| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 166 and 65.
Mr. Byers:
Most Members will be aware that one of the proposals contained in the Bill is to raise to £50,000 the level of compensation for unfair dismissal. The Government have given careful consideration to the level of compensation for those people who are covered by the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. At present, no compensation levels have been laid down in respect of that Act. We believe that the time is right to protect whistleblowers by announcing the level of compensation to which they will be entitled and by indicating when we intend to introduce and make effective the provisions in the Act.
New clause 11 provides that the compensation for people covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act will be unlimited. We believe that the £50,000 limit that will apply in other cases of unfair dismissal will be inappropriate for those individuals coming within the remit of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Act was broadly welcomed on both sides of the House. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who was responsible for introducing an earlier measure on that subject, is in the Chamber.
It is appropriate to delimit the level of compensation to which an individual is entitled. However, we believe that we can go further than that. Another group of individuals can be subject to victimisation and discrimination in the workplace: those who have responsibility for healthand safety matters. We have been giving detailed consideration to the level of compensation that should be awarded to individuals who take action on health and safety grounds and, as a result, are unfairly dismissed by their employer. Such individuals should not be restricted to the £50,000 limit on compensation that would normally apply. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that
new clause 11 will ensure that those individuals will also be entitled to unlimited compensation should they be unfairly dismissed.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
I understand the rationale behind the proposed new clause. However, given that it could affect businesses operating in the private sector, including small businesses, what account will be taken of the circumstances of those businesses? Such businesses could be forced under, if the new clause is rigorously enforced without regard to their circumstances.
Mr. Byers:
The hon. Gentleman leads me to the next group of amendments, when we shall discuss the position of small businesses. It is important that the House sends out a clear message to those who are employed in a responsible position and who make a disclosure in the public interest, and to those who ensure that organisations comply with health and safety requirements. There is a common interest and I hope that the House will agree that our approach, whereby unfair dismissal compensation is increased to £50,000 other than in two exceptional sets of circumstances--those individuals covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and those who deal with health and safety matters--in which compensation will be unlimited, is the right one. The real objective must be to create the climate in which health and safety issues are addressed properly in the workplace and individuals can ensure that there is proper disclosure where that is appropriate.
Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new provision will deter employers who should know better from paying less attention than they should to serious issues of health and safety at work?
Mr. Byers:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a litany of cases in which people were unable to expose wrongdoing at their place of work with tragic consequences. I have examples of cases that would have been covered both by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the unlimited compensation that we intend to offer. Let us take the case of Bristol Royal infirmary, in which a responsible whistleblower, Stephen Bolsin, raised concerns about the deaths of babies at that hospital. Those concerns were not properly addressed and we know the tragic consequences. There is now a Government inquiry looking into the details of that case.
In the case of the Clapham rail crash, it was known that loose wiring was a risk to the travelling public, but staff were reluctant to speak out, resulting in tragic and unnecessary loss of human life. Health and safety issues arose in the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster. The Cullen inquiry reported that:
Mr. Byers:
I am trying to make the point that we recognise that. In response to the intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), I am describing events that occurred because the provisions that are now being introduced were not in place. That is why I am pleased to be introducing a measure that will ensure that compensation is uncapped--a measure for which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has argued for many years. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his efforts to ensure that the Public Interest Disclosure Act reached the statute book. He campaigned strongly for that legislation for many years, often in opposition to the view of the previous Conservative Government. He stuck to his principles and the Act reflects his endeavours, and the provisions being passed this afternoon are the final element in establishing an effective and proper compensation regime.
There are many cases in which public interest was important, and the House must send out a clear message underlining how seriously we regard that issue. To say that compensation will be unlimited is the best possible demonstration of the importance we attach to that matter. An even better outcome would be that we succeed in fostering a climate of openness and transparency in which individuals in the workplace do not feel that they will be victimised if they draw attention to wrongdoing or to a work practice that might compromise health and safety. That is what we should aim for, and I hope that businesses, including small business, will adopt best practice to ensure that the measures we are introducing today will never need to be used, because the climate has been created that precludes the occurrence of such wrongdoing.
Mr. Bercow:
I am sorry to trouble the Secretary of State again, but an important principle is at stake. In other Government legislation emanating from his Department, Ministers have recognised the difference between small and large companies--for example, the Competition Act 1998 makes provision for fines that depend upon turnover. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman at least concede the argument for taking specific account of the circumstances of small businesses in implementing the new clause? That is not an unreasonable proposition, and it certainly does not seek to detract from the force or the logic of his argument.
That the draft National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 6378/98, relating to a draft Directive amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms; and endorses the Government's approach in the negotiations.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
'.--(1) After section 124(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (limit of compensatory award etc) there shall be inserted--
"(1A) Subsection (1) shall not apply to compensation awarded, or a compensatory award made, to a person in a case where he is regarded as unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 100, 103A, 105(3) or 105(6A)."
(2) Section 127B of that Act (power to specify method of calculation of compensation where dismissal a result of protected disclosure) shall cease to have effect.'.--[Mr. Byers.]
4.26 pm
4.30 pm
"workers did not want to put their continued employment in jeopardy through raising a safety issue which might embarrass management."
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
I hesitate to say this, because it is slightly ungenerous, but all those cases were cited by hon. Members on both sides of the House to push the Government towards the principle of uncapped compensation; at the time, the Government were not having any of it. Although I welcome the introduction of these provisions, the
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |