HC Deb 09 December 1976 vol 922 cc816-25

1.0 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon)

I beg to move, That the Industrial Relations (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th November 1976 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. All the usual consultations have taken place or have been offered on the order.

Hon. Members will recall that in the last Session the House approved the first Industrial Relations Order. That order implemented those recommendations of the Review Body on Industrial Relations in Northern Ireland which required legislation and also began the process of bringing the law of Northern Ireland relating to industrial relations into line with that in Great Britain. In proposing the approval of that order, my predecessor declared that it was Government policy that workers in Northern Ireland should enjoy the rights introduced by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts 1974 and 1976 and the Employment Protection Act 1975 no less than their counterparts in Great Britain. The further implementation of that policy is the purpose of the draft order.

It will be in the spirit of that policy and, as I understand it, for the convenience of the House if I conclude my speech now.

1.2 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

Parity is a popular phrase in these debates and there is general agreement in the House that there should be as much parity as possible in policy and administration between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The order is concerned with industrial relations. I sometimes think that if there were more parity in Great Britain with the usually cordial industrial relations for which Northern Ireland is celebrated it would be good for the whole Kingdom and its strugging economy.

The Northern Ireland strike rate is still half that of Great Briain, though there has been a deterioration lately and we must not imagine that industrial relations in the Province are perfect. The Labour Relations Agency has already been intervening in a company's affairs.

The review body with which this legislation originated recommended that Any changes introduced into the arrangements for the conduct of industrial relations in Northern Ireland should be specifically designed for, and thus subject to, local needs and conditions. Many firms operating in Northern Ireland are based in Great Britain, and, quite apart from the general principle of parity, there is advantage for their managements in the parity of machinery and procedures laid down in the order.

On the other hand, the order imposes on Northern Ireland the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975. When that measure was being considered, the Opposition objected to the heavy burden imposed on British industry, which, in a sense, is fighting for survival. Our objections seem to apply even more forcefully across the sea.

The order is of the magnitude of the Act in Great Britain, yet we are passing it in a few minutes. We cannot amend it, the time allowed for debate is derisory, and we have to consider it late at night.

I shall not rehearse the arguments put forward by the Opposition on the last order, except to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has described as a dose of Socialist medicine for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend warned the Province of what was coming to it.

It has not been clear so far what importance the Government attach to the Quigley Report. We have had no move to have the matter debated in the House or even in the Northern Ireland Committee. Part 11 of the Quigley Report is devoted to industrial costs, and the handicap of energy and transport costs being higher in Northern Ireland than those obtaining elsewhere in the United Kingdom runs as a theme through the Review Body's report on an economic and industrial strategy for Northern Ireland.

Is it not surprising that a Labour Government are not more wary of imposing conditions that may result in employers being compelled to lay men and women off, or put them on short-time working, and might that not discourage potential investors? That does not seem to me to be employment protection, but to be more a matter of unemployment creation.

The Minister of State who was at the Northern Ireland Office and who has since been translated to the Department of Health and Social Security introduced the previous order. In so doing he admitted that it will lead to increased costs. I cannot indicate the extent of the costs but they will be of an order that can be met. How did the hon. Gentleman know? Furthermore, does the present Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office agree with his hon. Friend? I fear that in some cases the costs will be met by short-time working, unemployment and possibly even by bankruptcy.

I turn to the provisions in Article 3(2)(a) in relation to bargaining and wages and conditions of work in comparison with other employees. That hardly squares with the aim expressed by the former Minister of State, who said in the same debate on 10th June, at col. 1811: the survival of Northern Ireland's economy depends on the success of the British Government's counter-inflation policy and of the action on wage costs".—[Official Report, 10th June 1976; Vol. 912, c. 1847, 1811.] That is the policy as it applies to Northern Ireland.

I seek clarification of one word in the article—namely, the word "district" Does "district" refer to the whole of Northern Ireland or to areas within it? It would surely be disastrous if levels of comparison were more widely extended. Our aim should be a high-wage, high-productivity economy for Northern Ireland, but that is not immediately within sight. If the Government further narrow the gap in wage levels—a gap which has already narrowed considerebly during the last decade—Ulstermen and women may stand to lose their jobs, thousands may see their prospects of employment fade and the industrial revival of Northern Ireland will be retarded.

Industrial relations in Northern Ireland have hitherto been an example to the United Kingdom. To improve further on that proud record should be the common purpose of this House. The courage of Ulster workers, whether in management or on the shop floor, whether in the public or private sector, who toil through terror and destruction, deserve better than the legislative importation from the mainland of some of the ingredients of industrial strife.

It seems to me that the order erects an unbalanced framework of industrial relations. It is the sort of legislation which is part of the tribute paid by the party in power to its paymasters. Therefore, it is the Opposition's duty to record that we fear that the order may place obstacles in the way of the attainment of the object which it is intended to secure.

1.9 a.m.

Mr. McCusker (Armagh)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) reminded us that the first Industrial Relations Order relating to Northern Ireland was a dose of Socialism for the Province. I presume he was implying that this was a second dose of Socialism for Northern Ireland, but I caution him when in the same breath he appears to recommend the Quigley Report and its recommendations. If the two orders are doses of Socialism, the Quigley Report could be considered to be a course of treatment. It might be acceptable to me and to some of my hon. Friends, but I should not have thought that it would be as acceptable to the hon. Member and to some of his Friends. We should be careful not to make comments such as that with regard to an order of this sort and almost recommend what is contained in the Quigley Report.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not express any view at all on the Quigley Report. I merely referred to it. I did not express a view either for it or against it.

Mr. McCusker

That might well be the case, but the frequency with which it was referred to in the earlier debate this evening would certainly have been directed towards getting the Government to take some cognisance of it and to bring it forward for debate, and that would imply implementing some of its recommendations. Those recommendations could not by any standard be considered as other than strong doses of Socialism. Therefore, we should be careful in regard to this matter.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's reference to the way that the legislation has been handled. That is a point that my hon. Friends and I have made again and again. It is a pity that workers in Northern Ireland have been deprived for between 12 and 18 months of rights and privileges which have been accorded to their fellow workers in the rest of the United Kingdom simply because of the system of legislating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made this very clear when he said: I am sorry that the Government do not see their way clear to stick rigidly to the principle of uniformity for the whole of the United Kingdom. Many of us have very little objection to uniformity if the Minister could guarantee us step-by-step legislation. If Northern Ireland had been included within the ambit of the two measures to which reference was made, we, the Members from Northern Ireland, could have made a much more positive contribution to the debate. It would have brought workers in Northern Ireland much more into line with the workers in the United Kingdom.

I welcome the order to the extent that it gives to the people in Northern Ireland the same rights and privileges as those of our fellow citizens and brings us back into the main stream of thinking in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—I am sorry that he is not with us, because he normally makes a positive contribution in these matters—said in that same debate that he welcomed every comma, sentence and clause in the Bill".—[Official Report, 10th June 1976; Vol. 912, c. 1834, 1829.] He said that he was looking forward to what he would say about this order.

I do not want to go into the detail of the order but wish simply to restate my objection to the one section. I am now doing this for the fourth time. If a young married woman who is working decides to have a family, that is a responsibility which she and her husband accept, and I do not think it is any part of an employer's duty to compensate, reward or assist her in that respect. It may well be that the Government believe that married women require compensation if they decide to have children and that we should thereby introduce some system of payment into our State system of benefits.

I do not think it is any responsibility of an employer to compensate or reward a young married woman for having a child. I do not think it is any part of an employer's responsibility to promise her security of employment if she is prepared to come back to work six months after she has had the child, and to leave the child to the tender mercies of a child-minder. We know only too well the problems created in Northern Ireland by latch-key children and by children who do not have the benefit of the protection offered to them by the mother being present in the home.

I objected to this portion of the legislation during the debate on the Employment Protection Act and also when we had the first order relating to Northern Ireland. I object to it again now. It is wrong in principle and I do not think we should have it. Apart from that, I am glad that we have this order and that it completes the package of industrial relations legislation for Northern Ireland.

Article 16 of the No. 1 order gives the Minister power to transfer the conciliatory role from the Manpower Services Commission to the Agency. The Minister's predecessor said that he would have to make a decision on this quite soon. I argued at the time that it was useful for the Government to have a foot in both camps and to have the high standing in both camps which they have at the moment. To remove that role from the Manpower Services Commission would deprive it of that contact. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can tell us whether any decision has been made in that respect.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker): We should prefer legislation of this nature to be taken properly with legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. We are in the position that we cannot amend. We cannot do anything to help this measure. We can only pass comments on it before it passes into law.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) must know that when a Socialist Government were in power in the United Kingdom Northern Ireland had to accept the legislation that they introduced. The so-called Conservative Government in Stormont rubberstamped it. They passed every letter of it, every comma of it, every semicolon of it and every dash of it. If the electors of the United Kingdom elect a Labour Government and that Government, by their authority in the House, pass legislation, all sections of the community, irrespective of whether they are Conservative, have to accept the laws of Parliament.

I welcome everything that safeguards the right of the employee. I also welcome all legislation that helps the employer and brings forward a good relationship between employee and employer. Northern Ireland has a good record in this area and I do not see anything in this measure that will militate against it. We may have our own philosophies—for example, the hon. Member for Epping Forest will have far stronger Tory philosophies than mine—but our concern is that this is not the way in which legislation should be brought forward.

One matter to which I must refer is to be found in Article 60, on page 39 of the order, where it is said: The Head of the Department shall be the appropriate Northern Irish authority". To my recollection, I have never before seen that reference in any legislation. It has always been "Northern Ireland Authority". If the Minister turns to the next page he will find that it is not the Northern Irish Maternity Pay Fund or the Northern Irish Redundancy Fund, those two funds being prefixed "Northern Ireland".

I shall not give the Minister a lecture on the way that "Northern Irish" is used, but it is used by those who believe in a united Ireland and talk about North Irish people. During the past week we have heard talk about Irish people, never about the people of Northern Ireland or the Ulster people. We believe that we are Britishers and part of the United Kingdom, and we are here to maintain that link with the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Minister will take up this matter. I know that he cannot do anything about it, but I am highlighting it in the expectation that we shall have some explanation. Please let us have "Northern Ireland authority". Let us not allow Republican phraseology to creep into these measures. I feel sorely tempted to speak at length on this matter but I shall forbear from doing so. I know that the Minister was in my constituency today, and I hope that his visit will be helpful to the workers in the constituency.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Concannon

On that last matter, obviously I give full marks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He has read through the order and has picked out the phrase "Northern Irish", instead of "Northern Ireland". All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is "Well done". I shall write to him explaining why that phrase is included. When making inquiries of this kind, I usually find that there is some history behind such phrases. But I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the explanation.

There is always great dissatisfaction in introducing an order of this kind. I have stressed it myself on many occasions. But, within the confines in which we work, I have been careful to make sure that all the consultation processes possible have been gone through, and I have given opportunities for other people to come and talk to me. We have been able to explain and to iron out some of the problems, and in general terms the order is acceptable and welcome to the work force in Northern Ireland.

Article 16, of course, was promised by my predecessor, and I had to take it on board. Here again, without wishing to present a fait accompli to any side, I am in consultations with both sides about it. I have met one side. I have now to meet the other side to discuss how a system can be worked out between the two sides embracing what they require and what is required within the Department. If we can come to a mutual arrangement, I think that that is the best way to proceed.

I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that industrial relations in Northern Ireland are good. It is one of my best selling points when I am trying to counter some of the bad publicity that we have in Northern Ireland as I travel round. It is always surprising to industrialists to be told how good industrial relations are in the Province, in terms of the number of shifts lost per thousand workers and so on. Compared with the United Kingdom figure, in Northern Ireland it is usually half.

But I think that the hon. Member for Epping Forest has a bit of a nerve. I like to think that the reason for the good industrial relations in Northern Ireland is not concerned with the dose of Socialism that it has at present or is contemplating having through this order. It is that it missed the dose of Conservatism in 1971. Northern Ireland counts its blessings that it did not experience that poisoning of the industrial relations atmosphere. It missed out, and it has been thankful ever since. This is why we had the Review Body, which could come to different arrangements at that time. But opinions have changed somewhat in discussions, and the important factor now is that the people involved on both sides of industry—though more on one side than on the other—wish to have the same protections as the rest of the United Kingdom.

There are differences in the order. We use different names for different organisations in Northern Ireland. We have the library boards, the education boards and various departments that are known by different names. There are those variations, but those are the only ones. What is more, the fact that we have good industrial relations in Northern Ireland does not mean that we ought not to try to better them.

This order is not the end of the parcel. A No. 3 order will have to be brought forward, and we are in consultation about it. Some of the more legal aspects have to be looked at as well. But this is at a very early stage yet.

The cost of this is a very small percentage—about one-quarter of 1 per cent.—of the wage bill. That is what it has been reckoned at. It is a very small price to pay for industrial peace.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Industrial Relations (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th November 1976 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.