| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Byers: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was more knowledgable than he actually is about the method of dealing with such matters. I hope that my response will be informative and helpful.
Any tribunal can take account of the size of an organisation or company in deciding whether an approach has been fair and reasonable in particular circumstances. I am pleased to put that on the record. If a small business does not have the amount of back-up that is available to a larger company, the tribunal can take that factor into account in deciding the appropriate level of compensation to apply. I hope that I have assisted the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that extending this provision to those involved in health and safety matters sends an important message. The Health and Safety Executive produced clear evidence
to show that, when a proper consultation mechanism was in place to address health and safety matters, the number of accidents in the workplace decreased by 50 per cent. A real benefit can materialise for effective health and safety measures. I do not believe that many cases will reach the tribunal stage--at least, I hope not--but it is appropriate that the House gives clear notice today of its priorities.
Amendment No. 166 would limit the amount of compensation to be paid. Hon. Members will know that clause 12 provides that an individual may complain to a tribunal that his or her employer has failed to comply with the provisions of clause 11, which entitles an individual to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary hearing. There is no limit on the award that can be made, and it is right to take this opportunity to clarify the position.
We intend to link the amount with the upper limit on a week's pay, which is currently specified in section 227(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At present, it decrees the maximum amount as £220 a week, which will be index linked in the future. We propose that there should be two weeks at £220 a week, providing a maximum amount of compensation of £440--I hope that my mathematics have not let me down on this occasion. That is the maximum amount provided under the amendment.
We feel that it is right to clarify the position, and we believe that that strikes a just and reasonable balance. I hope that the House can agree to new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 65 and 166.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry):
I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for the Report stage. We understand that other obligations make it difficult for him to appear before Committees, although it is not unknown for Secretaries of State to do so. His presence in the Chamber gives me an opportunity to say on behalf of the official Opposition that we are sorry that the Ministerof State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield(Mr. McCartney), is still unwell. We understand the circumstances and we do not wish to press him to return. We simply record that we are missing him and his lively contributions to our discussions. While I am handing out the bouquets, I must say that I am pleased to see the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in the Chamber. He did very well in Committee in trying to respond at short notice to at least some of our concerns. Bearing in mind that we have much business ahead of us, I now address new clause 11.
I shall not advise my hon. Friends to oppose the new clause, but we remain gravely concerned about circumstances relating to the Bill's formulation and presentation. The new clause has been thrown at us, and if I may be at all critical, I point out that given that it alludes to previous legislation and that its words do not leap off the page coherently, it would have been helpful if the Secretary of State had had the time, which he clearly did not, to share with Opposition spokesmen the import of the proposals that he was intending to put to the House. However, he has explained the new clause and we do not find it objectionable in principle.
I shall deal first with amendment No. 166, because amendment No. 65 is merely a repealing amendment. Amendment No. 166 relates to the maximum level of compensation. I chose not to move an amendment on that in Committee to facilitate proceedings. I was concerned, however, about the other end of the compensation scale
and whether it is necessary to pay compensation at allif no loss has occurred. The Government have acknowledged that there should be a reasonable limit on compensation in proceedings relating to clause 12. We accept that.
On the more important issue of public interest relating to the new clause, the Secretary of State made a persuasive case, but I have a question and a couple of comments. As I understand the Secretary of State, the circumstances under that new clause are confined to matters of public disclosure or health and safety disclosure and do not apply to other compensation or special awards relating to, for example, trade union participation or otherwise. We had an interesting debate in Committee, in which I made the point that one of the possible side effects of the Government's proposals for special awards would be to reduce the level of compensation in particular cases. That remains the case under these proposals, apart from the two specific provisions.
On the substance of the matter, the Secretary of State responded, second time around, to the concerns about small businesses expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which I intended to voice myself. It is, perhaps, significant that the examples that the Secretary of State cited to the House were disasters which should never have happened involving large corporations. Although such companies might not welcome an unlimited claim for damages, they certainly would not find it difficult to pay a damages claim limited to £40,000 or £50,000 and they might be able to stand the rap for a fairly substantial fine. That would be much more difficult for a small concern.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that it will be within the power and competence of a tribunal to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the degree of culpability and the resources of the firm--in other words, whether it will be bust by an unlimited award. I imagine, as the Secretary of State hopes, that that is not likely to happen frequently.
Another point that needs to be clarified is proportionality. In any case, the tribunal will consider the proportionality of the circumstances and will not automatically be required to set a compensatory award above, for example, what would be the limit for other cases of unfair dismissal. It would have regard to the circumstances, how bad the offence was and how much the metaphorical whistle had to be blown. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his response to the debate?
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth):
I begin by declaring an interest--an active though not registerable one. I was a trustee--I am still a member of the council of management--of the charity Public Concern at Work, which, along with the hon. Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), did so much to get the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 on the statute book.
I welcome the new clause very strongly, as I know does Public Concern at Work. The proposal to remove the limit on compensation payments for whistleblowers was widely and strongly welcomed and backed by a range of consultees, including the CBI, the Trades Union Congress and a number of key professional groups.
It takes special courage and a special person to blow the whistle on malpractice in the workplace. They often suffer loss of a job, an income and career prospects--not to mention isolation, pressure and sometimes intimidation, especially in the early stages of making such a move. The cases of Maxwell, Barlow Clowes, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and a host of lower profile and smaller examples of whistleblowing underline the need for people to be able to report malpractice with confidence. Any cap on compensation would have limited the effectiveness of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to do the job that we need it to do.
The new clause means that middle managers in industry, doctors in the national health service and even civil servants in Whitehall will be properly protected if they raise and pursue their concerns responsibly. To that extent, the new clause sends out strong encouragement to those who might be considering blowing the whistle on malpractice where they work. I welcome the same provision for health and safety representatives, which simply underlines the importance of health and safety in the workplace.
I had thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was poised to make an announcement on the commencement of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It is important that an announcement be made in good time--at least a couple of months before we propose that the PIDA comes into force--not least to give diligent employers time to put in place proper internal procedures. I hope that my right hon. Friend might later today be able to announce in the House when the Act will commence. I leave him with this thought: the Act was enacted on 2 July 1998. Would it not be fitting if we marked its first anniversary with commencement?
Mr. Shepherd:
My thunder has been stolen by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), because he made the points that I would also make. I pay great tribute to the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who throughout discussions on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill was a Trojan worker for a sense of justice in this very important area.
As the hon. Member for Wentworth said, it is extremely difficult for honourable people to surrender what might be their family's income by disclosing something for which the Act offers protection: a disclosure that is in the public interest. The public interest is the wider interest of us all, as a society.
It is right that the Government were very nervous about extending compensation along the lines of that available for race or sexual incidents. I am very pleased that, on reflection, they have taken on board the work of the charity behind much of the campaign. The Solicitor- General was also a trustee of that charity. A wide body of opinion had formed behind the campaign. At any time, my Front-Bench team could have stopped the Public Interest Disclosure Bill becoming law. I therefore pay tribute to them, too.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |