INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (No.2) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976 (Hansard, 9 December 1976)

§ Lord ROCHESTER
My Lords, if I am right in thinking that we may now return to the Industrial Relations (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, I should like to say that I am sure that it will occasion the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, no surprise to learn that we on these Benches are no more pleased about the application of certain provisions under this order—for example, compulsory disclosure of information to trade union representatives as opposed to employee representatives generally—in Northern Ireland than we are about their application in this country.

§ Lord MELCHETT
My Lords, I do not think that I can pretend that the order 694 has had an unqualified welcome from noble Lords opposite, but I think that that was probably true of the Bill, now the Act, on which the order is based. I would have hoped that noble Lords opposite, while possibly not agreeing with the detail of the provisions, would have agreed with me that it is right that those workers in Northern Ireland who will be affected by the order should not be left worse off than their counterparts in Great Britain. It is on that principle that both the No. I Order and now this order have been brought before your Lordships' House.
I was asked various questions by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. First, on the question of interpretation of the comparison provision which he raised and which I think comes in Schedule 3, I am very grateful to him for his suggestion that I write to him. I should prefer to do that because this is not an entirely straight forward matter. But my understanding is that this will in the first place fall for determination by the Industrial Court, which is of course an independent body. But I should prefer to write to the noble Lord to give an answer in more detail than I am able to do at rather short notice.
The noble Lord also asked me about the costs of the order in Northern Ireland. The costs of the provisions in both the No. I Order and the No.2 Order are not expected to differ from those in Great Britain of the Employment Protection Act, which, as I have said, is the Act on which both orders are based. Those were estimated in Great Britain as being a fraction of 1 per cent. of the wage bill, and I hope that noble Lords would agree that, given the very great improvement in industrial relations which we expect will flow from the provisions of the two orders, that is not an unreasonable sum to pay for the two orders we have been discussing.
The noble Lord also asked about the question of consultations which was mentioned by my honourable friend Mr. Moyle at an earlier stage in another place. As in the case of the No.1 Order, both the CBI and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were consulted, and the Minister of State, my honourable friend Mr. Concannon, subsequently met theNorthern Ireland Committee; so consulations were 695 held. I think it would be fair to say that the views of some of those consulted had changed from the time which the noble Lord mentioned, when a unanimous view was expressed about a voluntary arrangement being adopted in Northern Ireland.
However, I think it would also be fair to say that this order reflects the essence of the review body's report, in that emphasis is being placed on improving collective bargaining and, to the extent that the wording of the provision is in terms of a general duty placed on employers rather than voluntary arrangements, the apparently mandatory nature of the provisions are qualified to some extent by the subsequent provisions. These, of course, include in particular Article 50(4), which requires that regard be paid to the code of practice on the subject, to be prepared, after consultation with all interested parties, by the labour relations agency.
My Lords, given the Government's commitment that workers in Northern Ireland should be treated no less favourably than their counterparts in Great Britain, I believe that it is preferable, in general, to adopt the Great Britain provisions; and I would say that, as I remember when we were discussing the Protection Employment Act in your Lordships' House, very great stress is placed in that Act on collective bargaining, on agreement, on proceeding by way of agreement between employers and employees. In particular, of course, we would say—and I think many noble Lords would agree—that the provisions in this order, as in the Act, simply represent the best practice of good employers, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, as they are already behaving; and therefore the impact on many employers will be minimal, if there is any impact at all. But I must say I would personally lay great stress on the importance that the Government attached on workers in Northern Ireland not being treated any less favourably than their counterparts in Great Britain. With that in mind, I hope noble Lords will approve the order.

§ Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH
My Lords, I should like to ask the Government how it is that they find it quite justifiable to say that parts of Northern Ireland 696 Government policy must be left to the Province, such as the exclusion of Harland and Wolff and the exclusion of Short Brothers and Harland, while at the same time demanding that, so far as industrial relations are concerned, the same methods should be applied as are applied in the rest of the United Kingdom. I find this even more difficult to understand because I think the noble Lord will agree that the industrial relations, lack of strikes and lack of industrial problems in Northern Ireland for many years has been unrivalled in any other part of the United Kingdom. We are now having imposed on Northern Ireland what is a totally and absolutely Great Britain form of legislation, whereas previous to that the Northern Ireland Government refused to accept all the recommendations of other industrial relations Acts, the result of which, or certainly one of the results of which, has been extremely good industrial relations. I do not understand why it is that in one case we have the Government being very selfrighteous and saying that we must leave certain matters to Northern Ireland, whereas in the other case we have them imposing their will upon the people of Northern Ireland.

§ Lord MELCHETT
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that the industrial relations record in Northern Ireland is a great deal better than the very much improved industrial relations record in Great Britain as it is now. We have seen a very great improvement in Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, as the noble Viscount has said, is still ahead; and I hope that is something which will be trumpeted loud and clear by all those with the interests of Northern Ireland in mind, because it is certainly a very great selling point from the point of view of encouraging people to come and invest in Northern Ireland, which is something all of us wish to see.
I think that where the noble Viscount and I might possibly part company is when I would say that that very good industrial relations record might be placed in jeopardy were workers in Northern Ireland and their representatives to see quite clearly the Government discriminating against workers in Northern Ireland by not giving them the rights, privileges and advantages which this legislation has given their counterparts in Great Britain. 697 Noble Lords may disagree with me when I describe the provisions of this order in those terms, but I do not think it could be denied that representatives of the workpeople in Northern Ireland would see it in those terms; and I would hope that we could all agree that, to build on and further improve the excellent industrial relations in Northern Ireland, it would be wise in this case to adopt parity with Great Britain, as was promised on previous occasions by Government Ministers, and to pass this order.