Commons Select Committees.

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:06

Today Mike Ashley (Sports Direct) is in front of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

This media story had me intrigued as to why and how, these committees exist and operate.

I'm trying to understand how a private business venture can be called before a committee to be basically interrogated under a threat of summons for seemingly vague accusations of poor treatment of employees.

Surely, if there is any evidence or reasonable cause to believe the Law is being broken, then this should be passed to a legal body funded for this very reason.

I don't see how this is good use of public money.

So I'm trying to educate myself on this matter.

Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/role/

Business, Innovation and Skills Committee - role
The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and its associated public bodies, including the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

On 5 June 2009 the Prime Minister announced that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills would become the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. On the 25 June 2009 the House of Commons Standing Orders governing the committee structure were amended to allow the Committee to be renamed in order to reflect this change.

Committee history
The Committee was renamed on 1 October 2009 with the same membership as the previous Business and Enterprise Committee which was formed on 6 November 2007 and replaced the Trade and Industry Committee. The remit of the Committee reflects the responsibilities of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and includes issues such as the Government's relationship with Royal Mail, competition policy, higher and further education, business competitiveness and trade promotion.

Members of the Committee also participate in the Committees on Arms Export Controls.

In the case of Mike Ashley:

The Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee holds an evidence session examining the working practices at Sports Direct with owner Mike Ashley, representatives from Unite Union, Transline Group and The Best Connection Group.

Purpose of the session

Agency worker status at Shirebrook;
Terms and conditions of workers at Sports Direct;
Health and safety issues;
Review of Sports Direct’s contracts with agency workers

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news-parliament-2015/sports-direct-working-practices-mike-ashley-no-show-16-17/

scorza · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:15

The police can only act if the law has been broken, in this case the Commons Select Committees want to find out how the law is working in practice, so they could for example recommend to the government how it should be changed. Of course if their questioning uncovers evidence of wrongdoing then that will be passed on to the police.

The committees are a good way of holding the government accountable to Parliament - not just ministers but senior civil servants as well.

Danthus · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:16

It is very good actually, a side of politics people should see more often.

Ashley is being very candid to be fair, given he has been advised to say as little as possible.

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:40

scorza said:
The committees are a good way of holding the government accountable to Parliament - not just ministers but senior civil servants as well.

That I can understand that but my point here is Mike Ashley and Sports Direct are NOT government and therefore not accountable to parliament.

If there is any reasonable suspicion that they have broken the law, the police should be given that information not tax payers money used on a committee meeting which is tantamount to a witch hunt.

Stumble Bum · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:46

plasmahal said:
That I can understand that but my point here is Mike Ashley and Sports Direct are NOT government and therefore not accountable to parliament.

Says who?

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:47

letter from Iain Wright MP Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee

Dear Mr Ashley

Attendance at Select Committee

Thank you for your letter of l6May 2016, in response to my earlier letter of 28 April.
I am pleased to note that you are able to attend the Committee on 7 |une, as invited. The Committee has
considered carefully your repeated and conditional request that we visit Shirebrook before this date. You will
appreciate that Parliamentary committees, including this one, do not accept that witnesses attach conditions to
attending in response to a summons. We therefore still expect to welcome you to the Committee on 7 |une.
However, having heard evidence on7 |une, it may well be that a visit to Shirebrook could assist our ongoing
inquiry. We would wish to take evidence from you and then consider whether it would be necessary to take up
your offer ofvisiting Shirebrook.
In respect ofyour appearance on 7 June, I can confirm that you may be accompanied by a legal representative, if
you would find that helpful, and that the Committee would not seek to ask questions which would require you
to.break any commercial confidences. I would also like to inform you that on 7 |une we will be hearing evidence
from some who may be critical of working practices at Shirebrook so it is important to us - and presumably to
you - that we have a balanced view and you have an opportunity to respond to any comments made, as well as
to update us on the progress ofyour own review.
As I explained previously, the hypothetical questions relating to contempt proceedings that you raise would be
for tle House of Commons as a whole or the Committee of Privileges to consider in the circumstances, rather
than for this Select Committee. I am sure that neither of us wants to engage in a potentially lengthy and public
process that would follow any non-attendance.
I can confirm that I am also content for our correspondence to be made public and we will be doing so shortly
We do not publish all such correspondence routinely because it is usually purely administrative in nature.
With reference to your further letter of 21 Ma¡ you have expressed opinions about MPs and the Select
Committee in the media. You will appreciate that Members of Parliament are as entitled as you to express
opinions.

Iain Wright MP
Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee

All the wording suggests to me that this meeting amounts to a court session or being questioned under caution by the police.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-innovation-and-skills/Correspondence/2015-20-Parliament/Chair-to-Mike-Ashley-260516.pdf

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:48

Stumble Bum said:
Says who?

Here.....

http://www.sportsdirect.com/customerservices/otherinformation/aboutus

It's a private company not state owned as far as I can see.

grumpysculler · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:52

Commons committee are one of the best features about the commons. They are actually where most of the work happens, not the debating chamber.

Committees are where bills get scrutinised and the real world impact of legislation gets examined. In particular, the commons committees are generally quite independent and members/chairs/majorities will criticise their own party's policies if needed. Compare that with, say, Holyrood where the committees are generally under the whip and so serve little real purpose.

That I can understand that but my point here is Mike Ashley and Sports Direct are NOT government and therefore not accountable to parliament.

They are an example of how the law is used in practice and so the committee is interested to see if changes are required (such changes made by the govt who are accountable to parliament). It is effectively a test of government policy.

They did similar around Murdoch and the phone hacking stuff, as well as a number of banks.

Sports Direct and Ashley aren't directly on the hook for anything here. But if the law isn't being followed in spirit, the committee will decide whether tougher rules are required and then give ministers a suitable grilling.

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:56

grumpysculler said:
Commons committee are one of the best features about the commons. They are actually where most of the work happens, not the debating chamber.

Committees are where bills get scrutinised and the real world impact of legislation gets examined. In particular, the commons committees are generally quite independent and members/chairs/majorities will criticise their own party's policies if needed. Compare that with, say, Holyrood where the committees are generally under the whip and so serve little real purpose.

They are an example of how the law is used in practice and so the committee is interested to see if changes are required (such changes made by the govt who are accountable to parliament). It is effectively a test of government policy.

They did similar around Murdoch and the phone hacking stuff, as well as a number of banks.

Sports Direct and Ashley aren't directly on the hook for anything here. But if the law isn't being followed in spirit, the committee will decide whether tougher rules are required and then give ministers a suitable grilling.

That makes sense but they don't make it seem voluntary which should be in the 'spirit' of a free and democratic system.

Purpose of the session

Agency worker status at Shirebrook;

Terms and conditions of workers at Sports Direct;

Health and safety issues;

Review of Sports Direct’s contracts with agency workers

So lets see how the agenda then translates into a review of government policy as you state.

robfosters · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:59

The issue I have with this is they are firing questions at Ashley and are expecting him to know everything about his company from agencies to contracts and much more.

It's completely unrealistic to expect one man, even if he is the owner, to have a complete understanding of every little thing that goes on in such a huge company.

Stumble Bum · 7 Jun 2016 at 12:59

plasmahal said:
Here.....

http://www.sportsdirect.com/customerservices/otherinformation/aboutus

It's a private company not state owned as far as I can see.

My point was who says they are not accountable to the select committee

The select committee have the power as written in law to summon individuals / companies to appear before them.

Much in the same way as we are all able to be summoned for jury duty by the court of law.

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:03

From Mike Ashley to the BIS:

Ultimately Mr Kyle's statements demonstrate the heavy handed way that some of these
Committees can behave at times and evidence once again that there is very little or no chance of
any interview being conducted fairly.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-innovation-and-skills/Correspondence/2015-20-Parliament/Mike-Ashley-to-Chair-210516.pdf

Fair point.

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:04

robfosters said:
The issue I have with this is they are firing questions at Ashley and are expecting him to know everything about his company from agencies to contracts and much more.

It's completely unrealistic to expect one man, even if he is the owner, to have a complete understanding of every little thing that goes on in such a huge company.

Agree with that as sports direct is a very large private company.

The committee suggest he is allowed one person to attend with him, which will obviously be a legal bod.

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:06

Stumble Bum said:
My point was who says they are not accountable to the select committee

The select committee have the power as written in law to summon individuals / companies to appear before them.

Much in the same way as we are all able to be summoned for jury duty by the court of law.

Please provide evidence and a credible source then.

I'm trying to find where these committees have the power they do.

Danthus · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:06

plasmahal said:
Agree with that as sports direct is a very large private company.

The committee suggest he is allowed one person to attend with him, which will obviously be a legal bod.

It is his PR advisor with him, he is ignoring.

He has been very honest in my opinion.

grumpysculler · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:07

plasmahal said:
All the wording suggests to me that this meeting amounts to a court session or being questioned under caution by the police.

Not really. Attendance is legally required, to support the operation of our government. Legal advice etc can be useful because the committee benefits from parliamentary privilege but Mr Ashley doesn't. They will ask probing questions with answers that could presumably be used as a basis for civil or criminal action. As someone who likes to shoot his mouth off, someone to help him think first could be useful...

SPG · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:08

If you work for Mike Ashley as staff you are very well looked after and is a good employer (i.e you have a skill or got lucky)

If you happen to be from the eastern block and came over looking for gold without any formal skill and just pick things, then aside from not getting paid minimum wage (which is wrong) either quit moaning or go somewhere else.

Danthus · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:09

His PR advisor just to go no comment when asked about BHS and Phillip Green, he answered and his PR guy said "Oh God"

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:10

Seems he has been asking the committee to clarify questions to which he get no response. They just want him there to get a grilling:

Iain Wright MP,
House of Commons,
London SW1 0AA.

16 May 2016

Dear Mr. Wright,

Treatment of employees by Sports Direct

Thank you for your letter dated 28th April 2016, in response to my letter to you dated 22nd April
2016.

Failure to address points raised

It is regrettable that you have failed to address (in substance at least) most if not all of the
questions that I raised in that letter.
The points that you have failed to address and which I would now ask you to confirm (in each
case in express terms and for the public record), are as follows:

(i) I asked you whether your Committee claims a power to ask me questions on pain
of sanction even if I agreed to attend before the Committee. Your response was
that the decision as to whether I answered questions was a matter for me. This
necessarily implies that your Committee does not claim any power to ask me
questions on pain of sanction if I decide not to answer any questions that may be
asked.
Please confirm (a) that you do not claim such a power and that I am at liberty
not to answer any of your Committee’s questions without the threat of
contempt of Parliament being made if I do not answer; and (b) why, if the
Committee does not claim such a power and if I have the choice as to whether
to answer questions put to me, it is considered necessary to summon me to
attend before the Committee at all. As already made clear I have agreed to
answer questions at the company premises and have explained why I do not
wish to appear before the Committee, at least initially, at Westminster.

(ii) I asked you whether I would be entitled to legal representation before both your
Committee and the full House of Commons. Your answer only covered legal
representation before the Committee of Privileges and did not address the position
as to legal representation both before your Committee and also before the full
House of Commons.
Please confirm that I am entitled to be legally assisted (a) before your
Committee; and (b) before the House of Commons, as well as before the
Committee for Privileges (in the event of it being alleged or considered that I
am or may be in contempt of Parliament).

(iii) I asked you whether I would be entitled to call witnesses in the event of it being
alleged that I am in contempt of Parliament. You have not even attempted to
address that question. However, it appears from your letter that it would be
necessary for your Committee to consider that there was a potential contempt
before making a report to the House; for the House to consider that there was a
potential contempt; before referring to the Committee of Privileges and then if the
Committee of Privileges recommended that there was a contempt (and
recommended a sanction) for the full House to consider whether to adopt the
recommendation in whole or part.

Please, therefore, confirm whether it is accepted that I may call witnesses if
necessary so as to establish, amongst other things, that there is no potential or
actual contempt of Parliament and that I may call such witnesses before (as
may be necessary): (a) your Committee; (b) the Committee of Privileges; and
(c) the House.
Your reliance on the very general statement in Erskine May cannot exclude the
possibility that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to attend before a
Committee when formally summoned.
But please confirm whether you are saying that irrespective of the question of
reasonable excuse you would automatically report my case to the House if I
failed to attend following a formal summons.

(iv) I asked you what safeguards would be provided in order to ensure that my
fundamental rights were respected. You have not attempted to answer this
question which is of obvious relevance to your inquiry both in terms of the
Committee’s questions to me and also with regard to any processes that you may
set in train if you consider that I am in contempt.
Please confirm what provision is made to ensure that fundamental rights are
respected throughout your Committee’s processes (including what follows if
you were to report matters to the House) including in terms of (a) the
questions allowed to be put to witnesses and (b) the content of the
Committee’s final report.
You will note that I have referred specifically to the fundamental rights of due
process, property and privacy.

(v) I asked you whether there would be a right of appeal in respect of the processes
referred to above and again you have failed to answer this.
Please confirm whether or not I may appeal against any decisions made or
processes undertaken and if so to which tribunal or court.
Publication of only a selection of our correspondence
Apart from the above questions that you have failed to address, my second concern is that you
have selectively published correspondence between us on your web site. This seems to have been
intended to apply pressure on me. However, I note that you have not published my letter to you
of 22nd April 2016 or your response of 28th April 2016.
Please confirm in express terms and for the public record that you will publish: (i) my letter
to you of 22nd April 2016, (ii) your response of 28th April 2016, (iii) this letter and (iv) any
further letters between us relating to the summons on your web site.
Publication of correspondence with other parties summoned to the hearing
My third concern is that you have only (and then only selectively) published correspondence
between myself and your Committee. You have not published correspondence with other
witnesses/parties from, for example, UNITE.
As a matter of fairness and consistency with your avowed ‘commitment to transparency’ (see
your letter to me dated 3rd March 2016) please confirm in express terms and for the public
record that you will publish all correspondence with all witnesses to this Inquiry on your
web site.
As a matter of extreme urgency, please provide in full and in the manner requested all the
information requested above.
Offer of meeting
Finally, my offer to have the Committee attend the Sports Direct premises at Shirebrook remains
open on the same basis as before, in that we would arrange the most convenient form of transport
for you, including if helpful by helicopter. This will have the clear benefit of (i) allowing the
Committee to see the working conditions at Shirebrook first hand; and (ii) in the event of me
being unable to answer any questions your Committee may have, making available others in real
time who are in a better position to assist you.
I am available 24/7 to facilitate this meeting at Shirebrook.
If the Committee visits Shirebrook on the basis set out above before 6th June 2016, then I would
agree to attend before your Committee at Westminster on 7th June 2016 at a time to be agreed.

Yours sincerely

Mike Ashley

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-innovation-and-skills/Correspondence/2015-20-Parliament/Mike-Ashley-to-Chair-160516.pdf

plasmahal · 7 Jun 2016 at 13:12

grumpysculler said:
Not really. Attendance is legally required, to support the operation of our government. Legal advice etc can be useful because the committee benefits from parliamentary privilege but Mr Ashley doesn't. They will ask probing questions with answers that could presumably be used as a basis for civil or criminal action. As someone who likes to shoot his mouth off, someone to help him think first could be useful...

Again, proved evidence of such laws that can summon a private company before a select committee ?????