§ 5.26 p.m.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Your Lordships will remember that I introduced this Bill last May and that all stages of the Bill had been completed by the end of June in your Lordships' House. The Bill was then introduced in another place, but the pressure of Parliamentary business was such that it had to be withdrawn, so I am now presenting it to the House for a second time. In June we discussed the rather complex and not always easy principles and details of the Bill meticulously. We spent an hour and a half on the Second Reading, three and a half hours in Committee, and an hour and a quarter at the Report stage. We made some real improvements to the Bill and sent it forward in a form which we hoped would be acceptable to another place.
I do not know to what extent your Lordships want to go into detail at this second presentation of the Bill. It seemed to me that the best thing I could do on a Second Reading would be to introduce the Bill very briefly and to be prepared, in winding up the debate, to go into any problems or details that your Lordships might have raised. So few speakers have put down their names that I am inclined to think this will be an acceptable course. I do not want to floga dead horse, but on the other hand I do not want to steamroller the Bill past your Lordships. I hope this course will meet with approval.
As to the Bill itself, as your Lordships will remember, it is based on the most excellent Report of the Working Party under the chairmanship of Mr. van Straubenzee, the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to promote equality of opportunity in employment and occupation in Northern Ireland between people of differing religious beliefs and to work to the 799 elimination of discrimination which the Bill makes unlawful. Since the Bill was last before your Lordships some minor and technical Amendments have been made, but these in no way alter its principles. There have been more significant Amendments, however, in Clauses 3, 12, 20, 22 and 42, and I will refer to these later.
Part I (Clauses 1 and 2, and Schedule 1) deals with the establishment of a Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland, is concerned with its functions and operation, and provides for the members of the Agency to be appointed by the Head of the Department of Manpower Services. I should like to repeat here the assurance that I gave last time, that the Department will normally consult with representatives of employers and employees in making these appointments.
Part II (Clauses 3 to 15, with Schedules 2 to 5) is concerned with the promotion and provision of equality of opportunity. This is the cornerstone of the Bill. It is defined in Clause 3 and has been widened since its last appearance to take into account the activities of employment agencies and persons providing training services. The main job of the Agency will be to encourage employers to adopt employment practices which provide equality of opportunity. Because legal action is unlikely to alter attitudes, it is only as a last resort that cases should be referred to the courts. The first function of the Agency must be to explain, to help and to conciliate. Clause 5 requires the Department to prepare and publish, A Guide to Manpower Policy and Practice, and once again may I repeat the assurance given in the last Session that representatives of employers and employees will be consulted in its preparation.
Clauses 6 to 10 deal with the Declaration of Principle and Intent which we hope employers and vocational organisations will sign as a voluntary declaration of commitment to the principle of full equality of employment opportunity and the rejection of discrimination. A register will be kept; failure to keep to the spirit of the declaration will lead to removal from it; the register will be available for inspection to the public. The remaining clauses of Part II relate to further positive functions of the 800 Agency in inquiring into the existence or otherwise of equality of opportunity. It will be able to investigate the employment practices of any employer in order to discover whether such opportunity is being provided by an individual employer or in an area of employment. The Agency is required to remedy any faults it may find by conciliation but, failing this, may issue directions to correct any offending practice. Provision is made for a Fair Employment Appeals Board for hearing appeals against directions. The Agency will, in the last resort, be able to obtain an order from the court to enforce its directions.
I turn now to Part III, Clauses 16 to 32 and Schedule 5, which deal with unlawful discrimination. As I said before, an amendment has been made to Clauses 20 and 22 to make discrimination unlawful also for employment agencies and persons providing training. The Agency is required to investigate complaints made by individuals and to take action on their behalf by conciliatory action or, ultimately, through the courts. The individual cannot himself take legal action. Part IV deals with other unlawful acts, in particular the publication of advertisements which could reasonably be understood to indicate the intention to do an act which is unlawful under Part III.
Part V of the Bill specifies a number of exceptions to the scope of Part II. They include employment as a clergyman or priest, cases where a person's religious belief or political opinion is a genuine occupational requirement for a particular job, and employment in a private household. Clause 42 has been modified after further consideration and taking into account views expressed here and elsewhere. The position in this clause now is that the Secretary of State has power to disapply the Bill to particular acts after they have been done, but only if their purpose was to safeguard national security or to protect public safety or public order. In this Part exception is made of small firms. Firms employing 25 or fewer people will be exempted for the first two years, and firms employing 10 or fewer will be excepted for a further year after the Bill comes into force. Part VI deals with miscellaneous matters, including the Bill's application to the Crown, Her Majesty's Forces, the police and other public bodies. Clause 801 59 enables different parts of the Bill to be brought into operation at different times.
My Lords, this is a long and complex Bill—but one that is, we believe, com-prehensive—designed to deal with a very difficult and complicated problem in the unique context of Northern Ireland. It is tiresome, after our thorough discussions last time, that I have had to bring it once again before your Lordships. It would be foolish to expect that on its own it will produce equality of opportunity for all in Northern Ireland, but we hope and believe that this piece of legislation will provide both a lead and guide for a sustained voluntary effort, together with a solid framework of administration and legal support where it is needed. It will in the Government's view play a constructive and far-reaching part in the achievement of full equality of employment opportunity in Northern Ireland, to which objective your Lordships have already given assent.
We all hope, I am sure, that one day the change in attitudes, which is really more important than a change in actions, may grow, and perhaps this Bill will provide one element in that growth. I hope that my shorthand explanation of the Bill will satisfy noble Lords, but as I have already said I shall be happy to go into any further detail required in my winding-up speech. I commend the Bill to tile House and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
§ 5.35 p.m.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, this Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House in the previous Session. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has reminded us, there was a full Committee and Report stage, and the Bill is now being introduced again with very little alteration to the drafting. If I may say so, I do not think the noble Lord is guilty of the crime of either flogging or steam-rollering; I think he has given us enough information to remind us exactly of the terms of the Bill and, as he has said very fairly, if noble Lords wish to take matters further we have every right to do so and he will, as I understand it, be there to try to answer the debate.
802 My Lords, the original decision to bring forward legislation was prompted, as the noble Lord has said, by the Report of the Working Party on Discrimination in the Private Sector, which was under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. van Straubenzee; it was a unanimous Report from a committee representing all sides of industry in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I support the main principle and the intentions of the Bill.
The main criticism of the effects of the Bill, as put forward from these Benches in the last Session, was that under Part III an employer in Northern Ireland could be placed in a very difficult position if some of his employees were to try to force him to discriminate against other employees. However, that matter was debated in some detail, and I do not think it would be right to return to the same point yet again in this House. Another point which was, I think, of considerable importance was the matter of small firms, which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and other noble Lords would have liked to have taken further than the van Straubenzee Committee recommended. I have no doubt the noble Lord will be referring to this subject in the speech which he will be making on this Second Reading, and I hope that this is a subject which might be looked at again in another place.
I should like to thank the Government for the revised drafting of Clause 4(2), which now requires one of the three members of the Appeals Board to be legally qualified, a matter which, I think, on Third Reading in the last Session was accepted by the Government. I am sure, also, that Clause 8 has been improved by making it permissible now for the Appeals Board to have regard to the Guide to Manpower Policy and Practice when an appeal is being considered against the removal of a name from the register. Before this debate I had hoped that the undertakings which the noble Lord was good enough to give in the previous Session would hold good, and it is clear from his speech that this is so. The noble Lord may remember that there was complete agreement between both sides of the House that quotas are no solution to the problem of fair employment in Northern Ireland, but we did not agree as to how this 803 should best be provided for in the Bill. On Report, the noble Lord undertook that the objection to quotas should be recorded in the Guide, and I would be grateful if this could still be done. The noble Lord has been good enough to repeat today the undertakings given, also, about consultations before the Guide is drafted and before the Agency is appointed.
I have one question, my Lords, which perhaps ought to wait until Committee stage, but perhaps it will be to the convenience of the House if I put it now. Clause 42 provides exemption from the provisions of the Bill on grounds of national security. But the revised wording omits the provision which was in the first drafting of the Bill; that is, that the Secretary of State can give any general authorisation. This is, of course, a tighter constraint than was formerly envisaged, and I am rather concerned about its possible effect. If a company commander, for instance, serving in Northern Ireland is appointing a civilian to carry out domestic duties within the quarters in which his company is billeted, will the officer concerned really have to get a specific written authorisation in order to be allowed to take into account considerations which could be essential from a security point of view in appointing someone, but which could perhaps amount to unfair discrimination under this Bill?
It would be possible for this Bill to be handled by a Northern Ireland Legislature. However, in the circumstances, I am sure that it is right for the Bill to be introduced again now by the Government. Discrimination in Northern Ireland is—.I think I am right in saying—by no means as widespread as it is sometimes assumed. Indeed, by and large, the Province has reason to be proud of its industrial relations record. For the problems which exist this Bill will not provide every answer; but it is a step in the right direction.
§ 5.42 p.m.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, like the rest of your Lordships, for his concise summing-up of the Bill and the changes made since last May. The noble Lord will not be surprised that my enthusiasm for Bills of this nature in 804 general and this one in particular is no greater than it was six months ago. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which I deployed on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill on the 19th May this year, although in my submission they remain as valid as ever. But I should like your Lordships to consider this. The key theme of the Bill purports to be fairness. The word "fair" appears naturally enough in the Title and frequently throughout the various clauses of the Bill. I have always liked to think that what is or what is not fair should be fairly easily assessed objectively, in contrast to such pseudo-concepts as "social justice" which can only be evaluated subjectively.
As I think I have mentioned before, "social justice" means a thousand different things to a thousand different people. But given that we can all agree more or less on what is fair most of us, and indeed the public at large, would find no difficulty in agreeing that job discrimination on the grounds of religion alone is nearly always wrong. I say "nearly always wrong" because one can think of certain situations where people's religious attitude, for instance towards divorce, birth control, contraception, Sunday observance, the consumption of alcoholic drinks and so on, may influence consciously or unconsciously their attitudes to their work. In this connection it is true that Clause 37 makes a few exceptions, but only partial ones.
However, I would contend that discrimination on purely religious grounds, that is to say grounds unconnected with actual or assumed political opinions, has gradually eroded of its own accord year by year over the past 40 years and particularly over the past 15 years, and today it is scarcely a problem as such. I should have preferred what I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. referred to as "changing attitudes" to take their course rather than to introduce the heavy hand of bureaucracy into this; but in one or two isolated instances this Bill, in so far as purely religious discrimination goes, may push things on a little, and I have no inherent objection to this aspect as such.
My Lords, the sticking point seems to be political discrimination. Is it really self-evident that this is also always, in every case, immoral? In the rest of the 805 United Kingdom politics do not loom very large in the life of the average man in the street. On a local level issues such as sewerage rates, provision of nursery school places, et cetera, may occasionally come to the fore, and in General Election terms there is a little excitement once every five years or so, but politics generally is very much at the back of most people's minds—except of course for your Lordships and those in another place. However, things are not this way and never have been this way in Northern Ireland where politics mean far more. Long before the present troubles started politics devolved round the issue of national identity. What is more fundamental than one's nationality, or one's national identity? In the recent seven years or so things have gone much further than that, so that issues of life or death are now inextricably bound up with politics.
Is it fair that an employer, or a man working on the factory bench, in London, Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham, Aldershot or Guildford could legally be reluctant to employ, or refuse to work alongside, somebody who has expressed verbal sympathy for the IRA, or for any of the other terrorist organisations; and yet those in Northern Ireland who have suffered far worse from the activities of bombers and terrorists should be denied the right to do so? It is not only passive sympathy that one thinks about. I think that we established in Committee in June that men who were released from prison after committing terrible crimes would nevertheless have to be employed if they were suitably qualified. In ideal, peaceful, tranquil, well-ordered, liberal society it is a fine and charitable thing to give employment to ex-convicts however great their crimes might have been. Indeed in Northern Ireland people do and have done. One thinks of the case of Joe Cahill who was convicted of murdering a policeman, reprieved, released and then given a job in that alleged bastion of bigoted Protestant trade unionism, the Harland and Wolff shipyards: but that was done voluntarily. Is it right that people should be forced, rather than simply encouraged, to employ such people? It seems to me that for a devolved Assembly to enact differential legislation of this sort is one thing; but for Westminster to impose coercive, restrictive legislation on one part of the 806 United Kingdom and not impose it on people in the rest of the United Kingdom seems insensitive, to say the least.
My Lords, from the general briefly to the particular: I would be a super-optimist to have supposed this Bill would contain many of the Amendments that I should have liked to see when it left this House last time. I am glad that Clause 42 (which was Clause 39 previously) has been amended. That is an improvement. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, that we may be able to do something in Committee about the smaller employers.
§ 5.49 p.m.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their friendly acceptance of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I think has very little criticism of it. Over the question of employees we took up the matter with the Northern Ireland Council of Trade Unions, as the noble Lord asked us, over the Larne case. I do not know whether I wrote to the noble Lord on this but the result was rather negative; they thought it better to do nothing about it. The noble Lord has not raised the matter again; but that was the answer that I got.
Over the small firms—a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, also raised —I do not think we can go further than we have gone. I explained last time that out of 30,000 firms, 24,000 are small by this definition. If you cut out the small firms you cut out the Bill. It seems to me that what we have done—which is to have a phased introduction; first of all, the big firms and then, after two years, the small firms and then, after three years, the firms which are smaller still—is a reasonable way of proceeding. It gives us every opportunity to look at the situation again in the light of experience, and I shall be disappointed if noble Lords press in Committee for alteration, because the present situation is flexible enough to meet anything which may arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, confirmed what we have said repeatedly in past debates. Whatever else we want to see, we do not think quotas are the answer. The Government are absolutely clear on that. The van Straubenzee 807 Report was clear and the House is, too. The answer that firms must employ so many Catholics and Protestants is not a starter, and is not the view of the Government or the effect of the Bill. The explanation for Clause 42, which has been changed, and about which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked, is that when the Bill left the House last, Clause 39 (which is now Clause 42) provided that the Secretary of State could authorise that the Bill would not apply to acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, protecting public safety or public order, either in respect of specific acts of discrimination or on the basis of a general authorisation which would apply to a complete area of employment.
What was in mind was that the Ministry of Defence in Northern Ireland might obtain an authorisation for the disapplication of the Bill to all its employment practices. During the summer we have consulted with a number of people and reflected about it further. We have come to the conclusion that to allow general disapplication of this kind would be contrary to the spirit of the Government's intention to apply the Bill across the board, and in particular its disapplication should be more properly exercised post facto. This is a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised last time, and I tried to shoot him down on it. But I am now taking his view more carefully. Under Clause 42, as now drafted, the Bill will not apply in cases where the employer can prove he discriminated for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order.
It will not be necessary to obtain the Secretary of State's authority for disapplication of the Bill in individual cases before the act of discrimination in such cases is committed. Therefore general disapplication of the Bill will not be possible. The Secretary of State will be able to issue his authorisation for the Bill not to apply after the event. For example, if the Army were to discriminate against a Left-Wing or Right-Wing anarchist who applied for a post as tele-phonist in a secure headquarters, it would not be unreasonable for the Secretary of State then to authorise disapplication of the Bill, and thus prevent its investigation by the Agency. Another 808 example would be where an applicant for a job with a firm building highly secret naval equipment was a member of a seditious political organisation, and was refused employment on that account. The Secretary of State would no doubt wish to authorise the disapplication of the Bill, should the Fair Employment Agency seek to investigate that case. The object is always to protect sources of information, which is obvious to noble Lords, and I hope that they will find this modification reasonably satisfactory.
I did not expect the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to turn into an admirer of the Bill; but I am pleased the long, hard summer has not made him more hostile. His attitude towards it, on the whole, was very friendly. The matter of religious discrimination, he said, is scarcely a problem. Frankly, this is not the case in Northern Ireland. It is not true in any sense to say it is scarcely a problem. It is a very large problem indeed, and let nobody think otherwise.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, may I explain? I referred to religious discrimination divorced from any political context; religious discrimination pure and simple without any political connotations.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, if the noble Lord is able to effect this divorce, he is cleverer than most of us. The two things are inextricably mixed. This is a real evil; the two factors in the Community evaluate it differently. The minority think it is worse than the majority and that is what you would expect. I do not think anybody denies that it exists. But I take the noble Lord's point.
Political discrimination has to come in because otherwise if you found that a man employed only Protestants in an area which had a number of skilled Catholic workers, he could get out of it by saying, "They all belong to the SDLP; you do not expect me to employ them." So we have to have political discrimination. The danger of this can be enormously exaggerated. If, for example—I think the noble Lord gave this example last time —you have a Jew having to employ a member of the National Front, the answer to that is that it is a very extreme case. The chances of a member of the 809 National Front not having some disagreeable affiliations which could be quoted as a good reason for not employing him are very small. On the other hand, people like Engels and philosophical anarchists all through history have been employed, and have not turned against their firms.
One must not say that the mere holding of a belief is a reason for not employing somebody. It is a fairly tricky point, but I am prepared to stand on that. If a hundred years ago a man said, "I am an atheist ", it was regarded as an argument for not employing him. But it is not now. If a man today says," I am a Communist", I want to know, first of all, whether he is a Party member. If he is, then I want to know whether he accepts orders from the Party because, if so, this may not be convenient for me. If he says that he never goes to meetings and has no connection with them, but that he holds a theoretical belief, then one can employ him. This is a subtle and difficult point; of course I appreciate the difficulty in the noble Lord's mind. I do not think that we can burke it. We cannot legislate against religious discrimination in Northern Ireland if we allow the getaway of saying that it was only political so it does not count. We have to deal with this with the difficulties involved.
I would only repeat what I said several times in our previous discussion; that is, that the effectiveness of this Bill depends 810 on whether or not the Agency is any good. If the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Belstead, and I were the three people concerned, we should have no difficulty in deciding which was a case where the employer could not reasonably be asked to take a man up, and which was a case where a man had extreme views but had never shown the faintest sign of doing anything about them. He may be a perfectly innocent man with a wife and seven children, and the whole thing may be all right. One has to hope that the Agency will do the same.
I do not think there is anything more that I want to say, except to thank your Lordships for allowing me to go so far as I have towards putting this Bill through again. The reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State took it out of the Parliamentary process in the summer was that he thought it was extremely important that the Northern Ireland Members in the other place should have plenty of time to discuss it, and he could not get the necessary time. Now they will have the time to discuss it. We have prepared it in a serviceable form, and I am grateful to noble Lords for their help.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ House adjourned at six o'clock