House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Feb 1992

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) : The Minister declared his interest as a former member of the National Graphical Association. I declare mine as a current member of the Transport and General Workers Union--or the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union, as it is known in Ireland--of which I have been a member since July 1963. I am proud and privileged to be the secretary of its parliamentary group.

The Minister's speech--the figures that he gave and the arguments which he seemed to be advancing--appeared to be parodying the well-known expression that Northern Ireland is "a problem without a solution." By contrast, the order is a solution without a problem. The Minister's speech was noticeable for its concentration on the details of proposals contained in the order. He clearly failed to provide any evidence showing that the order is necessary, desirable or even beneficial to Northern Ireland. He cannot claim to make such advances as he did on the basis that he has made them while existing law has been in operation. It is not surprising that the Government

Column 726

are finding it hard to make a rational case, because the explanatory document which accompanied the original draft was distinguished by its complete failure to give any sign of the real reasons why any such legislation should be necessary for Northern Ireland, other than the fact that there is similar legislation in Great Britain.

On several occasions, the Minister was asked to fill that gap and he failed to do so. The Minister has not justified the order and he cannot do so. He cannot claim that there is a problem to which this so-called solution corresponds. There is no evidence of any industrial relations difficulties which are hindering economic growth and employment prospects in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the official organised trade union movement falls over backwards in its attempts to encourage prospective employers to come to Northern Ireland. They are members of every ministerial team and delegation which goes to America and elsewhere in search of employment.

There is no evidence to suggest that trade unions have been guilty of any abuse of their position in Northern Ireland. Such evidence as exists shows that the trade union movement in Northern Ireland has always behaved with the utmost sense of responsibility. Indeed, last month's demonstrations-- which the Minister mentioned--against the Teebane massacre gave the lie to the suggestion that trade unions in Northern Ireland, politically, economically or socially, are anything other than responsible in their attitudes, because they know that their members' lives, incomes and hopes for employment depend on their responsibility.

Further, the Minister knows as well as all hon. Members of the enormous debt owed to officers and officials of the trade union movement in terms of industrial relations and a wider social harmony. Their ability to act has been based on their recognition by workers who have elected them to their positions of responsibility--their recognition of their responsibility not only economically on the factory floor but also socially. Their ability to act in one area has depended upon their ability to act in the other.

The trade unions have led the way in anti-intimidation and anti- discrimination campaigns in Northern Ireland, but they have been able to do so and have had great success in keeping it outside the work force because one could not distinguish their industrial role in any way. That role was economic and was concerned with defending the working conditions and incomes of their members.

The order is as irrelevant to the real economic and social problems facing employers and employees in Northern Ireland as the recent proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for Employment are to those of us living in Great Britain. I have no doubt that the order will be seen as yet one more cynical attempt by the Government to divert attention from their disastrous legacy of high unemployment, bad investment and bad growth.

The Minister regards his order as a modernisation of the industrial relations framework. I cannot accept that, since one of the most basic elements of a modern industrial society is fairness. That is a quality which is distinctly lacking in the legislation before the House tonight.

This legislation is intended to strengthen the hands of employers at the expense of organisations representing employees and nothing could have been made clearer from the Minister's statements. We do not believe that a

Column 727

framework which seeks to damage the interests of employees can be in the ultimate interests of industry as a whole, or of society. As well as being deficient in terms of fairness between employees and employers, there is a grave doubt about the extent to which the realities of life in Northern Ireland have been taken into account. For example, while postal ballots for union elections and ballots on industrial action are perfectly sensible, the legislation does not adequately take into account the security implications of the requirement to maintain a list of members. Members of unions in security sensitive posts, union members who are also part-time members of the security forces and those who are employed by firms carrying out work on behalf of the Crown would find themselves placed in an invidious and dangerous position. It is especially ironic when one considers that the Government advise many employees to ensure that their names do not appear on lists of any sort which are open to external scrutiny, but then in trade union legislation they demand that employees' names should be on lists openly available. After much pressure, the Minister began to recognise that there was a difficulty here. Although he has made some improvement on the previous draft, it is not clear that the full implications have been taken on board and that they will be effective to any extent. Therefore, we can legitimately claim that the legislation will put at risk the position of union members in the categories I have already outlined.

Rev. Ian Paisley : Surely that point was raised in regard to the fair employment legislation, to which the hon. Gentleman's attitude was entirely different. I would be more concerned if lists of religious affiliations were available, as they are through the fair employment legislation. I accept his point that the proposed lists are dangerous in the present situation and that people may be put at risk. Perhaps those on this side of the water do not realise how much people fear that they are to be put at risk. However, the fair employment legislation poses an even greater risk because religious affiliation is made known and available. From recent publications, it is clear that employers with just a small number of employees have listed their religious affiliations.

Mr. McNamara : I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his point. I do not believe that people are specifically targeted because of their religious affiliations. I do not accept that those people should be called, of all things, legitimate targets because of their position as members of the security forces or because of the work that they carry out on behalf of the security forces.

The decision to limit the power of unions to exercise disciplinary powers over their members is somewhat worrying. Again the Minister has failed to show that such powers have been abused in the past. What he appears to have neglected is the extraordinary heroism that many full-time and lay officials have demonstrated in the workplace. I do not believe that anything that affects their ability to provide positive and constructive leadership is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. The ability to cock a snook in the workplace at authority or lay officials or

Column 728

elected shop stewards could undermine much of the work which the Minister has praised and which has been carried out by trade unions. The Minister should reflect on the role of the Northern Ireland Committee Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is one of the few organisations in Northern Ireland to cross the sectarian divide. It preserves unity among employees who come from very different traditions. Can the Minister assure the House that he is confident that nothing in the legislation will hinder the officers of the NICTU and its affiliate unions in their tasks?

The Minister will also be aware of certain anomalies in the legislation. It is incorrect to claim that the order replicates Great Britain legislation when there are substantial differences in areas that would have enhanced the position of trade unions and their members. For instance, on the provisions governing the political funds, the order reproduces the 1927 legislation. The Minister says that the order means that money will be denied to the pockets of the Labour party. It does nothing of the sort. All the legislation does is to enable unions to have political funds. It does not say that political funds have to be used or that unions have to affiliate to the Labour party. Many of the unions in Northern Ireland that collect money in this particular way keep that money in Northern Ireland. Many unions that have political funds do not affiliate to the Labour party. The union for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) speaks is not affiliated to the Labour party.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 90 per cent. of trade unionists in Northern Ireland belong to British trade unions, the majority of which are affiliated to the British Labour party. Is not it the case that the vast majority of those British trade unionists who contract in to pay the political levy believe that they are helping to advance the cause of the British Labour party? Is not it therefore fraudulent for that tightly knit group of politically motivated men to hold that money back within separate Northern Ireland political funds and apply them to other purposes? Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a representative of the British Labour party, should be trying to put an end to that fraudulent conduct.

Mr. McNamara : If the hon. Gentleman is able, outside the House, to substantiate that claim about particular people in particular organisations, I am sure that they would be pleased to see the evidence on which he has based that accusation and deal with it properly.

A surprising number of figures have been advanced about the number of trade unions affiliated to the British Trades Union Congress. The largest local government and civil service trade union in Northern Ireland is not affiliated to the British TUC. Many other trade unions in Northern Ireland are not affiliated to the British TUC. Some trade unions organise north and south of the border. Some trade unions organise in this island and in Northern Ireland. Some trade unions organise in this island, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Some trade unions only organise in this island and some then organise in England and Wales but not in Scotland, and vice versa. There is a whole range of different circumstances. The suggestion that 80 per cent. of all trade unionists are affiliated to British-based trade unions is open to considerable correction.

Column 729

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : I intervene to make the point that the Minister would not allow me to make. The trade union movement is recognised internationally by the United Nations through the International Labour Organisation. In this country certain unions, including the National Union of Teachers, are forbidden by the Government to have any negotiating rights because the Government are their masters. The Government have been condemned three times by the ILO for not recognising that trade unions have the right under international law to negotiate. However, the Government, when acting as an employer, will not allow them to have that right. That attitude pervades the Government's approach to trade unions, and they are displaying that same attitude to trade unions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara : I much regret that my hon. Friend will not be a Member after the election to see that anomaly and abuse rectified. The second concept on which the Minister is not prepared to give parity with the rest of the United Kingdom relates to employment appeals tribunals. They are not to apply to Northern Ireland. Appeals are to go to the courts, which will be a slow procedure, and it will be difficult for them to reach conclusions.

In sum, the order represents a vindictive, petty-minded 19th century approach to industrial relations. The Labour party believes in partnership in industry rather than in division. We believe in a collective approach in the workplace and in wider society. Without co-operation, Northern Ireland will sink ; with it, it will survive and prosper.

The Opposition believe in a fair and efficient framework for industrial relations which harnesses the spirit of partnership and co-operative endeavour in the workplace. We believe in an advanced, high technological society where Britain will be among the leaders rather than the laggards in the European Community.

The real problems of Northern Ireland will be resolved only by a positive partnership between the Government, employers and employees and with a common commitment to training, research and industrial development. We believe that the best interests of employers and employees will be best served if there are effective rights and duties to make the most of one's talents and to open opportunities to the widest possible extent within society.

At the beginning of his speech, the Minister asked what the Labour party's attitude was to a number of matters. It might be helpful if I were to explain what an incoming Labour Government will introduce in Northern Ireland. First, there will be basic employment rights for all employees which will come into force, whatever the hours they work or the company size, on their first day at work. There will be equal legal status for all workers, including part-time, temporary and sub-contracted home workers, most of whom are women. There will be a charter for all employees, offering new rights and protections, including parental leave for people with family responsibilities, a statutory minimum wage, full trade union representation, protection against discrimination and unfair dismissal, and improved health and safety. The European social charter will be implemented and that will give further protection at work. Employers will be responsible in law for promoting equal treatment at work for all their

Column 730

employees, particularly for women and disabled people. There will be a fairer, more stable legal framework for industrial relations. We need to guarantee basic rights for all in our society and in industry, particularly women, disabled people and the low paid. We need a system of industrial relations where unions play their full role in protecting the interests of employees and protecting economic growth. On the basis of this order, we cannot get that until the Government are removed from office, and the sooner the better. We oppose the order.

8.20 pm

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : The opposition of Ulster Unionists to debates on Orders in Council that cannot be amended is well recorded. I draw attention to the motion in the names of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members regarding the Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Natural justice should bring about a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, with the approval of the whole House, and matters such as those before us tonight should be properly debated and amended, if desirable, in a Select Committee on Northern Ireland.

In the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 90s" reference is made in paragraph 1 in the introduction to the widely held view of Britain's industrial relations problems of the 1960s and 1970s. It says :

"nothing did more to damage the reputation of the British economy abroad or to undermine confidence at home in the possibility of economic recovery than the belief that these problems were beyond any real or lasting solutions."

Paragraph 1.2 says that Britain's poor industrial relations were generally acknowledged to be a fundamental cause of weaknesses in the British economy. Britain's industrial record of strikes, restrictive practices and overmanning seriously and persistently damaged its ability to compete in the markets of the world. Under the heading "Industrial Relations in the 1980s", in paragraph 1.5, we are told : "Now as Britain enters the last decade of the twentieth century, the situation has been transformed. During the 1980s Britain's industrial relations have seen improvements which would have been inconceivable in the two previous decades."

The economy of Northern Ireland is closely linked to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. If the economy in the rest of Great Britain catches a cold, the economy of Northern Ireland gets pneumonia. The economy in Great Britain can recover fairly quickly, but the agony of Northern Ireland is prolonged and it takes a long time to recover lost markets and employment opportunities. Northern Ireland has always suffered from high unemployment. It may have suffered from the poor image internationally of British industrial relations. Therefore, the changes in industrial relations legislation in Great Britain, which have helped to transform the perception of Britain's industrial relations, are welcomed by my party. It is satisfying to know that the transformation of Britain's industrial relations has helped Britain to secure and maintain the highest share of American and Japanese investment of any member state of the European Community. At last, positive spin-off is reaching Northern Ireland, where American and Japanese companies are providing stable employment and prospects for expansion.

If the changes in the legislation outlined in the order--for example, that agreements entered into between

Column 731

employers and trade unions will become contracts enforceable in law, requiring each party to the agreements reached to seek to avoid industrial unrest--give more confidence to overseas investors to locate in Northern Ireland, the legislation will bring benefits to Northern Ireland's economy and with that hopes for the long-term unemployed.

International companies should be made aware that, even in the absence of the Order in Council, industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been among the best in the United Kingdom. According to the Employment Gazette, some 1,903 strikes were recorded in the United Kingdom in 1990. The region with the highest number had 722 or 37.9 per cent. Another had 523 strikes or 27.3 per cent. I shall not mention those regions for fear of further damage to their image, but the world deserves to know, and it must be recognised, that Northern Ireland had the fewest strikes of any region of the United Kingdom with only 18 or 0.9 per cent.

Industrial relations reform in Great Britain has contributed to significant improvement in industrial relations and subsequently a significant overall reduction in the number of strikes and days lost. While the Employment Gazette of July 1991 confirms that stoppages in Northern Ireland were the lowest by region in the United Kingdom in 1990, one must assume that the record for the fewest strikes will be held by Northern Ireland when the order becomes law.

The order will give comfort to employers and protect the rights of trade unionists. The absence of abuse of trade union power in Northern Ireland will mean that, although the order may improve industrial relations, it will not result in major changes. The vast majority of trade unionists in Northern Ireland are law abiding and would not support or encourage unlawful behaviour. Traditionally, high unemployment has meant that those fortunate enough to find work do not jeopardise their employment by industrial unrest. The Northern Ireland work force is open to exploitation and the order will provide some protection.

Article 5 says :

"The Certification Officer shall maintain a list of trade unions and list of employers' associations containing the names of those organisations which are entitled to have their names entered therein under the following provisions of this Article."

The certification officer can remove the name of an organisation from a list if it appears to him

"not to be a trade union or employers' association but shall not do so without giving the organisation notice of his intention to do so and without considering any representations made to him". Under paragraphs 3 and 4, an organisation can be entered in the list for a fee of £45. However, under article 6(2) an independent trade union has to pay £305 to be certificated. Is there some prejuice against a trade union being an independent trade union? How can it be justified that one body can register for £45 while £305 is sought from another?

I support the provisions that require the keeping of proper accounting records and the making of annual returns. It is only fair to their members that unions and employer associations keep such records. Memberships will be helped by the provision that the most recent annual returns must be available on request.

Column 732

Article 32, in part IV, deals with the right to a ballot before industrial action is taken. I support the right of union members to stop their union calling them out on strike without a proper ballot. No organisation should be able to force its members to act against their will or conscience. Proper ballots should be held before a union can call a strike. It must be a call and not an order. Being a trade union member should not place a man or woman at the behest of that organisation. He or she should enjoy the basic right of choice and should not be subject to discipline by the union for failing to respond to a call to participate in industrial action. Unions should be the instruments of the workers, rather than workers being the instruments of trade unions.

Collective action is an accepted norm in industry. It has always been used and it will continue to be used by workers if their representatives feel that they are being treated unfairly. That does not mean, however, that an individual must be a party to collective action that he feels it would not be appropriate to be party to as a matter of conscience. If the call is justified, workers will respond collectively. The measure of justification for corporate action will be the response of workers to it. Industrial action to enforce trade union membership is unacceptable in a free society. Provisions that prevent such action are, therefore, to be supported.

Article 106 in part XII introduces the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts. In Northern Ireland we have an horrendous situation in which a Government who are supposedly committed to freedom in the workplace have enacted legislation that encourages employers to recruit on the principle of merit while being expected to monitor religion to ensure that there is some sort of notional religious balance in the work force. Regardless of whether the workplace is based in a Protestant or Roman Catholic area of Northern Ireland, an employer must endeavour to ensure that there is a balance between Protestant and Roman Catholic employees despite the danger to which that might expose employees who, through the distorted employment map, may find that the only place where they can obtain work is in an area where they would rather not be.

Similarly, a trade union has no right to demand that recruits are union members. The fact that an applicant for a job is or is not a trade union member should be irrelevant to the selection process. Similarly, an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against an applicant on the ground that he is a trade union member. In Northern Ireland we are endeavouring to retain the merit principle in employment as against bureaucratic interference in the employment market. The illegality of industrial action to enforce trade union membership and the prevention of discrimination against trade union members are in accordance with our endeavours.

I support article 20 in part III, which is headed

"Industrial action authorised or endorsed by trade union without support of a ballot".

The Ulster Unionist party supports measures to ensure that industrial action is called only as a result of such action being favoured by union members through a secret ballot. Shows of hands at factory gates discredit unions and are an infringement of personal liberty given the intimidatory nature of such gatherings. All union members should have the right to vote for or against industrial

Column 733

action. They should have the right also not to take part in any such action, regardless of whether the majority is in favour of taking that action.

I support the provisions for secret ballots that are set out in part IV. The entitlement to vote in such a ballot must be accorded equally to all those members of the trade union who it is reasonable, at the time of the ballot, for the union to believe have a right to take part.

Part XI is headed

"Machinery for Promoting Improvement of Industrial Relations". It runs from article 82 to 90. Given the lack of research into industrial relations, the work of the Labour Relations Agency in producing its survey of the private sector in 1988, as well as its current work on the public sector, is to be commended. We look forward to its publication in due course.

Articles 91 to 94 refer to industrial courts and courts of inquiry. During a debate on 11 May 1987 on industrial relations in Northern Ireland the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who took a keen interest in Northern Ireland matters while he had ministerial responsibilities, said :

"The vast majority of trade unions operating in Northern Ireland--there are 88--are Great Britain-based, but eight have their headquarters in Northern Ireland and five are based in Dublin. The five Dublin-based unions have about 19,000 members, which is about 7 per cent. of the total union membership in Northern Ireland. Enforcement of Northern Ireland court judgments in the Republic will be possible when the Republic gives effect to the European convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In practice, we do not anticipate a particular problem."--[ Official Report, 11 May 1987 ; Vol. 116, c. 142.] I have a copy of the convention. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether it has yet been ratified by the United Kingdom. It is stated in my copy that it has not been. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what progress has been made towards ratification by the Irish Republic.

Mr. Mallon : I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman sees no problem in the enforcement of our High Court judgments against unions whose headquarters are based in the Republic of Ireland. Will he explain how a receiver could be asked to operate within such a union and how funds could be sequestrated on the basis of a decision of the Northern Ireland High Court if the headquarters are in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Beggs : The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting question which I think would be answered much more easily by the Minister when he replies.

I pay tribute to Northern Ireland trade unions for their courageous public opposition to terrorism and their support for the rights of workers in Ulster irrespective of their religious background. Those workers should have the right to life and the right to work. The vast majority of trade unionists have fostered good working relationships in industry and commerce throughout the troubles. They have helped to maintain harmony in the workplace in the face of sectarian paramilitary assaults and intimidation. Trade unionists in Northern Ireland have acted responsibly in the past. Trade union officials deserve credit for the part that they have played in securing industrial peace in Northern Ireland. The common sense of Ulster folk, including trade union officials, will prevent industrial

Column 734

strife in future and help to encourage new investment to provide employment opportunities that can be shared by all sections of the community.

8.39 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : One of the problems of this debate is that we are in danger of shooting the messenger rather than rejecting the message. I must express my admiration for the Minister's work overseas, in the face of great difficulties, in trying to attract inward investment to the north of Ireland. Reference has been made to the Industrial Development Board figures that were released today, although no one knows whether they present the entire picture. Irrespective of the figures, we must pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts. He does a difficult job in the current circumstances and it should not go unremarked- -especially as I intend to oppose the order. I do not attack the messenger- -and I do not mean that in any disparaging sense--only the message.

There must be something remarkably perverse about a Government who, in a place such as Northern Ireland that has so many problems, tamper with the very things that are working. We had an education system that had served the north of Ireland extremely well, but the Government introduced root and branch reforms with the result that that which was working extremely well is now in a state of confusion. I am glad to say that it is still working very well, but not as a result of the Government's efforts. Lo and behold, the same now applies to trade union activity and industrial relations in the north of Ireland. They have worked extremely well throughout the years, but they are now being tampered with by the Government. In our debate last week, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) quoted the old American maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Once again with this order, the Government are taking that which is working and doing very well and changing it and creating difficulties.

The order does not meet the pretensions enshrined in its title. It puts into north of Ireland legislation the anti-union, anti-worker programme that the Government have introduced in the remainder of the United Kingdom. It is framed not on the experiences of trade union relations in the north of Ireland, but on the Government's perceptions of the problems of the British economy and of trade union relationships in Great Britain. It could be described as being an ideological hammer to crack one of the few remaining protections for the ordinary working person in the north of Ireland. That is in direct contrast with developments in other EC member states and elsewhere in Europe. The disadvantaged and the weakest sections of the working community, especially part-time workers--who, in the north of Ireland, are almost by definition women--will have their protection substantially weakened by the order. It will not meet the essential need to protect the weakest in society, but it is in line with the Government's refusal to advance workers' rights through the European social chapter.

There is an implication--indeed, I would say even a direct claim--in what the Government are doing that the United Kingdom economy cannot sustain improvements in the rights of the least protected workers. That is an indictment not of the work force, but of the economy that the Government have created and of the Government themselves.

Column 735

The order does not have its origins in the industrial issues in the north of Ireland. If the Government think that it does, we have a right to know what those issues are. What has caused so much concern that the Government have introduced this order for the north of Ireland? Is it the number of strikes? The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) showed clearly, in the figures that he quoted, that that cannot be so. Is it abuses by the trade unions in the north of Ireland? We could not accept that theory, either. Is it unrest fostered by trade unionism or industrial relations? There is no justification for or evidence of that. Is it violence engendered by industrial unrest? No. None of those stands up. There is no evidence to suggest that there has been a reason within the north of Ireland to introduce such an order ; there is only the fact that the Government want to import Great Britain legislation into the north of Ireland, without reference to the potential damage to industrial relations that it might cause.

Earlier, I quoted the words of a previous Minister in charge of economic development, Mr. Adam Butler. It is worth repeating his remarks. He said :

"The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to those of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient work force in Europe."

Yet this order is being introduced to deal with that most productive and efficient work force in Europe and with the trade unions in the north of Ireland, which have a record equal to those of west Germany and Japan. I wonder why. Again, empirical evidence has not been presented to show the need for the legislation. It is the Government's ideological craving to impose their will, irrespective of the result.

The IDB also had something interesting to say about trade union relationships in the north of Ireland. In its 1990 document "Forward Strategy", it states :

"Northern Ireland companies benefit from many natural advantages-- industrial tradition, strong educational base, strong work ethic, effective industrial relations."

That is the system that the Government want to change radically. I ask the Minister to cite the reasons why. What are the industrial relations abuses in the north of Ireland suspected in the past and in the present that have potential for the future and that must be dealt with in such a way? It is only right that we should be given reasons why. We have been given no reasons to date, and I do not believe that we ever will--they do not exist. The Minister cannot give us reasons. As has been pointed out, there is a contradiction in the application of some of the articles in the order. Many unions operating in the north of Ireland have their headquarters in Great Britain, in the north of Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. That will lead to an unequal impact when unions have their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland but their membership in the north of Ireland. If there were ever to be the sort of industrial problems in the north of Ireland imagined by the Government--and there has been no evidence of any in the past--the order would lead to administrative and legislative confusion. An example would be in the election of senior executive officers. How could the union election provisions under part VII of the order apply to a union based in the Republic of Ireland but with its membership

I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East said, that that problem could be dealt with easily. We are

Column 736

all aware of the difficulties in the harmonisation of legislation north and south of the border. We know how long that takes. I wonder why there was not some effort made to reach harmonisation with the Republic of Ireland for this order, so that there would be at least a basis for equality and a common approach. Perhaps that was too difficult or just not possible, but at least we have a right to question whether it was tried.

I am astounded by the way in which the rights of workers within the system in the north of Ireland are treated so shabbily in the order. I refer first to the workers in firms with fewer than 20 employees. They will have no right to know the disciplinary procedures that will apply to them, even in the event of dismissal. In a situation in which there is religious discrimination and political and sectarian tensions in the workplace, it would strengthen the position of both employers and employees for the latter to know the disciplinary procedures.

Those who have given less than two years' service will have no right to know the reason for their dismissal, which could have serious consequences. Workers whose employment ceases through no fault of their own will find that their social security benefits are affected. An individual having less than two years' service in a company might be disqualified from social security benefits simply because he or she is not able to give the reason for dismissal. Natural justice also demands that someone who is dismissed from employment should know the reason. Anyone working for a firm having 20 or fewer employees has a right to that information, yet the order will deny that right.

If a dismissed person wants to bring his case before an industrial tribunal he will be required to make a payment of £150. There are provisions to award costs against those who bring frivolous or fallacious claims. If the unemployed are to seek any redress at an industrial tribunal, they will be expected to find a large sum of money out of their own pockets. That is unacceptable, especially in respect of people who are at their most vulnerable. Having been dismissed, they may then discover that they are unable to pursue their rightful case because they lack the necessary cash. Already, people who bring successful cases before an industrial tribunal cannot be reinstated, and the amount of compensation is ridiculously inadequate. Added disadvantages are being heaped upon them.

The certification officer will in effect be attached to the Labour Relations Agency. That is a bad mistake. There will inevitably be a clash of interests, because the officer's quasi-judicial function will conflict with the agency's neutrality and independence. The officer will be required to adjudicate against the interests of trade unions while being part of the Labour Relations Agency. The officer is given both an adversarial and conciliatory role.

I touched earlier on the difficulties that will arise where unions have their headquarters in the Republic. It is a matter of regret that there is no reciprocity with the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the Republic. There should be mutual recognition, or some common form of registration, so that the problems that will otherwise arise can be avoided.

Similar problems will arise in respect of articles 7, 8, and 9 as they apply to property, trusteeship, and indemnification. The order does not, and cannot, differentiate between

Column 737

property, assets, and funds in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. How can the Northern Ireland High Court appoint a receiver to investigate the affairs of a union whose headquarters are based in the Republic? How could the court sequester the union's assets, or remove its trustees? That provision will present practical and legal problems--that is, if there is any need to implement the order. If there is no need, one questions the purpose of the measure. The order will make it difficult to take action against members who ignore the democratic decisions of the majority of their colleagues. That right exists in any organisation. I remind the Minister that his own party exercised that right recently in relation to a member who was deemed to be guilty of making racist remarks about others. The same can happen in any political party, because the Whip system is so strong--and rightly--that people have to answer to their colleagues. Yet the order substantially reduces that right in respect of trade unions. We should compare that with our own situation, to see to what extent it is justified.

Where something is working, it is foolhardy to tamper with it, without any guarantee that the working of the organisation will be improved. As I said earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 8.55 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : The order is being presented at an incredible time. We are two months or less from a general election. Suddenly, measures that have operated for a long time in Great Britain are being brought forward and pushed to Northern Ireland. We are dealing with a measure on industrial relations. It is not the poll tax that Northern Ireland has never had that it is suddently to get in the last rush.

Given that a general election is on the horizon, it would be possible for the Government to present in Northern Ireland, where Conservative candidates are standing, a measure that sought a mandate for these provisions. If they are so good and can be argued for, and if there is the kind of empirical evidence that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sought, all this could be done in the context of Northern Ireland, so that its views are properly considered within the political process.

There is a great difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in many matters, including industrial relations. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is higher than in any region of Great Britain. In those circumstances, the trade unions find difficulty in negotiating, increasing their membership, securing recognition rights, and undertaking the other tasks that they are required to perform in the interests of their members. It is therefore much less likely in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom--although I do not believe that it happens in a wider context--that union members will exhibit any tendency to act as tearaways, to act irresponsibly, striking first and thinking later.

The Minister has advanced no argument for the order, apart from the perceptions of some people overseas in regard to inward investment ; he has produced only bland statements, as opposed to the results of detailed investigation revealing the views of potential investors. I doubt very much whether those perceptions exist. It is possible that many assume that the industrial relations

Column 738

legislation that the Government have introduced to influence their friends overseas already operates in Northern Ireland. Although that does not make it right in a British context, it is unlikely that it is given a second thought--and, if it is not given a second thought, it cannot be used as the linchpin of the argument for the order. The provisions of the order have been debated at length, at more promising times of day and to a packed House--the principles that affect Great Britain, that is. On this occasion, unfortunately, not many hon. Members are present--even Northern Ireland Members. As the Minister recognised, the trade union movement in Northern Ireland does a great deal to try to tackle terrorism, and to seek to knit the two communities together. It supports bodies such as Counteract, the anti-intimidation unit sponsored by the Irish Confederation of Trade Unions. The youth section is represented by the "Hands off my mate" campaign.

Such examples illustrate the value of the work of the trade union movement, much of which takes place outside the normal day-to-day negotiation on behalf of union members and has a wider social impact on the situation in Northern Ireland. The order would impose strict controls on what are termed "political objectives", and the expenditure of money on such objectives. Normally, they are tied in with party-political objectives. The order states that, if part of the purpose of funding is to undermine political parties and positions--to persuade people to point in other directions, as it were--that is unacceptable.

How do contributions to Counteract fit in with those provisions? Presumably, the legal interpretation could apply to the political position with which Sinn Fein is associated, or that of the Ulster Defence Association and any body that it might support. A host of problems, many of which have already been mentioned, arise in the order.

Industrial relations reform in Northern Ireland should not be produced as an afterthought to clear the ideological decks before a general election, and to press earlier ill-thought-out measures on the area. It should be given deep and serious consideration : it could well be part of the general election campaign in Northern Ireland. Proper industrial relations reform should be associated with what Northern Ireland needs most to begin to displace those who stand for violence and intimidation.

Massive economic and social regeneration is needed. Any attempt to gain money, here and there, from overseas will do nothing to encourage it, even though that money may be needed. The Government should commit themselves to ensuring that a collective response is adopted towards Northern Ireland so that employment can pick up. Fair employment legislation would then stand a much better chance of succeeding.

The social charter provisions are infinitely more relevant to Northern Ireland than this order, which has been introduced during the final days of a dying Government. That is disgraceful. It runs counter to the Minister's analysis. He had some sound points to make about the trade union movement in Northern Ireland and the work that it does, especially its counter- terrorism work. To pay the trade union movement back in that way is entirely inappropriate. I was disturbed to hear that the request for a response to the documents that were issued at an earlier stage led to the political parties in Northern Ireland choosing not to respond but to leave it until tonight to make their points. Northern Ireland needs politicians who are very much

Column 739

aware of the position in which working people, in particular unemployed people, find themselves. The problems that face them have been reflected in the speeches made tonight.

Mr. Mallon : Apart from the points that have been made by the members of the Northern Ireland political parties who are here tonight, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland spend more time dealing with the problems faced by their constituents than most politicians anywhere else in the world and that, by the very nature of the problems in Northern Ireland, all Northern Ireland politicians, of whatever party, have that record within Northern Ireland? Is it not very damaging to the political process to use at every opportunity Northern Ireland politicians as whipping boys for the mistakes of other people--in this case for the mistake of introducing this legislation that is not needed?

Mr. Barnes : I grant that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have more problems to deal with in their constituencies than do the average representatives from England, Scotland and Wales. Some will deal with them in a valiant and full way. There are disparities between Members of Parliament anywhere.

I am not sure why I am being taken to task. The main thrust of my argument was against the Government's position. I then advanced the argument that it was disappointing that no formal response had been put to the Government, based on earlier documentation. Those political parties that are based in Northern Ireland, that are active in Northern Ireland and that have their roots there depend for their position in Parliament upon the votes of masses of trade unionists and people who formerly were in trade unions but who are now unemployed and desperately in need of their assistance. That does not mean that the efforts of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are not appreciated.

When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was about to compliment him on the points that he made in his speech that seemed to me to deal with the provisions of the order in a way similar to the way in which they were dealt with previously in the House by Labour Members of Parliament.

9.9 pm

Mr. Needham : I have to say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North -East (Mr. Barnes) that, whatever else may be said of this order, it cannot be said that it has been rushed through. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when I explained that it had gone out to consultation in September 1990, having been published, I think, in 1988. I always listen to the hon. Gentleman's contributions to these debates, and I always compliment him on the fact that his heart is in the right place. Where his head sometimes takes him I am not quite sure.

The hon. Gentleman talked about massive social and economic regeneration. That is an elegant expression, but what does the hon. Gentleman actually mean by it? Is he suggesting that his party, if it were to get into power, would increase significantly the amount of money that is made available to Northern Ireland? Surely "massive social and economic regeneration" could not be

Next Section

Home Page