HC Deb 11 June 1976 vol 912 cc1954-65

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 9, line 21, leave out 'provide' and insert 'afford'.

No. 33, in page 9, line 24, leave out from the first 'to' to 'equality' and insert: 'ensure that he takes such action for promoting'.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Mr. McCusker

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 28, at end insert: '(2) The action mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall not include the maintenance of any quota or specific proportion between numbers of employees of different religious beliefs.' In Clause 11 we talked about the duty laid on the agency to keep under review employment trends and patterns in Northern Ireland. In Clause 12 the agency is given specific powers to investigate individual cases where it feels that equality of opportunity is not being provided. The agency is given power to conduct investigations into whether there is absence of equality of opportunity by reference to religious beliefs. In Clause 13 we are dealing with the agency laying upon an individual certain directions to enable him to remedy the situation.

Apart from all the assurances that we were given, we must concede that if an employer in Northern Ireland employs 100 people, 60 Protestants and 40 Catholics, it would not matter whether he was providing equality of opportunity, because, within the terms of the Bill, he could be discriminating left, right and centre. In that case, however, no one could point the finger at him. But in other cases it would be a different matter.

A few months ago one of my constituents, a member of the SDLP, visited me. We had a conversation during which he told me that he employed 55 Catholics. It shocked both myself and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I said "You will be guilty under this legislation of neglecting to give equality of opportunity." The man was shattered beyond belief. In view of all the factors that we have described—the location of his works, the type of employment that he was offering, and the tradition of the industry—that employer did not appear to be offering equality of opportunity. Even though he may not be guilty, other factors are involved. As there will be pressure on people to strike some numerical balance, even though the Bill does not insist upon it, it is important to ensure that a person does not jeopardise his business by giving equality of opportunity and trying to keep a balance in his work force.

In Committee the Minister gave us the categorical assurance: The Government have firmly rejected the two-thirds/one-third concept. It will not work in any form of employment, as we see it. It must be done on the basis of a person having equality of opportunity".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 18th March 1976; c. 256.] Despite that assurance, if it is inherent in the Bill that decisions will be made on the basis of numerical calculations and proportions, undue pressure will be put on employers to keep a balance.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West quoted cases in the Falls Road of employers who find it impossible to keep a balance. We think it is important to remove that pressure from an employer.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

This is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give a satisfactory reply to the argument that has been adduced by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker).

In Committee on 18th March—column 267—I asked the previous Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), how religious belief would be ascertained and how discrimination on the ground of religious belief would be proved. The reply was somewhat vague. We are constantly up against this danger of quotas being set up under this measure. The working party was against quotas and Ministers are against quotas.

The hon. Member for Armagh quoted from the Committee stage to show that the Standing Committee was opposed to quotas. We are assured that the Bill implicitly prevents their being enforced. However, there is a strong case for making this explicit in Clause 13, which, as it stands, could be read as empowering the agency to lay down numerical targets for employers.

Mr. Fitt

This issue was discussed at great length in Committee. Those who took part in the debate recognised that many factors could lead to an industrial establishment having a preponderance of workers of one particular religion. Clearly, the Government thought this provision necessary because of the deep underlying suspicion, highlighted in the report of the van Straubenzee Committee, that there were industrial establishments in Northern Ireland which, unless there were other evidence to refute it, would appear to be indulging in discrimination against people on the ground of religious belief.

The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) was, as usual, selective in the cases, which he quoted. Therefore, he will not be in the least surprised if I am a bit more selective. The figures which I quote will tend to justify my suspicion that in some establishments there would appear to be discrimination.

The hon. Member for Armagh tells of how he met one of his constituents on the Terrace of this House. That constituent was a Catholic engaged in the wine and spirits trade. He told the hon. Member that he had 55 employees and could not get a Protestant to work for him. He was thus forced to employ people of one religion or no religion. It is interesting to observe that after that confidence was divulged to the hon. Member he waited with bated breath until the next sitting of the Committee. Then he raced in, was called, and was able to bring this revelation before the Committee to press his case that there were Catholics in Northern Ireland who seemed to be employing only Catholics.

If the hon. Member wants to be as selective as that let me point out that we have the Belfast shipyard of Harland and Wolff. For many years the facts have been that out of about 10,000 employees at the yard 9,874 have been Protestants and the remainder Catholics. It may be that for geographical reasons Catholics are afraid to walk down the Queen's Road to the shipyard. I do not accept that. It may be that Catholics are afraid to enter such an industrial establishment because there is a preponderance of Protestants and Orangemen there. During the month of July it is certainly not the best place for a Catholic to be working.

It could be that there is an "old boy" network operating in the Orange lodges throughout Northern Ireland which ensures that the brethren get the jobs. One can understand the close relationship that there is, or has been until recent days. Perhaps there may be another, as yet undisclosed factor, which accounts for this Protestant majority. Perhaps it is that an Orangeman is a better fitter, turner, carpenter, or shipwright than a Catholic. I do not think that that is the reason.

I believe that over a period of years the yard has engaged in a deliberate policy of employing people of one religion. It may be that that has been justified. Obviously, within a Northern Ireland context it makes for harmonious relationships, particularly during July, if there are persons of only one religion in the establishment.

No doubt the hon. Member for Armagh will want to refer to the Kennedy and Hughes bakery, on the Falls Road. It may be that it makes for better industrial relations in an establishment if all of those employed are Catholics. This Bill is meant to try to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland will be entitled to employment, if it is available. With the present rate of unemployment, there will be many people, irrespective of religion, who will not have a job.

Mr. MeCusker

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that from the picture he has painted there must be collusion from the top to the bottom in the management at Harland and Wolff? They must all be conniving at this vicious situation. Would it not be advantageous for the shipyard to be included in the nationalisation proposals so that an independent eye could be cast on the management there and, if massive religious discrimination is found, it could be changed? Will the hon. Gentleman give unequivocal support to the suggestion that the Belfast yard should be included in the Government's nationalisation proposals?

Mr. Fitt

Over many years I have said that I want to see the maximum number of people employed at Harland and Wolff, whether they be Protestant or Catholic. I want to see the maximum number of people, irrespective of religion, employed in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman has been greatly inconsistent. He now calls for the inclusion of Harland and Wolff in the Government's proposals, yet he voted against this legislation on Second Reading. A more schizophrenic approach I have never heard of. We all understand that Unionist representatives from Northern Ireland are affected in many ways by schizophrenia. This was a very bad example. People in Northern Ireland should be entitled to gain employment on the grounds of their ability and qualifications.

It is in the interests of Northern Ireland representatives that this matter should be cleared up once and for all. If there is no discrimination, there is certainly the assumption that there has been discrimination. There is a suspicion that certain firms, in the main Protestant, because they have more industrial firms in Northern Ireland than the Catholics, have been practicing discrimination. If this Bill does anything to allay these suspicions and make it clear that there is no discrimination, it will have been worth while.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). In Committee he was arguing in quite the reverse direction. He said then: I turn my remarks specifically to the shipyards. I know that in my own constituency, for example—this will probably please the hon. Member for Armagh—there are firms whose work force is, I believe, 100 per cent. Catholic. There are many reasons for that. It is possible that a fear would be engendered among Protestants to traverse the area of the Falls Road, the Donegal Road or other streets, at present."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 18th March 1976; c. 281.] Then the hon. Member went on to speak about internment. He is always able, by ingenious acts, to bring in these matters. The hon. Member has admitted that there are firms on the Falls Road employing 100 per cent. Roman Catholics. There are reasons for this other than that everyone from top management downwards is making a deliberate decision to discriminate.

The relationship of the families in particular areas has to be borne in mind. We can illustrate that well by referring to the docks in Northern Ireland. There are parts of the docks which are 100 per cent. Protestant and other parts which are 100 per cent. Roman Catholic. This is because the sons of the dockers have automatically gone into the relevant union. It was a family trade.

It is not right to say, when a firm is employing 100 per cent. Roman Catholics or Protestants, that it is deliberately discriminating against a religious denomination. The facts prove that there are many considerations. I do not know where the hon. Member for Belfast, West gets his figures from. Every time he speaks about the Belfast shipyard there seems to be a great fall in the Roman Catholic work force. Soon there will be none at all. I wonder whether that is because we are coming to July and the Roman Catholics are being converted as they pass through these areas. I trust that what has been said today about the Belfast shipyard will not hinder it in completing and, indeed, increasing its work force. I do not intend to develop an argument about how certain people voted, but we shall have an opportunity later to deal with that.

2.30 p.m.

The amendment concerns a matter which is very much in our minds. How do we establish trends? How do we know that an employer is employing members of one section of the community? How can we say to him "In order to achieve the certificate of fair employment, you must employ a certain number of people of a particular religious group"? It was argued in Committee that if there were two applicants for a job and the employer said that he had so many people of one religious denomination and therefore the person who would achieve a balance had the best chance of getting the job, although he might not be best qualified for it, that would not achieve equality of opportunity. That is the point that we are trying to establish.

Mr. Moyle

I agree wholeheartedly with its sentiments, but I intend to resist the amendment. I had better explain how that paradox arises. The essential reason is that, under the Bill as drafted, quotas are illegal. The concept which is written into the Bill in clause after clause is that of equality of opportunity. Every thing in the Bill is based on that foundation.

Hon. Members opposite seem to be fascinated by blocks, quotas, balance and concepts of that sort, whereas the objective of the Bill is to deal with the individual sense of grievance, although in order to assess it we may have to take the social backdrop to the complaint which is under consideration. That was argued by the Government exhaustively in Committee, but we do not seem to have got it across. I do not know whether the reason is that Celts tend to think in tribal terms whereas Anglo-Saxons tend to think in more individual terms. Speaking as a fellow Celt, I find it difficult to understand this concept of tribality.

Let us suppose that an employer decided to solve the problem of employment by employing Protestants as two-thirds of his work force and Catholics as one-third. Let us suppose that 66 people were Protestants and he took them all on, saying "That is my quota of Protestants. From now on I shall take on only Catholics". Let us suppose that the 67th person who turned up was a Protestant well qualified to do the job, was able and willing to do it, and was a good worker and that the management said "No, you cannot have a job with us. This job is for the Catholics. I have 66 Protestants already". That would be illegal under the Bill because the 67th person would not have been given equality of opportunity to do the job which he merited on all considerations of industrial skill, willingness, moral character or anything else of which one can think that is appropriate to filling a job.

Therefore, I resist the amendment. If it were made to this clause, which is concerned with quotas, it would automatically cast doubt on the concept of equality of opportunity wherever else it appeared in the Bill and therefore, to some extent, might import doubt into people's minds, suggesting that perhaps equality of opportunity meant quotas after all. For that reason, in spite of the fact that the sentiments behind the amendment are echoed not only by myself but by the Government—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—I urge the House not to adopt it.

Mr. Powell

The Minister of State realised that he was, in a sense, presenting the House with a paradox when he said that he agreed with and asserted the contents of the amendment, but would not write it into the Bill. As his argument proceeded, we saw more clearly the relevance to this debate of two speeches—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I confess that unintentionally I sometimes do the hon. Member for Belfast, West the injustice of of being unable at first to discern the relevance of his speeches to the amendment under discussion. I am prepared to confess that it happened today, but I also confess that I was wrong because, taken in conjunction, the two speeches resolved the paradox—in a sense, they refute the paradox of the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said that if an employer or anyone else making a decision has a balance in his mind and is attempting to have regard to that balance, he cannot abstain from discriminating between two applicants for a job. Therefore, in that context, the Minister was right in saying that the setting of quotas was, in its nature, discriminatory.

However, the hon. Member for Belfast, West supplied the real background against which the Bill will be read, against which the agency will operate and in which people live and breathe and have their being in Northern Ireland. Not only are there the statistical differences quoted in the House between different firms, but the mere fact of quoting them carries with it the implication that there is or must be discrimination—not quantifiable discrimination, not discrimination which could be eliminated if there were a different percentage, for the hon. Member for Belfast, West is as much opposed to quotas and as much in support of the sentiments of the amendment as is my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker).

What the Minister and the Government overlook is that in real life the numerical balance will be a factor and that there will be immense pressure and expectation that the agency will have regard to numerical balance and that therefore, so far from weakening or contradicting the other provisions of the Bill, a positive prohibition on the agency to establish or have regard to specific numerical balances will be of assistance in achieving what the Government and, indeed, the whole House have in mind.

Perhaps the most drastic way by which I can prove that is by referring to the van Straubenzee Report. It was interesting that as the Committee stage proceeded the difference between the report of the working party and what the Government intended and how they understood the Bill emerged more clearly. I wish to quote a sentence from paragraph 131 of the van Straubenzee Report. The then Minister of State repudiated the paragraph, but it strengthens my argument.

The sentence is: The agency would provide a data-collection facility for employers who wished themselves to have information about the religious affiliations as a management tool. That was written by a working party on whose results this Bill is supposed to be based. It envisaged that the agency could provide a service to employers by telling them "If you would like, we shall inform you of what is the balance between the religious affiliations of your employees so that you can use it as a management tool."

I know that that has been repudiated by the Government. But what I am telling the Government is that it represents the environment in which the agency will be operating, in which it will be expected to operate, and in which its actions and behaviour will be seen—the atmosphere, if one likes, of the interchange of speeches, half jocular, between the hon. Member for Belfast, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh.

I do not believe that it can be maintained that, when a working party dedicated to methods of eliminating discrimination offers its very agency—its fair employment agency—as an agency for collecting information about religious affiliations in a particular firm to be used as a management tool, we can dismiss as contradictory to the theoretical meaning of discrimination, as it is contradictory, the establishment of a quota.

I believe that we have to fortify the agency in resisting the whole quota concept. The statements by the Minister in Committee will be valuable for that purpose. So will the logical deduction drawn by the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box a few minutes ago. But what he has not proved is that there is no need, no value, and no benefit in the Bill carrying, on the face of it, the repudiation which all the speeches have carried.

We are in the typical difficulty approaching the concluding stages of a Bill in the second House to consider it, but sometimes results are obtained by other methods than by carrying amendments or dividing upon amendments. I think that perhaps this debate has brought further clarification of what discrimination means and does not mean in Northern Ireland.

I do not know what the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh will be, having listened to the debate. It is obviously for him to decide. My view would be that we can probably do no more at this stage than record once again verbally from both sides of the House that a quota is a contradiction of equality of opportunity, and regard that as a remit which has come from this House to the agency and a message which will be waiting for it on the doormat when it is set up.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. MeCusker

I agree substantially with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, and I understand the Minister of State's point of view. The Minister, however, gave a rather extreme example. Few employers will be recruiting 100 men, say, taking 66 Protestants and starting from that point. Very few employers employ either 100 per cent. Roman Catholics or 100 per cent. Protestants. Normally there is a preponderance of one religious affiliation or the other. But such an employer will be in a situation where it would appear, on a simple head count of religious beliefs, that he is not offering equality of opportunity.

Suppose that an employer has a vacancy and there are two applicants, one with the religious affiliation of the majority of the workers already employed by the firm and the other with the religious affiliation of the minority, and the majority applicant appears to be the better candidate. In a determination to get equality of opportunity, should the employer offer the job to that person or, considering that he must keep a balance, offer it to the minority applicant?

Mr. Moyle

The solution might be for the employer to give both of them a trade test.

Mr. McCusker

We are getting into the sort of water we were in in Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows that, despite all the selection techniques in the world—all the tests, psychological, practical or trade, all the examinations of academic attainment, and all experience—there still comes a stage where a recruitment officer has to make a decision, and if everything else is equal his decision is almost a hunch as to whether A will be better than B.

There is a pressure on the employer to try to work towards a balance, and while he is moving towards a balance he will be safe. If we empower the agency to investigate the composition of a work force by reference to religious belief, under such pressure the employer, even though inadvertently, will deprive employees of equality of opportunity. That is not what we want him to do, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assertion that that is not what is required by this provision. I regret that he cannot accept the amendment, because it would have put the matter beyond doubt. In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood upon the Notice Paper: No. 35, in page 10, line 4, after "opportunity", insert: 'provided that no such directions shall be more onerous than the undertaking mentioned in subsection (2)'.

Mr. Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Government Amendment No. 37 substantially implements the purpose of Amendment No. 35, I do not propose to move Amendment. No. 35.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 10, line 9, leave out 'provide and insert' 'afford'.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Mr. Concannon

I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 10, line 13, at end insert: 'but the terms of directions contained in a notice served under subsection (2)(ii) which supersede an undertaking shall be such as, in the opinion of the Agency, are not more onerous than the terms of the undertaking'. In view of what was said by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell) when he informed you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he would not move Amendment No. 35, I shall do no more than simply ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 37.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to