---

Mr. Touhig: The Bill deals with serious wrongdoing, malpractice, fraud and criminal activity--not with someone running to a commanding officer to complain about the colour of the linen in the officers' mess.

Mr. Robathan: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's good intentions--my point is what effect will the Bill have. Illegality can presently be revealed to the press if necessary, and can and should be taken to the proper authorities. The intention of the Bill is one thing--the reality might be something else entirely.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. There is no mechanism in the Bill to reconcile a conflict between an employee and an employer when the employee is unhappy with an answer that may be the correct one. The employer and the employee must have some ability to reconcile that, other than by the public disclosure of information.

Mr. Robathan: The intention behind the Bill is excellent. If something untoward is happening in a company or a public body, the matter should be taken up the chain. If it is not dealt with, I would defend the right of an individual to take the matter to the press.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to an individual who could not take information toSir Robert Armstrong, and went to the hon. Gentleman with his complaint. These things currently happen, and we all get letters saying that this or that is wrong.

Mr. Touhig: We all receive odd letters. I constantly receive letters from a gentleman who tells me that he is

1 Mar 1996 : Column 1142

the king of the world and is having trouble contacting his relative the Tsar of Russia. The hon. Gentleman is clearly missing the point. A proper mechanism is set out in the Bill for raising concerns and grievances within an organisation, and gives the organisation a chance to respond. The Bill is not providing an opportunity for someone to run straight to the media to complain.

Mr. Robathan: I repeat that I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I see no proper mechanism in the Bill to deal with my worries. I see good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. I hope, incidentally, that his constituent finds his relative, the Tsar of Russia, soon.

Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that all good organisations--public and private--should have good internal mechanisms to deal with these matters, and that the law should not intervene. Does he think it more or less likely that public and private organisations will develop good internal mechanisms if the Bill is enacted?

Mr. Robathan: I am not opposed to all the measures in the Bill becoming law--I am picking up the weaknesses in the Bill. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) proposed the Whistleblower Protection Bill in the previous Session. I understand that the Bill was supported by major public companies. If that is the case, surely it would be better to encourage good practice. The Bill might easily encourage those with a grievance who do not receive satisfaction from the mechanism of a company or a public body to take the matter to the press, and that concerns me.

Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, to which there is an interesting answer. He is absolutely right to say that we consulted extensively throughout the public and private sectors in dealing with the Whistleblower Protection Bill. Seeboard--a major electricity company--said on the subject:

"If enacted, this measure would certainly have the effect, in responsible organisations, of promoting internal reporting systems and discouraging managers from taking inappropriate action against whistleblowers."

That company thinks the measure is a good thing--I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Robathan: I do not disagree with everything in the Bill. There are many aspects with which I am unhappy, and I am not alone in that. Far from encouraging good practice, it may encourage those with a grievance or a grudge to take that grudge to the press if they do not receive satisfaction through the proper mechanism.

Another thing that concerns me is that the Bill could be a dream for lawyers, and I can see public interest being used as a defence in many circumstances. Although I do not believe that it is the intention of the Bill, it might easily encourage further litigation, and we are already litigious enough in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that one should not have to go to court, but I would suggest that the enactment of the Bill might encourage people to go to court with cases which were not justified. That is particularly the case if they claim to be acting in good faith and in the public interest--both of which are subjective.

1 Mar 1996 : Column 1143

My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford raised the case of a school in Hull, but I do not believe that the Bill, if enacted, would help that deputy head teacher. In that case, the LEA, the school, the governors and the head teacher were behaving improperly, and I cannot see how the Bill could change that.

Mr. Touhig: The sponsors of the Bill and I have no wish to give any work to lawyers or to the legal profession. If an organisation does not respond when a matter is raised internally by an individual, he has the option to make the matter public. But the hon. Gentleman ought to bear it in mind that an individual might go to court or to an industrial tribunal only if, as a result of raising the matter, he could demonstrate that reprisals were taken against him.

Mr. Robathan: I take that point, and I accept again the good intentions behind the Bill. Supposing, however, that, having raised the matter, an individual was not promoted? The individual might have raised the matter in good faith, and the company or body might not disagree. But if the individual was then not promoted, he might say that he was being penalised for raising the matter.

The hon. Member for Islwyn also said that he wishes to change the culture of Britain, but I fear that it might be a change for the worse. I do not get many letters complaining about our culture, or about secrecy in general. I do not believe that everything is perfect in this country, but I am not labouring under the impression that everything is imperfect. Would he trust the press with our culture? They are the last people that I would trust. He stated that we must encourage people to speak out. I would say it is their duty to speak out where there is illegality and malpractice.

Companies must be made to address illegality, and several examples of that have been raised. The hon. Member for Islwyn referred to the case of Beth Lawson, who reported a supermarket manager for changing sell-by dates. That was her duty, and action was taken by the supermarket chain. That seems to be a good example of a case in which whistleblowing has worked perfectly well, without a change in the law being required.

The Maxwell case was also mentioned. The gentleman involved was sacked, and I am sure that he then went to the press. What more could he do, apart from going to court, which, again, is litigious? He could have gone to an industrial tribunal--I am not sure whether he did.

Those involved in the Zeebrugge and Piper Alpha disasters had a duty to report defects, and should have done so. Safety measures and regulations already exist.

Mr. Touhig: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the report on the Piper Alpha disaster recorded that people who were working on the oil platform were aware of safety deficiencies, but, because they were afraid that they might lose their jobs, they did not raise the issue? The Bill seeks to remove the culture of fear in which many people believe that, if they go to their boss or employer, they will get into trouble.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I also wish to see the culture of fear removed, but whether the Bill will remove it is another matter.

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport): The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Zeebrugge case. Paragraph 57 of the Sheen report states:

"Fictitious entries were made in her official log book."

1 Mar 1996 : Column 1144

Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should have a Bill to protect the employee who blew the whistle on that fact?

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the person involved was covered by other aspects of law.

Mr. Luff: My understanding is that section 28 and schedule 5 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 already provide considerable protection to individuals in such circumstances.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) intends to speak in the debate, and he might raise the point in his speech. The Bill adds to the law, and we have a duty not to make bad law.

As a result of the Lyme bay disaster, we now have the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995. As I understand it, the instructor who complained in the Lyme bay case resigned because she was so unhappy about the situation. What would the Bill have done for her? She had already resigned. The courts worked in the Lyme bay case: the person who ran the centre was sent to prison for two or three years. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned the Barings case. It was a sad, disgraceful case, for which Mr. Leeson is now spending six or seven years in gaol in Singapore. The Bill would have changed nothing in that case.

The Bill could assist in many cases, and there is much good in it, but it could help to create an atmosphere of mistrust--the aspect that I find most worrying. If I believed that the Bill would lead to greater internal responsibility and investigation within companies, I would support it, but I fear that it could undermine the trust between people working together in the same enterprise, whether it be public or private. I fear that it may be a charter for those with a grudge; it is certainly a charter for further press abuse.

The Bill would undermine loyalty--a word used by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. People could be disloyal on the grounds that public interest was involved. I would wish them to be disloyal if public interest were involved, but the Bill would give them an excuse, which they might use. If that is what the hon. Member for Islwyn means by changing the culture of Britain, I do not want trust, loyalty and confidentiality in this country to be undermined in that way.

The actions of the House can have a cumulative effect on our culture. I fear that the Bill is unlikely to have a positive impact on our culture. The House has a responsibility to pass good laws, which have been well thought out, and the consequences of which have been carefully considered. I have yet to be convinced by the Bill.

---