properly to map and record, and to improve grass-pitch quality by use of digital data. That has been a big change, because with 30,000 grass pitches in England, it is hard to get out to reach them all, but we can now use technology through phones, so we can assess those pitches remotely and help clubs to improve them, to do the simple things, and give them funding that can address some of the waterlogging situations.

We now have more than 8,000 of what we have rated as good-quality grass pitches. That is a big step forward on where we were five or 10 years ago, but we are perhaps only halfway through that journey. We are going to do everything we can to escalate that number as quickly as we can, and to build many more artificial grass pitches, because of the difference. On a good grass pitch that does not waterlog, we get maybe six hours of play; and on a good artificial pitch, we can get 60 hours of full-on community usage for kids, disability or vulnerable groups, older men who are coming for dementia classes, and whatever it might be. Those artificial grass pitches, which is what we want to invest in, are the game changers that will help us to support that growth in the women and girls’ game and all other parts of grassroots football.

[Dame Tracey Crouch]

Q The original fan-led review had a transfer levy recommendation that was proposed to the panel by somebody from the Premier League. The Bill was not necessarily the right place to include that proposal but, presumably, given the fact that it was designed as a policy that would invest in grassroots sports, certainly further down the pyramid, is that something that you would still at some point be interested in seeing?

Niall Couper: Yes is the answer. I think it is something that we need to look at, considering that—in my mind—a lot of it depends on what happens with this Bill. It is important, because it is about redistribution and giving support to a lot of the clubs that are trying to do the right thing in the right way. Again, to go back, it needs to be caveated to make sure that it is ringfenced where possible to support the grassroots pitches.

I talk to clubs like Tonbridge Angels, Maidstone United, Sutton United and so on. Those clubs will talk about wanting to have the 3G pitches and their training pitches in there so that they can be put to community use—those 60 hours a week. That is really what they want, because that is where they see the big growth. That is where your club becomes a community hub. That is where it makes the difference.

For me, the money that you talk about from the transfer levy, if you give it to those sorts of pitches and so on, is where you can make a real fundamental difference. Where it will go, I do not know, Tracey. It is one perhaps that we can talk about once we are post the Bill. It was something that I was really excited about when you proposed it—it really appealed to me. It is something that came a bit from left field, but it is something that we should look at in the months and years ahead.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. To follow on from the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, it is difficult for us as parliamentarians, and doubly difficult for Government Ministers, to speak with authority on behalf of a public organisation—rather than the private sector, which we do not speak on behalf of—without necessarily having all the facts, because there is only so much we can drill into.

Obviously, we want to right the wrongs of the past and make sure as best we can that the people’s situations are restored so that they can have a future for themselves and their families. There is also the case of the Post Office itself. The Post Office still has more branches than the banks and building societies put together. I know that there have been closures in certain areas—that is a whole other debate, perhaps for Westminster Hall—but none the less, the Post Office has a massive impact on people’s lives, especially in rural communities. We must not forget that when we are looking at the Post Office, its brand and its overall aim. This is not a reflection on the current management or anything like that. We have to give the Post Office a future.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this issue and other issues protecting local post offices and looking at the range of services they can offer to the community. Has he had any further reflections about the role of post offices in communities? I also want to thank him specifically for the work he did to support my constituency. Perhaps, now that he has left the Government, he can tell the House his own thoughts on post offices as part of the local community and the potential for new services to be based in them.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind words regarding when we worked together on his constituency issue. We ask the Post Office to do a lot of work of social value and economic value, and those often conflict. It is difficult to get that right. We cannot ask the Post Office to turn a good profit as if it was just another bank, as well as to do the things we sometimes expect as parliamentarians, especially when we talk about our own constituencies and those in more rural areas. That is something we have to give careful consideration to. My original point is that while we are righting the wrongs of the past, we have to remember that this is an important organisation for our country and our constituents and we have to give it a future as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to him. In all these debates over the years, he has always been on my right hand side arguing for his constituents. I thank him for his work and his persistence.

My hon. Friend also raises a bigger point. When the state get things wrong—badly wrong in this case, but he mentions other cases as well—it goes into tortoise mode and says that it cannot be wrong. Well, it has been wrong. I am not making a party political point here, because is not one. Across the House we need to come up with a system of dealing with these cases, in terms of the transparency of information that we need to get out of the system and of having a swift compensation system for putting things right. We need to work on that in the next Parliament on a cross-party basis. As the Minister said earlier, he was involved in a number of cases that involved not the state but the private sector, but they were very similar. This is something I would certainly like to work with colleagues on.

I also want to thank the Minister for his work. I would not describe him as a show pony in politics; he is the steady shire horse of this place. He is solid and determined and he pushes on, even when obstacles are put in his way. I also give credit to him for the cross-party work he has done. He has not seen it as point scoring. He has worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and other Members across the House and I really appreciate that. I would just say to any new Ministers after the election: if you want two examples of how to do the job, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister are it and they should take credit for that.

Today’s Bill is historic. We are doing something very unusual and there is a delicate balancing act to be struck between this place and the judiciary. I understand that. I always respect the judiciary, but I also reflect on the fact that it has some questions to answer in this process. We had the trade union movement for the lawyers earlier on when the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) were on their feet—it would not be a debate without that lobby coming in—but the judiciary needs to ask the question: how did we get into this position? There was a pattern here, and robust questions were not asked. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that we should not attack judges, but the conduct of certain judges in some of these cases was not very sympathetic to the victims, and we need to reflect on that. I do not think this place should interfere with the judiciary. The instant reaction that this is a fight between Parliament and the justiciary is wrong, but in this case the judiciary got it wrong.

The other area that desperately needs to be looked at is the use of computer evidence in court cases. At the moment, there is no reference to computer code in law. After the election, or sooner, we need an urgent review to reflect how computers are not static machines. They might be machines, but their software and code are ever changing. That is important.

I support the current approach, although I accept that some people are not comfortable with it. As the Minister said, only 103 cases have been dealt with so far, so I will explain why I am committed to this approach. Last year I had a phone call from an individual from the north-east—I do not want to identify him—who said that his friend’s wife had been prosecuted and that he thought it might be a Horizon case. I said, “Get him to speak to me, or I can go to see them.” It took quite a few months for him to persuade his wife to meet me.

It was only when I went to see the victim in her small council flat in the north-east of England that I understood why such people never come forward. This woman had run a successful sub-post office, but she was prosecuted by the Post Office. She should have a comfortable retirement and a highly respected name in the local community in which she still lives, but she does not. She is traumatised by her experience, and she was very reluctant to see me. She was terrified and kept asking, “My name won’t be in the paper again, will it?” I said, “No, no one will know what you have told me.” She would never have come forward to go into a court process. I have subsequently spoken to the family to reassure them that, if the Bill is enacted, the victim will not go to court. This woman is terrified. Her good name will be cleared, and she will have access to the compensation that she rightly deserves.

That is just one example, and there are numerous others. People ask whether the Bill is a messy way of doing it, but I do not think it is, because people like that victim would never have justice without it. Some people might be uncertain about what we are doing, but I am not. These are unique circumstances, and I do not think they set a precedent. We can ensure that these people have their good name restored.

When the newspapers have said that a sub-postmaster stole money that they did not steal, it takes a lot for them to stay in their small community. This happened 20 years ago and the victim is still traumatised, which is why this Bill is the right approach.

I welcome last week’s announcement that fixed awards will be offered through the Horizon shortfall scheme. The advisory board was pressing for this, and the Minister championed it too. These awards are a good way of ensuring that we deal with cases speedily. I read the Select Committee’s report, and I disagree on the time limit. We need to settle the straightforward cases—they are not all straightforward, but some are.

The Minister, like me, does not want to pay lawyers. It will be better if we can avoid paying lawyers by ensuring that the compensation goes to the victims, and fixed awards are the way to do it. I consider this to be like a bucket, and we need to take out the simpler cases. We then need to consider the more complex cases, which will take time. It is easy to say that officials are deliberately slowing down the system, but I do not believe that at all. Even the lawyers representing these people need time to do it. As the Minister knows, some cases will be very expensive, more than the £600,000 compensation award. This is the right approach.

[Matt Rodda]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech, and I particularly concur with his description of the enormous challenges that many victims face. Does he agree that the nature of any review or policy development is particularly important? If we can find a way to speed up the compensation by dealing with the slightly less difficult cases first, it could benefit everyone and may reduce the costs to the Government and the public.

[Mr Jones]

I think it is. In fairness, the Minister wants to get these cases done quickly, as does the advisory board. One controversial thing is that some people will get a little more money than they lost. I am comfortable with that, because I would sooner they get the money than it go to the lawyers or the process be dragged out. If we can get those cases dealt with speedily—some progress has been made on that—we can then get the effort and force put into sorting out the more complex ones.

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

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that we will get on to some of the concerns that the TUC has raised about labour standards, which I think would be in order during a later debate on clause 3. It would be good to hear whether the Minister shares any of the concerns of the TUC, which has often struggled somewhat to get a hearing with Ministers. I believe that the situation has improved a little recently, but it was certainly pretty grim when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) was Secretary of State for International Trade.

In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough rightly drew attention to concerns about ISDS, and I will touch on those a little. Concerns were also raised about issues to do with performers’ rights. I accept that there is an opportunity to go into detail about some of those concerns during debates on clause 5, but I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions, which I hope will inform better the debate on performers’ rights in clause 5.

Concerns were raised on Second Reading about environmental and animal welfare issues. Again, there will be an opportunity to talk about some of those a little later. One issue that there might not be such a good opportunity to discuss later, which I gently suggest is appropriate for this clause 1 stand part debate, is the question of future membership of CPTPP. One of my excellent staff discovered an article that the Minister wrote on 24 November 2022, where he hints at the United States rejoining CPTPP. That could have huge implications for the use of ISDS and animal welfare and environmental concerns, and would probably make a nonsense of the current impact assessment, so that is all the more reason for a revised impact assessment to be made.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and doing a very good job of highlighting the issues that sit within this area of policy. Is he going to come on to the more detailed concerns around the environment and animal welfare in relation to the United States should it become a member of the CPTPP? Many British consumers have significant concerns about hormone-treated beef, standards of animal welfare and a range of other consumer and environmental issues.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to raise those concerns. I hope to touch on them in this clause 1 stand part debate, but I do not want to upset the Chair by delving into too much detail. But the RSPCA has raised concerns about the lack of explicit language on animal welfare in CPTPP. It has drawn the Committee’s attention to that and has raised a series of concerns around eggs, pig meat, chickens, animal health and genetically-engineered products. Will the Minister respond to the concerns of the RSPCA, which is in order in these debates? It would be good to hear the Minister respond to the concerns of an organisation as reputable as the RSPCA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristically bombastic assessment of our amendments. I also enjoyed the intervention from the hon. Member for Totnes. I think the gist of his remarks was that we have come a long way on scrutiny. I recognise that he has come a long way back into the Government fold, but I am not sure that we have come a long way on scrutiny of trade agreements. Perhaps he was still a little bit traumatised by a previous Secretary of State failing to turn up to a Select Committee to answer questions on eight occasions, and therefore grateful that the current Secretary of State did actually manage to turn up to answer questions on trade. While he might think that we have come a long way on scrutiny of trade agreements, the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs does not. I was struck by the lack of any reference to the Government’s response to that Committee in his comments.

Let me be clear again at the outset: we support accession to the CPTPP. However, it is our role as a responsible Opposition to raise the concerns of all sorts of stakeholders and to require those representing the Executive and the Treasury Bench to respond to those concerns. If the scrutiny arrangements for trade treaties were better, Opposition Members would perhaps have slightly less work to do to raise all the concerns.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Would he like to comment on some of the stakeholders the Minister brushed off somewhat, particularly the RSPCA, which is a hugely respected body raising concerns about animal welfare? I wondered whether my hon. Friend wanted to address that.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am afraid that it is rather characteristic of the tired Government we have that they are not always particularly interested in addressing seriously the concerns of organisations with such a long and cross-party track record as the RSPCA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes that point powerfully, and it is essential that those considerations are put forward by the Minister in his response. Those issues around procurement and the impact on our British industries are extremely important. The broad reach of the CPTPP, encompassing countries with diverse labour practices, demands a firm commitment to enforceable labour protections. We cannot leave the door open for a race to the bottom in labour rights. The absence of a dedicated clause on labour rights is a glaring omission, reflecting the Conservatives’ faltering commitment to protecting labour rights in international treaties and highlighting the urgent need for the CPTPP to embody our shared values of fairness and ethical trade practices.

[Matt Rodda]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent speech in which he is highlighting a number of weaknesses in the Government’s approach. Does he agree that his points are particularly relevant, given that we have just entered a recession, and that many working people and small businesses are under increasing pressure from not just the cost of living crisis but wider economic pressure as the economy contracts? I have a number of small businesses and working people in my constituency who have raised deep concerns with me recently. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to be doing more at this critical time?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. The Opposition are extremely concerned, whether it is about our economy going into recession, or the cost of living crisis or the various other forms of malaise that affect our society. We do not want any arrangement with the CPTPP, particularly regarding procurement, that impacts more negatively than what is already going on.

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

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Thomas]

I rise to support new clauses 1, 2 and 7 and clause 3 stand part. In support of new clause 1, I will add some remarks to the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Cardiff North.

I seek further clarification from the Minister on the environmental impact of the CPTPP, to better understand how the Government intend to mitigate the detrimental environmental effects of the UK’s accession to the bloc. I understand that about 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown on a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia, and just 1% of Malaysian palm oil smallholdings are certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. That 1% constitutes approximately 40% of all palm oil plantations in Malaysia.

As I think all Members—even Government Members—recognise, deforestation is a major environmental crisis. It is now the second largest contributor to climate change globally, after burning fossil fuels. Nearly 90% of deforestation is attributed to agricultural expansion. The impact has not only affected our climate, but resulted in a sharp decline in native wildlife, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester set out.

Crucially, once ratified, the CPTPP will remove import tariffs on palm oil, irrespective of environmental credentials. As my hon. Friend noted, that risks contradicting commitments made by the Government under schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 to tackle illegal deforestation in UK supply chains. It is potentially irresponsible without the safeguards of due diligence secondary legislation, which is still due. In the other place, the Government said that they would bring forward that urgent secondary legislation some time in the spring of this year, but it remains somewhat vague. Any further clarification of the timeline from the Minister would be helpful.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will also press the Minister on the wider context. My hon. Friend highlights the important point made by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Cardiff North, which is that the Government seem to be neglecting their responsibilities. There appears to be a contradiction in Government policy between what we have heard today and other aspects of UK domestic legislation, such as the commitment to support the conference of the parties process. Will my hon. Friend press Ministers on that?

[Gareth Thomas]

I certainly want to press the Minister further on those issues.

To be fair to Lord Johnson, he committed to a monitoring report after two years. He said:

“I would be surprised…if the evaluation and monitoring reports did not cover information on…environmental standards, reduction of the risk of deforestation and many other areas.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 363.]

Although I take his commitment at face value, it would be sensible to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for such a report within three years, not least because we have not seen the secondary legislation, which is urgently needed.

Perhaps the Minister can give us additional clarity about what the review to which Lord Johnson committed would include. Will it include the way in which CPTPP membership affects the sustainable production of forest risk commodities, such as palm oil, in the UK supply chain? Will it specifically investigate the impact of CPTPP membership on deforestation? Those are key questions from stakeholder groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and Chester zoo. It would be helpful to have additional clarity from the Minister about the review to which Lord Johnson committed and, crucially, about the secondary legislation that is due.

Has any further thought been given to the commodities that the secondary legislation will cover? The Government initially confirmed that they would look at six agricultural commodities, but now I understand that the secondary legislation will cover only non-dairy cattle, cocoa, palm oil and soy; coffee and rubber are missing. It would be helpful to know why.

I understand that the threshold for a company being required to comply is quite high: only businesses with a global annual turnover of £50 million will have to comply. It would be good to hear from the Minister why that particular figure has been set.

In the context of new clause 1, I want to raise some concerns from Pesticide Action Network UK. The hon. Member for Totnes, who sadly is not in his place, was keen to mention the Trade and Agriculture Commission report, in which Professor Bartels and his colleagues outlined their concern that more goods using pesticides that are not currently allowed in the UK will be imported as a result of CPTPP. Indeed, PAN UK has made clear its belief that membership of CPTPP is likely to increase food imports from CPTPP member countries, all of which have weaker pesticide standards than the UK’s. There are genuine concerns that there will not be sufficient controls on food imports to the UK, and consequently that weaker pesticide standards will develop here. I am sure that the Minister recognises that that will worry many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I accept the hon. Lady’s intervention but, as I have pointed out, the impact assessment is already being made as part of the biennial monitoring and the comprehensive evaluation in that period. It is in the UK’s overall impact assessment, which, as I have already outlined, will of course include the environment.

I will turn to the issue of pesticides, which was raised. The UK has not lowered its standards to accede to CPTPP. All food and drink products imported to the UK, irrespective of the purpose for which they will be used, must comply with our import requirements and regulatory standards for food safety. That point has been made continually in trade debates for the last eight years, and that includes the maximum residue levels of pesticides. As the Trade and Agriculture Commission report confirms, all food and drink products imported to the UK must still meet our existing import requirements. A range of Government Departments, agencies and bodies continue to ensure that standards are met, including the Food Standards Agency, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive. There is a comprehensive Government programme of monitoring pesticide residues in food to determine whether food available to UK consumers complies with the statutory residue levels and is safe. The results of the monitoring are published following consideration by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs expert committee on pesticide residues in food.

On new clause 2, on employment and industry, the Government want UK businesses to be successful in competing for public contracts, both in the UK and in other countries around the world, and UK businesses can and do—of course—achieve success in winning domestic contracts. The reciprocal guaranteeing of market access through CPTPP means treating each other’s suppliers in the same way that we treat domestic suppliers. The UK’s international commitments have never affected our ability to deliver public services effectively, and encouraging greater competition in public sector procurement can and does drive down prices for the taxpayer and improve value for money for the UK public sector.

[Matt Rodda]

The Minister is very confident in his marshalling of evidence this afternoon. The Opposition remain deeply sceptical; would he like to give us—and the public—a reassurance, regarding the NHS and other key public services, that the new agreement will not lead to foreign providers undermining standards of care and replacing domestic or indeed NHS suppliers?

[Greg Hands]

Well, absolutely. We have given that commitment time and again, regarding not just this trade agreement, but previous trade agreements and our overall commitments to the NHS and to public sector procurement.

On the question of buying British, which I think the hon. Member for Harrow West raised, the UK Government’s policy, as reflected in our current international obligations and domestic law, is that Government procurement should be non-discriminatory, as this provides the best value for money for the taxpayer. Public sector contracting authorities across the UK, including in devolved Administrations, will continue to comply with the UK’s international commitments. Fair and open competition between suppliers, including those of our trade partners, delivers the best value for money for UK taxpayers.

I think that the hon. Member for Harrow West asked about the general review, which is different from the UK Government’s review. CPTPP was, of course, conceived as a living agreement designed to evolve to maintain its high standards, and the CPTPP text states that there should be a general review of the agreement at least every five years. The first general review will begin in 2024, and the hon. Gentleman could even make a submission to that general review. It closes tomorrow, so perhaps he may be able to put forward his submission just in time to get it in. I am sure that my officials will be waiting with great trepidation about what he may have to say, including perhaps on some of his favourite recent topics, such as ISDS.

On new clause 7, Members have raised an important point regarding the impacts of trade agreements on developing countries. We know that free trade agreements have the potential to contribute to preference erosion. When negotiating trade agreements, the Government analyse the impacts of preference erosion as part of a balanced approach to the negotiations. The impact assessment for CPTPP estimated a minimal impact of the UK’s accession on the GDP of a selection of neighbouring countries and least-developed countries.

The UK continues to monitor the third-party impacts of trade policy, and will continue to promote trade with developing countries through our new developing countries trading scheme—the DCTS—which was launched last summer, and economic partnership agreements, or EPAs. Our trade-related technical assistance, funded by our official development assistance—or ODA—helps developing countries to take advantage of trading opportunities.

The Government recognise the need to closely consider potential impacts on developing countries as we continue to evolve our trade policies and take forward FTA negotiations. We continue to balance the domestic interests of UK consumers and businesses with delivering on our FTA agenda, while maintaining a strong commitment to supporting developing countries and reducing poverty through trade.

To conclude, new clauses 1, 2 and 7 cover important topics such as labour, the environment and developing countries, but the impacts cannot be disaggregated by individual chapters. Additional impact assessments of the type being proposed would be duplicative of the overall assessment of the agreement, to which the Government are already committed. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press new clauses 1, 2 and 7.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 4

Designations of origin and geographical indications

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. [Interruption.] I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West for his remarks from a sedentary position. Were he speaking to this new clause, I am sure he would do a much better job. As we delve deeper into the considerations of the CPTPP, our focus now shifts to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. We must pay close attention to the safeguarding of national sovereignty, public welfare and environmental integrity. We in the Labour party have listened to the voices of numerous stakeholders, including the Trades Union Congress, the Trade Justice Movement and Greenpeace, which all express concern at the impact of the ISDS mechanism, particularly highlighting its disproportionate impact on democratic governance and policy autonomy.

As hon. Members will know, the ISDS mechanisms allow private investors to sue Governments for alleged discriminatory practices. I wish to flag concerns about ISDS’s potential to challenge environmental regulations. A poignant example is the 2021 case of Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, which illustrates the tension between corporate interests and environmental conservation. Colombia’s efforts to protect the páramos—a crucial ecosystem supplying 70% of the nation’s water—were countered by Eco Oro with a substantial legal claim of $696 million in damages due to a mining ban. This case highlights the potential for ISDS mechanisms to be wielded against Government actions aimed at preserving the environment, thereby urging the UK to tread cautiously as we navigate the intricacies of international trade agreements like the CPTPP.

We are particularly wary of how these mechanisms might impede our nation’s progress towards meeting climate targets. Furthermore, the potential jeopardy ISDS poses to public services cannot be overstated. The TUC has raised concerns that the prospect of foreign investors suing over the nationalisation of services, or the introduction of new public health regulations threatens our capacity to govern in the public interest, potentially having dire consequences for essential services such as the NHS and education.

For example, the case of Veolia v. Egypt, which concluded in 2018 after six years of litigation, where Veolia sued over wage increase policies, underscores the risk of ISDS mechanisms being used to challenge policies aimed at improving public welfare, with legal proceedings that can last years and entail substantial financial costs for Governments. Although Veolia eventually lost that case, it is still the case that Governments lose even if they win, because the Egyptian Government had to spend six years defending the case and pay millions of dollars in arbitration and legal costs. Although the costs of that case have not been made public, studies from the OECD show that average costs are $8 million to $10 million, and they can be as high as $30 million. That case serves as a reminder of the potential for ISDS to prioritise profits over the wellbeing of citizens, making it imperative to reform those mechanisms to enhance transparency and fairness in the dispute resolution process.

Historical precedents starkly illustrate the contentious nature of ISDS mechanisms. The shadow Minister for international trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), proposed amendments, inspired by real world cases like Philip Morris’s challenge against Australia, that highlight the pressing need for stringent scrutiny and limitations on ISDS provisions to prevent corporate interests from unduly influencing national policy. Those instances demonstrate a pattern where ISDS is utilised to contest national policies and regulations, emphasising the need for enhanced parliamentary oversight and public consultation, as proposed in our amendments. Such cases vividly underscore the threat that ISDS poses to environmental policies and actions crucial for combating climate change and protecting biodiversity. Those examples highlight the pressing need for that scrutiny, which is why that enhanced parliamentary oversight is important.

I also want to delve into data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which indicates that disputes involving environmental regulations are on the rise, emphasising the vulnerability of environmental policies under ISDS. It is imperative to note that, between 1993 and 2020, UNCTAD reported a staggering 1,104 known ISDS cases globally, with a significant number of challenging environmental regulations. That necessitates implementing safeguards in the CPTPP Bill to prevent challenges to measures protecting biodiversity or reducing carbon emissions. That trend once again underscores the urgency of implementing safeguards within the CPTPP Bill to protect against ISDS overreach, ensuring that measures taken to protect biodiversity or reduce carbon emissions are not contested, thus preserving our commitments under international agreements, like the Paris climate agreement.

I also want to discuss public services at risk. A study by the European Federation of Public Service Unions highlights that ISDS mechanisms have been used to challenge public interest measures, such as environmental regulations, health and safety standards, showing a clear conflict with public service provision. The ability for foreign investors to sue over the nationalisation of services or the introduction of new regulations to protect public health poses a threat to our ability to govern in the public interest. That could have dire consequences for the NHS, education and other critical public services, restricting our ability to implement policies without the spectre of costly legal challenges.

None the less, it is also crucial to acknowledge the perspective that ISDS provisions, when applied judiciously, can offer a level of legal protection to investors against genuine cases of expropriation or unfair treatment by host states, thereby contributing to a stable investment environment. The challenge lies in ensuring that those mechanisms do not infringe upon the legitimate policy space of Governments to enact regulations in the public interest.

Considering the critical examination of the ISDS provisions within the CPTPP, it is essential to underscore that ISDS mechanisms can significantly impact the regulatory sovereignty of nations, allowing private corporations to challenge public policies and regulations designed to protect public health, the environment and welfare. I am sure the Minister is aware that we have had several debates over the last few years, and especially over the seven years that I have been in Parliament, around sovereignty and the need to protect national sovereignty, so I hope he will address these concerns.

Our proposed amendments, such as that to clause 2 for enhanced parliamentary oversight, and the requirement for public consultation on ISDS provisions, are informed by the analysis of cases like Veolia v. Egypt and Philip Morris v. Australia, which demonstrate the tangible risks ISDS poses to public welfare and environmental protection. Our amendment to clause 2 for enhanced parliamentary oversight proposes mandating parliamentary approval for regulations relating to ISDS mechanisms by resolution of each House of Parliament, reflecting our commitment to democratic oversight. This step ensures that the ISDS mechanism within the CPTPP undergoes thorough scrutiny, reflecting our dedication to maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.

With regard to public consultation requirements on ISDS provisions, in alignment with our principles of transparency and public engagement we propose adding a requirement for comprehensive public consultations specifically on the ISDS provisions within the CPTPP. This amendment ensures that the diverse viewpoints and concerns of our society, including those from trade unions, environmental groups and sectors potentially affected by our ISDS claims, are duly recognised and addressed.

In relation to safeguard amendments against ISDS overreach, inspired by the consolidated list of amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, the shadow Minister for Business and Trade—he has done a great deal of hard work on this—we advocate for safeguards within the CPTPP Bill to protect against the overreach of ISDS mechanisms. That includes stipulations that prevent ISDS claims from undermining the UK’s legislative autonomy in areas such as public health, environmental protection and labour rights, thereby preserving the UK’s regulatory autonomy and ensuring that ISDS mechanisms cannot be used to challenge legislative and regulatory actions taken in the public interest in our Parliament.

By proposing these focused amendments to the CPTPP Bill, we aim to address the legitimate concerns surrounding ISDS mechanisms and their potential implications for our country. These proposals are founded on our unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of fairness, environmental stewardship and social justice in our trade policy. This ensures that our trade agreements not only pursue economic objectives, but safeguard the broader interests of our society and the protection of our democratic processes.

[Matt Rodda]

I commend my hon. Friend’s speech. He is making an excellent point. This issue has been raised with me a number of times in my time as an MP, by both charities and other civil society groups. There is a great deal of concern about ISDS in the community, particularly, in my experience, from charities involved in development. My hon. Friend is making an excellent point in trying to address some of those legitimate concerns about the nature of trade policy.

[Mr Dhesi]

The contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East and other hon. Members in the Chamber on Second Reading underlined serious, legitimate concerns around ISDS and how it has been utilised around the world. I fear that the Government have not fully addressed those concerns. That is why I have gone to great lengths to delineate the problem. I hope that the Minister will address those points in his concluding remarks.

In conclusion, while recognising the potential economic benefits of the CPTPP, the Labour party remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting the UK’s sovereignty, public welfare and environmental integrity. Our call for a balanced approach to the ISDS mechanism is underpinned by substantial evidence of its potential misuse in challenging public interest measures, necessitating reforms to ensure that trade agreements such as the CPTPP do not undermine democratic governance or the ability of Government to regulate in the public interest. As we proceed in Committee, let us ensure that our trade policies reflect our collective aspirations for a fairer, more sustainable future.

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

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I remember the comments made by the National Farmers Union about the Australia deal, so the right hon. Gentleman may want to look back at those before he rushes to make such an intervention again.

In Committee, we will also explore the further threat to Britain’s steel industry from the possibility of cheap imports of iron and steel from Vietnam, which may actually be produced in China. There has been growing debate about China’s interest in acceding to the CPTPP and its record on human rights. As my noble Friend Lord Collins pointed out, there are no meaningful, enforceable human rights provisions in the treaty. Nothing in law at the moment requires Ministers to allow debate in the House if there is agreement among CPTPP members to support China’s—or any other country’s—accession to the CPTPP. Will Ministers set out how they will ensure transparency over their consideration of new country applications once we are members of the CPTPP?

There continue to be a series of concerns about how environmental issues, such as deforestation, climate change and pesticide use are dealt with through the CPTPP. The Government’s record does not encourage confidence that those issues were close to the forefront of Ministers’ minds during negotiations.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he agree that there is a huge amount of public concern about the way that the Government have been managing environmental issues in their trade negotiations—both in the Australia deal and this one?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is right and we hope to pursue those issues in Committee. He would be very welcome to join us in so doing. There are benefits to joining the CPTPP and we support doing so, but there are real concerns as to whether Ministers have got us the best deal possible, which we will revisit in Committee.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I want to begin by paying tribute to Members across the House who have worked tirelessly on this campaign, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his work in campaigning on this issue and Lord Arbuthnot for his many years of work in tackling this injustice. Of course, as the Minister has said, we all pay particular tribute to Alan Bates for his pioneering work in this campaign and for working tirelessly to seek justice. Without his bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today.

The Horizon scandal, as we have heard from the Minister, is a truly shocking miscarriage of justice and one of the most devastating in British history. The scandal has brought devastation to the lives of over 700 falsely convicted sub-postmasters, and 20 years on, they and their families are still suffering from the consequences and the trauma of all they have been put through. I want to pay tribute to their determination for pursuing justice. The wrongly accused sub-postmasters have had to endure unjust prison terms, family breakdowns, homelessness, bankruptcy, health consequences, being ostracised from their own communities and worse, to say nothing of the mental health toll and the stress they have all carried while knowing that they have been wrongly convicted. I do not think any of us can truly understand the scale of what they have suffered.

As of 10 August 2023, the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the court cases have heard that at least 60 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice or receiving compensation, and at least four have tragically taken their own lives. Most recently, Tom Brown, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, sadly, passed away. He was the sub-postmaster of several branches spanning 30 years, and he died without receiving his full and final compensation. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with his family and friends at this time, as well as with the many others who have lost loved ones affected by this horrific injustice.

Many have suffered and continue to suffer because of this scandal. Tracy Felstead was a post office worker who was jailed when she was just 19. Rubbina Shaheen suffered a prison sentence as a result, and had to sell her house and live in a van. Seema Misra was pregnant with her second child when she was convicted of theft and sent to jail in 2010. She said:

“It was the worst thing. It was so shameful.”

As a result, she experienced regular suicidal thoughts at the time. Those are just a few of the examples in a tragically long list.

This is a scandal that has destroyed victims’ lives and taken everything from them, but this case is beyond just being a scandal; it is an insidious injustice that has been devastating and has in some cases claimed people’s lives. The suffering of the sub-postmasters can never come close to being repaid, but the very least the Government can do is ensure that they receive their fair compensation as soon as possible. Many of those who, sadly, have passed away never lived to see their innocence proven or to see the compensation that they deserved paid. With further delays to the compensation, the Government run the risk of more sub-postmasters not receiving the compensation they deserve as soon as possible, so it is vital that Ministers act with urgency and speed.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I pay tribute to the campaigners, particularly Mr Bates and, indeed, hon. Members from across the House. The point she makes about the Government, the Post Office and, indeed, Fujitsu learning lessons from this appalling scandal is absolutely right, and I do hope that the Minister, when he speaks later, will be able to address those points. Does she agree with me that it is very important that the Government learn the lessons and help the Post Office learn the lessons of such awful incidents?

Post Office Services: Edinburgh West

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. These were all vital services. Not so very long ago, post offices were central to communities up and down the country. They also provided some of the most spectacular examples of architecture, and they dominated our town centres. The local post office was where I applied for my first driving licence. I opened my first savings account there and queued for what seemed like hours every Christmas to make sure that the family’s cards and presents went off safely to various parts of Australia and Canada—but not any more. The Post Office I grew up with in the 1960s had 25,000 branches. In 2021, that figure had more than halved to 11,415, with more than half of those listed as vulnerable. The organisation itself lost £597 million in the same year.

In Scotland we have the biggest problem in the UK, having lost more than 6% of our post offices in the past two years alone. In Edinburgh West, two have closed and one has been relocated to a different area in the past year. As I said earlier, this problem is not isolated to Scotland or to Edinburgh West. One third of rural post offices are now offered as part-time outreach services.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. This is a truly national problem, which unfortunately affects the whole of the UK. Indeed, there is also a related problem of postal deliveries not appearing on time, which is having a huge effect on many residents. I have had closures of post offices in my constituency in Reading and Woodley, and also severe problems with residents not getting post on time, leading to people missing out on paying their bills and many other things.

[Christine Jardine]

That is a good point. The national service is being undermined. As the hon. Member mentioned, deliveries are not being made. Moreover, one third of rural post offices are now only part-time outreach services, open for an average of five and a half hours. It is not the service that we knew for many years and that communities are entitled to expect.

The irony of all this is that the Post Office still generates around £5 billion for the economy every year. In constituencies such as mine, which has lost 70% of its bank branches since 2015, we increasingly rely on the post office for banking services and so much more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Absolutely. This is a real opportunity for the network, and not just for a longer-term contract for more stability. It has the banking framework, which forms its relationship with the banks. The banks have made around £2.5 billion of cost savings through the closure of branches. We think that a greater share of those savings should be provided to the post office network to improve remuneration and invest in productivity tools for postmasters, such as cash-counting machines, so that the job of running a post office is more lucrative. We see that as a big opportunity.

In the banking framework, we have been clear with UK Finance and Post Office that they should be ambitious in negotiations and secure extra remuneration for the network. There were some improvements to remuneration in April, but I am aware, as I speak to postmasters all the time, that those improvements have not gone far enough in their view. I work closely with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, and we hear these views all the time, so we are very alive to the difficulties.

The other big opportunity that the hon. Lady implied is in the increasing number of parcels couriered around our country. There has been an exciting development in the parcels market for the Post Office, which has just launched something called Parcels Online. For the first time, Post Office will offer a multi-carrier in-branch proposition: because the exclusive agreement with Royal Mail has ended, a customer can go into a post office and use the services of DPD, Evri and others, which are being sold by postmasters. That is a great opportunity for postmasters and may well lift their revenue. That is the kind of future we see for post offices: providing access to cash and banking services—and getting paid better and more lucratively to do so—and offering parcel hub opportunities. Those are both really important services.

The hon. Lady mentioned banking hubs. That is a slight bone of contention, in my view. At the moment, they have not really been co-located with post offices, and I would like to explore with UK Finance more opportunities for co-location where space allows. It makes little sense to have two different units on the high street when we could have one really sustainable unit. That is something we are looking at too.

On what the Government can do through direct support, we have provided more than £2.5 billion over the past 10 years and will provide £335 million between 2022 and 2025. We have also provided around £50 million through the annual network subsidy for rural post offices, as well as other measures we provide to the general business community, such as rates support worth £13.6 billion. Another £4.3 billion was announced in the autumn statement.

[Matt Rodda]

Would the Minister reassure me on the interoperability of post office systems with those belonging to building societies? We have talked about that before, given some of the difficulties with accessing cash in my constituency. Will he also pass on my concerns and those of colleagues to Royal Mail about the lack of cover for postal staff when they are off sick? That appears to be driving some of the problems with delivery.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight those issues. Through the work that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I have done with UK Finance, more clarity has been given to postmasters about the limits for certain banks that have particular problems. The feedback I have got from postmasters is that the situation has improved, but I am very happy to hear feedback from Members of the House, including the hon. Gentleman, if that is not the case.

Of course, Royal Mail and the Post Office are two different things. Royal Mail has recently been fined for its underperformance. It has been affected by many different issues, including, of course, industrial action; it has had its share of issues this year. Hopefully it is putting those issues behind it, but we certainly expect to see a much better performance from Royal Mail going forward.

Like all retailers, post offices are facing very significant challenges at the moment. We have been clear about their value, both socially and economically—for our communities and for our economy. We will continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that both the organisation itself and the network are sustainable and fit for the future. We very much appreciate the work that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West does in this area; she quite rightly challenges me all the time on this. We are very much on the same page when it comes to making sure we have a viable network around the country, not least in our rural areas.

Question put and agreed to.