| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Taylor: First, I am not aware of any conspiracy. I have tried to be open in my dealings at all times on the Bill. The Government do not like the Bill. They genuinely think it flawed, and I am with the Government in that judgment.
Secondly, the Government have, not least in the Department of Trade and Industry, an almost non-stop task of trying to identify malpractice and fraud in the City and elsewhere, and to provide mechanisms for redress, some of which are criminal in nature; others are regulatory, with disciplinary sanctions from supervisory bodies. The Nolan report has strongly recommended and fortified the in-house complaints procedure route so that good employers have mechanisms in place, as codes, with confidential cover for employees who wish to report to a specified officer within the organisation, without redress, to say what it is they are worried about or what they think is irregular or harmful.
Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn):
The Minister said that he is not going to give us the Bill. I very much regret that. Will he explain therefore why he and the Government are not prepared to extend to the citizens of the United Kingdom a privilege that Members of Parliament enjoy--being able to expose something in the public interest without fear of reprisal?
Mr. Taylor:
The House, as we have been made uncomfortably aware recently, is in a unique position constitutionally, going back to the Bill of Rights in the 17th century. It would not be fruitful or useful for me to try to go down the avenue of why the entire country is not like the House of Commons. The entire country cannot be like the House. The House of Commons is the unique focus of the whole country, with a special set of rules enshrined constitutionally or by convention that are simply not capable of wider application in any practical or realistic sense.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood):
Will the Minister just take a moment to explain why the Government are not going to give us the Bill? As the House and the country will know, the Bill has wide cross-party support. It won overwhelming support. Indeed, there was no opposition at all on Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is making a speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Taylor:
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I remind the House that I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. I have always tried to table amendments that would improve the Bill. At no stage have I said other than that I am fundamentally opposed to it. I shall try to do justice to the hon. Gentleman, who has followed the proceedings acutely throughout. His credentials as a sponsor of the Bill are beyond question. There are real flaws, but I do not think hon. Members want me to engage in a litany of flaws, although I could do so. I do not say that in any deprecating way because I know that the Bill was brought to the House, and has been sustained throughout, in good faith.
One of the difficulties is to be found in clause 1(a) which, in referring to a public interest disclosure, says that it means a disclosure of information
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove):
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill is riddled with uncertainties? Even in amendment No. 11, the word "reasonable" is used four separate times, in one form or another. There is no clear definition of many of the requirements in the Bill. Is not an uncertain law a bad law?
Mr. Ian McCartney:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) declare an interest relating to his business arrangements, given that there has been a great deal of effort to secure for the public domain a number of issues relating to his companies and activities?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I must make it clear that it is up to the Member concerned to decide whether he or she feels that there is an interest to declare.
Mr. Thomason:
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have absolutely no interest to declare in relation to the Bill. I can assure the House of that. It was a disgraceful intervention.
Mr. McCartney:
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was a genuine point of order because there are people, including creditors, who very much want
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. We cannot take that matter further now.
Mr. Taylor:
I almost lost my place in that flurry of points of order. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) in his strictures about the original point of order. He has expressed himself entirely appropriately.
My hon. Friend was critical of the uncertainty in the Bill and I agree with his view. Long ago, it was cynically said by a learned judge in England--I am not sure that I whole-heartedly subscribe to his view, but we get the point--"It is not so important that the law be fair, but that the law be certain." My hon. Friend used a more critical idiom than I have used. I have spent a lot of flying hours with Labour Members and I am aware of their good faith in these matters, so I possibly express myself in a more gentle idiom. We have spent many hours together and, rather like hostages and captors, there comes a time when we begin to understand the other man's point of view.
Mr. Touhig:
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about me. The whole House knows that there is no personal animosity between us on this matter. He has referred to his attempts to improve the Bill. I have made repeated attempts to meet the Minister and his officials--even before the first draft was completed--so that we might work together to produce useful legislation. The Government failed to respond to all the overtures made by me and other hon. Members, including Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who are all desperately keen to see the measure enacted.
Mr. Taylor:
I do not think that I am unavailable or not contactable. The hon. Gentleman came to see me at an early stage in the passage of the Bill. I am sorry that he does not feel that the liaison between us has been sufficiently productive. I am afraid that the Government do not think that the Bill as it stands, and in view of its origins, is perfectible. The flaw in clause 1(a) is perhaps not the least insurmountable obstacle.
Dr. Wright:
The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend is inadequate. The Minister's raft of amendments is designed to point to inadequacies and imperfections, but from the beginning the Government have resisted consultation and that makes the Minister's position quite indefensible. Do not this morning's proceedings bring the House into massive disrepute?
Mr. Taylor:
I do not agree with any of that. I do not think that anything that I say in the next 15 minutes will satisfy the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). He and I have different views about this. One of the virtues of this place are that views can be exchanged. I do not think that he will come round to my point of view or that I will come round to his.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Does the Minister agree that we are falling into bad habits on Fridays? Hon. Members have set themselves up as Friday assassins and have made speeches of stunning insignificance. There are 53 Bills on the Order Paper. We have spent four hours discussing two of them, leaving about half an hour to discuss the other 51.
Mr. Taylor:
Somebody more authoritative than I will have to rectify human nature or redeem original sin. I cannot do that. I do not often attend on Friday mornings but I know what happens then. Here I am with my amendments and I intend to speak to them, although so far I have not been given much chance to do that. I hope that no one will say that I have been reluctant in giving way.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
Perhaps we could put in proper context the reason for the amendments. Will the Minister confirm that in Committee on 17 April he did not formally oppose the clause, which was passed unanimously? I assume that in Committee he was satisfied that the clause met the needs of the Government and the Committee. Why has he now tabled amendments?
Mr. Taylor:
I am again in the same pass and I shall not be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I have said from the outset that the Government are not happy with the Bill. I may not have sought to amend every jot and tittle at every stage, but I have constantly reflected on what the Government should do to make the Bill better. In trying to do that through the amendments, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Bill is fundamentally flawed and the Government do not wish to accept it. I do not have total recall about whether I put down amendments at any specific stage in the Bill's proceedings.
"which, because of the public interest, a court would not restrain".
That invites the impossible--the use of a crystal ball to say at the time of a disclosure that, if subsequently tested in a court, that disclosure would be sanctioned. However, that decision of the court is not known at the time of the disclosure. It is a great difficulty with the Bill, which I have not been able to remedy or regularise by amendment.
2.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |