Employment Bill [Lords]

I, too, am in some difficulty, in the sense that when one weighs up a Bill, as amended, on Third Reading, one has to reflect on the processes by which we have arrived at the Bill as amended. I was pleased to hear the tribute that the Minister paid to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am also delighted to hear that he is pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman anytime for a cup of tea and a discussion about important issues. That no doubt includes new clauses 12 and 13, which were not reached and which concern matters to which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) alluded in a point of order. We are in a difficult position. Do I believe that the process by which we have arrived at the Bill as amended is right? If the House cannot debate whole areas of a Bill, how can I attest that it has been properly constructed? The guillotine, over which we have no control, was designed in such a way that matters that pertain directly to the Bill, such as open justice on tribunal cases, were never debated in Committee or even reached here, because of the constraints of the guillotine motion on Report. That is why I have to weigh up whether the process is sufficiently legitimate to enable me to support the Bill. There will be many people outside the Chamber who will not understand how we cannot discuss matters that relate directly to the contents of a Bill. Tribunals being open and their processes being known are fundamental principles of English justice. The Government—or rather, the preceding Department—wiped that out with a statutory instrument. The right hon. Member for Makerfield said that the Minister had invited him to tea when he was the lead Minister on those parts of employment law that relate to public interest disclosure. He said that it was crucial to put in the public domain things that would otherwise have remained secret—that was about corporate governance, employment and the protection of people. None of that was allowed to be debated, however, because of a guillotine. In the past four weeks the House has conducted hardly any business, because the Government entirely control the timetable and the nature of the business that comes before us. They presented the House with a glorious opportunity to look at key issues of employment law, but that opportunity has now gone. What we needed, at least on Third Reading, was some form of undertaking that justice should be open. The retreat from open justice by this Government is becoming a scandal. I will not oppose the Bill, because I believe that there is sufficient provision in it to justify supporting it, but I regret deeply that we cannot discuss matters that are relevant to all our constituents, from wherever we come. That is shaming to the House.