| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Touhig: I have asked the President of the Board of Trade a couple of times about consultations that the Government have had on the Bill. How many representations has the Minister had about his amendments?
Mr. Taylor: I do not have the representations in front of me, but within the past 48 hours I replied to a written question from the hon. Gentleman asking how many representations I have received. From memory--I urge the House to believe that I offer this answer in good faith--I have received about 11, perhaps nine one way and two the other. I do not know, but if it is material, I will check. I do not have the information with me.
I really should say something about the amendments. The Bill is essentially designed to protect employees from being victimised by their employers for making a public interest disclosure. The term "public interest disclosure" is defined in clause 1 as a disclosure of confidential information acquired in the course of employment
"which tends to show that significant misconduct or malpractice ... has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur"
and
"which, because of the public interest, a court would not restrain".
Significant misconduct or malpractice is described in the schedule as:
"(i) an offence or a breach of any statutory requirement or legal obligation;
12 Jul 1996 : Column 748
(ii) improper or unauthorised use of public or other funds;
(iii) miscarriage of justice;
(iv) danger to the health and safety of any individual or to the environment."
My amendments established that, in line with the Bill's stated aims, its protection would apply only where the information disclosed was confidential at the time when the disclosure was made. They restricted the coverage of the Bill to information acquired in the course of employment and they limited the significant misconduct or malpractice covered by the Bill to the matters set out in the schedule, which originally constituted simply an illustrative list.
In addition, the schedule was amended to remove some terms that were unacceptably vague and open to misinterpretation. Without question, clause 1 is a much better drafted provision than when the Bill was first introduced. However, that said, in the Government's view, the Bill is still seriously flawed in such a fundamental way that nothing short of a complete rethink of its underlying principles could possibly rectify it.
Mr. Touhig:
In view of the Minister's most recent remarks, what would he say to Lord Nolan, who at the launch of his most recent report said that he strongly endorsed the approach of the Bill?
Mr. Taylor:
I am advised that the second report of Lord Nolan, far from endorsing the Bill's approach, fortified, encouraged and emphasised the overriding importance of employers putting in place confidential channels and a designated appropriate officer to receive internal complaints. That was the thrust and emphasis of Nolan, and I think that he was right in that regard.
Dr. Wright:
Has the Minister had an opportunity to see a recent survey carried out by the reader in law at Middlesex university, who surveyed The Times top 500 companies to find out whether they had such procedures in place? He found that 83 per cent. did not. His conclusion was that companies would put such procedures in place only if there was an underpinning of legal requirement, that is to say that the law and the good practice would go together. Does that not undermine what he has just told the House?
Mr. Taylor:
No, I do not think that it undermines it. I must be honest with the hon. Gentleman and confess that I have not read the article to which he refers. Perhaps it would be to my advantage to make early time to do so. We all receive tremendous amounts of paper to read these days and one has to be selective. I am sorry that I did not see the survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I join
In response to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I should like to add that the letters that I received did not point to specific amendments tabled for discussion today. However, informal contacts and careful consideration of the issues led to the amendments, which would materially improve the Bill.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
For the record, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) put that question. Is not the Minister really saying in gentlemanly language that nobody in the business community supports the proposals in the amendments?
Mr. Taylor:
No, I stop far short of that. In a plural, free and eclectic society there will be support for almost any proposition at certain times. No doubt the hon. Gentleman could provide me with a litany of highly reputable institutions and companies that, on first reading the intentions of the Bill's sponsors, might say that they favour them in principle.
Dr. Wright:
It devalues consultation on the Bill for it to be described so casually. There has been extensive consultation. Even in the last week, the Confederation of British Industry told us that it finds no reason for opposing the Bill. The overwhelming evidence from the business community is that the Bill is moving in the right direction. There is sheer incomprehension outside the House that the Government, at the last minute, should feel the need to wreck a Bill that is wanted by everyone else.
Mr. Taylor:
That is all very well, but I do not accept that we have taken a casual approach. I was reflecting earlier today how much time and resource costs the Department has devoted to assisting me in trying to overcome the Bill's fundamental flaws. I honestly doubt that the hon. Gentleman would argue when I say that it is one thing to express an opinion on a broad principle but that the devil is in the detail. When one gets down to the detail of the Bill, one discovers great difficulties. While the Bill is unquestionably born of good intention, it has all the potential for failing both the employer and the employee.
Dr. Wright:
I will respond to the Minister's invitation for a further exchange. The measure began as a ten-minute Bill in my name, then progressed in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). In the interim, it was the subject of extensive consultation with business and financial interests, as a result of which
Mr. Taylor:
I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman has put his heart into his side of the argument, as I and those who advise me have put our hearts into our side of the argument. Ultimately, the Government of the day are responsible for what is put on the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, if the Bill is left imperfect or unworkable it will not be its sponsors who are blamed but, as ever, the Government. It would be said that we were carried away with what seemed to be an attractive idea, did not address the details and fudged.
Mr. Touhig:
Other organisations, such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and Public Concern at Work, have also done a great deal of work on the Bill. It is a good measure. It offers protection to the individual who discovers something that is going wrong and exposes it in the public interest. After the next inevitable financial scandal, tragedy, child abuse case or abuse of an elderly person in care case, what will the Government say when the inquiry reveals that somebody knew what was happening but was afraid to speak up? The Bill could prevent that happening.
Mr. Taylor:
I dare say that, on face value, it could. I should tell the hon. Member for Islwyn that if we are going to enact legislation to deal with the situation that he is concerned about, it must be good, it must be workable and it must be certain.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has raised the issue of child abuse, and, some weeks ago, the Government announced an inquiry into child abuse. Hon. Members from both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of measures to protect people who discover child abuse at an early or a later stage and attempt to put that information into the public domain. If the Bill is not passed, the problem will remain. Will the Minister give the House a commitment today that he will refer the proceedings of the debate and of the Bill's Committee stage to that inquiry so that it can consider the procedures in--
It being half-past Two o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |