parliamentarian in the business select committee, challenging sports direct challenging their business practices in warehouses with their workers. 0n practices in warehouses with their workers. on this question on industrial strategy. 0ne workers. on this question on industrial strategy. one of the areas where this is particularly important for government is over transport. 0ne important for government is over transport. one of the complaints that the unions have made that transport secretary grant shapps effectively has power over transport because he sets the terms of negotiation but he is arguing it is the companies that has to do the negotiation. they are same companies can t give us more money because the money would have to come from attacks it has that there won t be any extra money. they are tying their hands, in a sense. the government? their hands, in a sense. the government? tying - their hands, in a sense. the government? tying the - their hands, in a sense. the i governm
with more to follow. anyone whose convictions have been overturned will be in line for a payment of up to £100,000 which the post office has promised to pay as soon as possible. but a group of around 500 others who took a lower settlement from the post office earlier in this process aren t currently eligible to apply for the full compensation. this morning, a group of mps is calling for changes. let s speak to one of them labour mp darrenjones, the chair of the business select committee. why is it some people are frozen out of these compensation payments? this initial a-rou of these compensation payments? this initial group of claimants, the so-called initial group of claimants, the so called 555 who brought this issue to court so called 555 who brought this issue to court to so called 555 who brought this issue to court to expose this huge miscarriage ofjustice entered into a settlement agreement when they got compensation which blocked them from having compensation which
could be a way forward they have not considered yet, which is the whole reason we have this consultation was in force in this country, we cannot sit back and allow ceos like peter hebblethwaite to think they can wilfully break them. x t et hebblethwaite to think they can wilfully break them. hebblethwaite to think they can wilfully break them. yet he said he would make wilfully break them. yet he said he would make the wilfully break them. yet he said he would make the same wilfully break them. yet he said he would make the same decision - wilfully break them. yet he said he i would make the same decision again if he had to, because the company s finances were so powerless that, he would argue, he had no choice. i know there are other issues around employment law, but he said in terms of the mass of the company, he had no choice. i of the mass of the company, he had no choice. ~ . , , no choice. i think that begs the auestion no choice. i think that begs the question how no ch
lose severance pay. so i guess they are unlikely to do that? are unlikely to do that? and i think that s why boris are unlikely to do that? and i think that s why boris johnson are unlikely to do that? and i think that s why boris johnson has - are unlikely to do that? and i think that s why boris johnson has said l that s why boris johnson has said they want that s why boris johnson has said they want to take legal action against they want to take legal action against the company because as things against the company because as things stand, and you alluded to it ust things stand, and you alluded to it just now. things stand, and you alluded to it just now, that as the law exists at the moment, it s very much stacked against the moment, it s very much stacked against employees who are mistreated by their against employees who are mistreated by their company. and darrenjones, they were by their company. and darrenjones, they were mp labour mp who is taken they were