HL Deb 18 December 1975 vol 366 cc1620-9

1.50 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord AMHERST OF HACKNEY in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Declaration of commitment to, and intent to implement, principle of equality of opportunity]:

Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 26, leave out ("specifies") and insert ("agrees, after consultation with the intending declarant").

The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I should like to move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendment No. 2. which is consequential. In my opinion—and I accept that it may well be a minority opinion—the declaration in Schedule 3 as at present drafted manages to sound both pompous and melodramatic at one and the same time. Though this may be a minority opinion, I do not suppose that it is a unique one. I suggest that the danger is that many employers who are broadly in sympathy with the general aims of the Bill may refuse, or be reluctant, to sign a declaration on this account.

On a previous occasion I suggested certain modifications to the declaration itself in Schedule 3; for instance, altering the phrase "social justice" to "social harmony", thereby changing the emphasis from moral dogmatism to that of a purely pragmatic method of lowering tension. This at the time was unacceptable to the Government. I am therefore suggesting an alteration in Clause 6(3) which will empower the Agency not to dictate an alternative form to the intending declarant but, after consultation with him, or her, to permit a variation. The emphasis is changed. The word "specifies" implies dictation without consultation. My Amendments would make it clear that this would be agreement, after friendly consultation, that the declaration could be modified if any particular employer had objection to the precise wording. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I do not think that I differ in any material way from what the noble Lord is saying. We regard his Amendment as unnecessary and as putting the onus the wrong way round. We recognise that the sentiment behind the Amendment is probably to enhance the likelihood that more organisations may be encouraged to subscribe to the declaration if they can take an active part in establishing its form, but noble Lords will appreciate that an obligation to consult and to agree in every case would impose a heavy burden on the Agency. As it now stands, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an intending declarant who is concerned about the form of the declaration, which is, in any case, generally in the form recommended by the Van Straubenzee Working Party, from discussing it with the Agency; nor is there any thing in the Bill to prevent the Agency from drawing up the declaration in a form acceptable to the declarant.

The essence of a firm freely signing a declaration of agreement to something cannot be one of compulsion; it must be one of agreement, and this is a part of the whole system of making agreements to observe the guidelines laid down. But this is something quite different from passing to the person who declares in his agreement the exact form in which he should declare it. This must ultimately lie with the Agency. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any would-be declarant from getting in touch with the Agency and saying, "In my particular case I find the words a little awkward, and I should like to change this, that or the other" and discussing this fully and getting the Agency' sagreement. This is not the same thing as saying that the Agency has to agree before it can make a decision.

I do not believe that there is a major difference between us. In so far as there is, I should like the Committee to reject this Amendment because the position as it is in the Bill as it stands seems to me entirely satisfactory. It leaves the final onus where it must inevitably be; with the Agency to say whether a declaration in its particular form is, or is not, acceptable. I do not think that I can take it further than that, and I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.

Lord BELSTEAD

May I say just a word on this Amendment, because the noble Lord, Lord Monson, put in a good deal of work on the Bill when we were looking at it in the summer and feels that he wants to come back to this and also to another point on small businesses. I must confess, speaking from this Bench, that I have sympathy with the noble Lord. I also think that the declaration is rather pompous, but it very much follows the wording of the Van Straubenzee Report, and I think that they thought it out carefully and felt it was difficult to find another form of wording which would be both fair and reasonably accurate. I must say that the effect of this Amendment causes me considerable consternation. For the Agency to discuss in Northern Ireland individually with each organisation the wording of the declaration would be more than just an administrative inconvenience. On those grounds alone I do not think that I could support the noble Lord.

May I add two things. The noble Lord said that this refers to employers. The effect of Clause 6, it is important to remember before this Bill leaves this House, does not just affect employers; it affects organisations of employees, vocational organisations, and other organisations. I do not think that we ought to forget that. Lastly, may I put this point to the noble Lord. My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that the really important part of this important factor in this part of the Bill is not so much the wording of the declaration (I am prepared to go along with that) but the fact that once you have signed the declaration you then go on the Register, and there, for everyone to see, you either are or are not an equal opportunity employer or organisation of employees.

Lord MONSON

I am reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said in so far as he makes it clear that employers, or organisations of workers, or others, may approach the Agency on their own initiative and consult them about this, and that goes a long way towards meeting my point. I still feel that perhaps a slightly higher proportion of employers, or organisations, would sign the agreement if my Amendment were passed, but none the less I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Further attempts at conciliation recommendations]:

2.0 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 3: Page 19, line 27, leave out ("directions") and insert ("recommendations").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to correct an error in the original draft. Clause 26 (6) refers to subsection (5) of the same clause, which concerns recommendations of the Agency, and thus the word "directions" in subsection (6) is inappropriate and the change to "recommendations" is required to correct this. The difference is symbolic rather than material. The word "directions" is used in Part II and the word "recommendations" is used in Part III to distinguish the powers under Parts II and III from one another. The material difference between the words is slight, if any, but for purposes of consistency "recommendations" should be used where the Amendment suggests, rather than "directions". I hope your Lordships will accept this as a necessary drafting Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Excepted employments, etc.]:

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 4: Page 26, line 19, after ("IV") insert (",so far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of religious belief,").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5. The question of religious and political opinion in Parts II and III of the Bill and their relevance has been discussed at great length in our various debates on this subject and I do not propose to go further into the matter at this stage. Having examined the Bill, we have found that there is a loophole for misunderstanding, and this Amendment, with Amendment No. 5, are introduced to explain it. As at present drafted, Clause 37(3) disapplies Parts III and IV of the Bill from, or in relation to, an employment or occupation where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding a particular religious belief or a particular political opinion. Thus, as drafted the Bill would make it possible that even where the essential nature of a job requires it to be done only by a person holding a particular religious belief—for example, a sexton in a church—discrimination on political grounds would not be unlawful.

Conversely, even where the essential nature of a job requires it to be done only by a person holding a particular political opinion—for example, an agent of a political party—discrimination on religious grounds would not be unlawful. Clearly, this is too wide an exception and is anomalous. These Amendments will have the effect of limiting the possibility of discrimination on religious grounds only to cases where the essential nature of the job requires it—for example, the sexton of a church—and of limiting the possibility of discrimination on political grounds only to cases where the essential nature of the job requires it—for example, a political agent. I am sure that this was the intention when we accepted the clause. This Amendment will clear up the position and ensure that the two things cannot be confused.

Lord BELSTEAD

I am sure that this was the intention of the House and I have no intention of opposing this Amendment, which is really a drafting matter. I confess that I am still slightly at a loss to know why Part II does not extend, for example, to a clergyman but is to extend to a sexton of a church. Perhaps the noble Lord would discuss this point with me afterwards.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I should prefer to discuss it with the noble Lord afterwards.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

2.5 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, about which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 22, after ("nor") (",so far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of political opinion,")—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 6: Page 26, line 32, leave out ("year") and insert ("three years").

The noble Lord said: In Committee and on Report of a similar Bill this summer, many noble Lords, apart from myself, expressed a certain amount of worry about the difficulty that certain aspects of this Bill might cause to the really small employers. At the time I gave some hypothetical examples and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who unfortunately is not able to be here today (although I know he would have liked to be) gave some practical examples from his wide experience. All of our Amendments were rejected as being either too complex, or unsatisfactory for other reasons. I have tried this time a simpler approach which would, in practice, delay the coming into operation of the provisions of this Bill as regards the smallest firms by an extra two years to give them more time to adjust. The Government may feel that two years is excessive; if they were to indicate that one extra year was more appropriate I should be happy to withdraw this Amendment and move a manuscript one on Report.

I do not think the provisions of this Bill will present much difficulty for the really large firms, nor will they present much more difficulty for the medium-sized firms. Nevertheless, the Bill recognises that there is a difference and allows an extra two years before the provisions affect the medium-sized firms. In my view, however, for the very small firms the difficulties will be much greater and the gulf is much wider than as between the medium and large ones; yet they have only one further year in which to accustom themselves to these provisions. I believe it would be better to allow them more scope. If three years is too much, then two years would, I think, meet the situation and provide a certain symmetry to the clause.

Lord BELSTEAD

I would not have gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in moving an Amendment—although the noble Lord has every right to do so and, of course, to do so again on Report—my view simply being that we have been through this before and we know the Government's point of view. This matter will presumably be gone through in great detail in another place and I felt that perhaps we had worked through it sufficiently. But because I have sympathy with the noble Lord, I ask this question: when the van Straubenzee Committee was deliberating, representatives of both sides of industry sat on that Committee and it is remarkable that the Report, on one of the most difficult subjects which could possibly have been examined, was a unanimous one.

Will the Agency, particularly in the initial years of the working of the Act, make itself available for consultation with, for instance, the Northern Ireland CBI, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Northern Ireland Trades Union Congress and anyone else who wants to draw attention to the working of the Act? I feel that it would be valuable if the noble Lord could give me that undertaking and, to put it more strongly than that, if the Government would draw the Agency's attention to what has been said in Parliament. If that undertaking could be given, so far as I am concerned I should be satisfied that the drafting of the Bill should remain as it stands.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I have not the slightest hesitation in giving the undertaking which the noble Lord asks for, simply because no Agency which was doing its job properly could hesitate to take advice or to consult the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord. I am quite prepared to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when he finally appoints the Board, will draw their attention to the dialogue which we have had. This seems to me to be asking for nothing. It is what any Agency which is working seriously must inevitably do, so I am quite happy about it.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows very well what I think about this matter and I need not take too long in saying it. We take the view that either the Fair Employment Bill is something which we should turn into an Act or it is not, and that we cannot exclude 24,000 out of the 31,000 firms for very long. We have agreed to exclude for two years firms employing fewer than 25 people and for a further year firms employing fewer than 10 people. That gives three years in which to find out what sort of hardship the effect of these regulations may have on small firms. That is plenty. If we cannot find out in three years, we shall not be able to do so in five years. There is absolutely no reason, in the Government's view, for holding matters up further. That difficulties may possibly arise is made evident by the fact that we are allowing this very long time for a majority of the firms concerned in order to ensure that no injustice should arise. Frankly, however, the idea of adding another two years is absolutely unacceptable to me and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, or, if he does, I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Lord ALPORT

The noble Lord, when he was answering my noble friend, said that the Agencies would "take" the advice of the various bodies. I assume that he meant that it would seek their advice and, as he is giving an undertaking, perhaps it should be expressed in the clearest possible manner.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

The noble Lord is entirely correct.

Lord MONSON

Can the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say roughly how many employees are covered by the 24,000 firms in question—that is, the firms where there is to be a delay of two or more years before the provisions of the Bill come into effect—in comparison with the 7,000 large firms? I assume that the noble Lord is here speaking of firms which have more than 25 employees. Is it not the case that the majority of workers are employed by the larger firms where the provisions of the Bill come into effect immediately?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBR1DGE

I have no figures with me, but I shall let the noble Lord have them in writing. His suggestion is, in general, correct, in that the bulk of working people in employment in Northern Ireland are with the large employers. I find that I have some figures here after all. I can tell the noble Lord that, in the June census of employment, out of 31,000 firms employing 494,000 workers, 3,700 firms employing 67,400 workers will be exempted for the first two years, and that a further 24,600 firms employing 74,600 workers will be exempted for the first three years. As a result, there will be some 140,000 workers out of just under half a million workers who will be exempted. That is a considerable figure.

Lord MONSON

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that information. The Amendment covered 70,000 workers—in other words, about 14 per cent. of the total—and it is only those who might conceivably have been affected by its provisions. I still regret that the noble Lord has not indicated that he is prepared to compromise by allowing the later substitution of two years in place of the three years in my Amendment, and I should be sorely tempted to press this to a Division had I any support from the rest of the Committee. However, as I have not, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution) Bill read 3aand passed, and sent to the Commons.