Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER 1998
MR ADAM
INGRAM, MP,
MR GEORGE
O'DOHERTY and MR
DAVID GIBSON
20. I do not necessarily share these concerns
but these concerns are raised by a number of organisations, including
the Committee for the Administration of Justice, who are heavily
involved in this review. They are actually saying it is a rather
minimalist approach. In your earlier answer to me you said you
responded in full. They are not criticising the fact that there
has not been a response, but it is the procedures that are proposed
within the Order, which require the appellant authority to sit
in secret. However, there appears no right for the person accused,
or the subject of the Order, to appoint his or her own solicitor
or lawyer. That has to be appointed by the State and at the end
of the day it is the State that is justifying its actions. Does
that square with principles of natural justice and are you confident
that you can withstand further challenge on that point in the
European courts because you may well get it.
(Mr Ingram) I would not want to anticipate further
challenge, but there is a possibility of further challenge and
the courts can determine whether we have done the correct thing
so far as we were concerned. I make the point again about the
role of those who act in the interests of the State. It is for
all of us, it is not for the State, it is for each and every citizen
who makes up that society. There are many brave men and women
in the front line, acting in intelligence services, obtaining
information to protect us. If that information was imparted to
someone who was a threat to the State, then that person's life
may be at risk—not to put too fine a point on this. Those
are the balanced judgments and that is why I said this in the
House to one of my colleagues, Kevin McNamara, who raised that
specific point from the CAJ and also from his own point of view.
There are still some questions which have been asked by the Bar
Association and there is consultation taking place with them on
this point. They have an element of unease about it. We continue
to talk to them to ensure that we have an agreed position to go
forward on. We had to act because of the Northern Ireland Bill
going through the Houses of Parliament. We had to interpret the
ECHR rule as best we possibly could. I think we have applied it
in full but only time will tell.
21. I would like to put on the record my
personal view that the Government has responded, but what flexibility
is there if continued concerns come forward from the Bar Council
or from other bodies whom you would wish to take good note of,
to build in any changes to the procedure? Obviously we have just
heard the news on our pager that General Pinochet faces extradition.
I am sure that General Pinochet used exactly the same argument
that some of the procedures adopted here were in the interests
of the State and, therefore, in the best interests of everybody.
Now I am making no parallels and neither would I, but I am aware
that the Government may be vulnerable.
(Mr Ingram) I would not be happy, nor would the
Secretary of State nor indeed the Government, to have done something
which would have opened this to further challenge which, in our
judgment, would have been successful. We cannot do that. We cannot
in terms of applying legislation do something, knowing that we
are going to be defeated in the courts. So we have to judge it
on the best legal advice available. As far as flexibility is concerned,
all Acts of Parliament are open to change. It depends on the weight
of the argument, the thrust of those arguments, and obviously
if it is matters which would require us to respond to because
of judgments in international courts, then the Government does
respond to that. We have then to judge just what is happening
at that point in time. I would not want to go into the detail
of discussion with the Bar Council. I feel that is a matter between
us and them. If you want to pursue it I am sure the Bar Council
would come along and give you their point of view. It is a matter
which we hope we can resolve to their satisfaction and we will
continue to talk to them on that basis.
Mr Salter: I wish
you well with it. Thank you very much, Minister.
Mr Beggs
22. You propose in the White Paper that
the new Equality Commission will have a role in proposing a target
for the reduction of unemployment differentials between Catholics
and Protestants by 2011. Why do you not consider this is a role
for Government rather than the Commission; and in setting a target
of 2011, does this not give the wrong signals as to the urgency
of the issue?
(Mr Ingram) I think we have to give time for any
legislation to be tested. Targets can be made at any point in
time. We hope that normalisation does take place within Northern
Ireland. If that does take place at a rapid rate, then those targets,
you are right, will be unrealistic because of the different environment,
different landscape, social and political landscape in Northern
Ireland, which none of us can predict with any certainty at the
moment. As far as the role of the Government versus the Commission,
the Commission, of course, is set up to take on board all the
elements of the equality agenda and to advise Government as to
any subsequent change. Government here, of course, is more likely
to be the Government of Northern Ireland, i.e. the Assembly, so
they would be reporting to them and concurrently to the United
Kingdom Government as well. There is always a possibility of United
Kingdom-wide legislation but, at the present time, the main elements
of the agenda which the Commission are looking at are matters
which will be devolved to the new Assembly. The Commission's role
is to be the adviser role, the considering body for that. Hopefully
(and I am sure we will) we will get people of quality serving
on that body, because there is a lot of interest in this area,
providing good quality advice to Government. Government in this
area, I suggest, should act after careful consideration. That
is what Government has done in relation to the White Paper. We
will not rush into changes because of events which might be happening
at that particular point in time. We will take things in the round
and over a period of time. The history of this legislation shows
that this is the way in which subsequent governments have tackled
it. Where there is a need for change, the change takes place.
23. Do you accept that regionally different
communities, Protestant and Roman Catholic, from which springs
alienation and lack of opportunity for employment, will this legislation
ensure greater and fairer opportunity in regional situations where
there appears to be discrimination against a particular section
of the community?
(Mr Ingram) In my opening remarks, I stressed
the fact that this is legislation for both Protestants and Catholics,
and for those who do not align themselves to any particular religion.
It is for all of the community. We have to ensure quality of opportunity
for all. We do know that there is within Northern Ireland territorial
or geographic areas, where a predominant area is one part of the
community and another area is another part. Hopefully, again over
time, as society begins to normalise, we will find integration
of communities. That is the ideal type of society. So that there
is less categorisation by geographic area and more on the basis
of judging people on true merit. The whole thrust of this legislation—not
just what this particular Order will be seeking to achieve—the
history of this legislation is based upon the merit principle.
It is to see that people should be judged on merit and not on
religion, although there are specific elements within it which
seek to encourage opportunities within those categories. It is
targeted equally to disadvantaged Protestant communities as well
as disadvantaged Roman Catholic communities.
24. Thank you very much. I want to put on
the record, in case there is any doubt whatever, that we within
the party, which I represent, are committed to full and equal
opportunity.
(Mr Ingram) Chairman, may I say that Mr Beggs
is one of those who did respond to the White Paper. May I thank
him for his response to that.
Chairman: I thank
him too, Minister. Mr McWalter, I think you have a supplementary
on this question.
Mr McWalter
25. It is hard, Minister, not to contrast
the accelerated process governing the passing of the legislation
with the rather laid-back date of 2011. In particular since, for
instance, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which
has been referred to several times earlier under its acronym of
SACHR, said in 1987 that: "Government should now establish
the goals which they would wish to see achieved in five years.
An interim target to aim for would be the reduction in differential
between the Catholic unemployment rates and the male Protestant
rates from two and a half times to one and a half times within
five years. The Commission knows of no evidence which demonstrates
that this is an impossible goal." Then ten years later, that
is last year, they said that: "Targets which are already
required of employers should be equally appropriate to Government
policy. The Commission recommends that the Government should publicly
adopt realistic targets for the reduction of long-term unemployment
and unemployment differentials." Given that people are talking
about five-year timetables; they are talking about people seeking
to get a timetable for change; I think most people who take this
matter seriously would regard it as very disappointing that the
Government seems reluctant to set realistic goals and timetables
for change; so that people would actually see, on a bi-annual
or quinquennial basis or whatever, that there is a goal which
is short- and medium-term as well as a goal which is long-term.
That is one of the aspects of the Order which would cause us most
concern: that this is apparently not to be taken up.
(Mr Ingram) So far as the 2011 date is set, the
year 2011 is chosen because that is the Census date. That is the
basis upon which the different points are made. The other thing
about setting targets is that it is easy to set targets, but this
is an ambitious programme of Government and we have to recognise
that Government cannot do everything on its own. This is a problem
of society. Government can only encourage the framework and do
certain things. We have to judge how fast change is taking place.
We have perhaps misjudged some of the pace of change over the
last five months. It has gone faster than many people would have
predicted in terms of the Good Friday Agreement and in terms of
establishing an Assembly. Much progress has been made, although
there is a slight impasse at the moment and hopefully that will
be resolved. So we do not know when the next leap will take place.
I have used the phrase, this concept, of normalisation of society.
It is people who will normalise society, not Government. If our
targets are not over-ambitious, then the people will prove us
wrong and employers will prove us wrong. Therefore, we can revise
the targets accordingly. We can say we got it wrong. I would love
to be able to say we got it wrong because it means that there
is a more rapid change than we were able realistically to predict
at a point in time. It is one of those areas where we could take
some comfort from when we are wrong.
26. Chair, I would like to lodge a protest
against the use of the Census dates. I think it is deeply inappropriate.
It is a laid-back approach and there is no reason why these statistics
concerning fairness of unemployment opportunity should not be
made available at times other than Census dates. It seems to me
extraordinarily bureaucratic. Of course, we will have a full picture
in 2011, but it seems to me very reasonable indeed that we ask
Government to be proactive about the gathering of statistics with
this particular Order in mind. I hope that the Government will,
even at this late stage, revise its view about setting interim
targets and having a timetable for realistic and beneficial change.
(Mr Ingram) I take on board what you say, but
I would repeat the point about those who have custody of this
legislation. It is the Assembly, when that gets up and running.
They can, of course, revisit this legislation if they feel what
we have set is unrealistic. They can revise it. I am sure that
your strong view will be expressed by others, as well as others
taking a diametrically opposed point of view. It seems to be ever
thus in Northern Ireland, but this is a long-standing problem.
It is not something—even with all the legislation and the
strength of the legislation which is there—it is not about
a new society. It is beginning to approximate to it. We can only
continue to put pressure on the best we can.
Mr Barnes
27. May I link in with a question which
was raised by Mr Beggs where he was pointing out within different
regions, maybe different communities, the bias in terms of employment
which can be against people from those particular communities.
An argument can sometimes be used that this is because of a skills
shortage which exists within a particular area. You are proposing
that there should be training which would be permitted, that could
be directly targeted to Catholic or Protestant communities where
there is perceived a skills imbalance which takes place. This,
to some extent, links in with legislation that exists upon sex
and race discrimination. There are, however, rather narrower definitions
within the employment legislation than within overt equality provisions,
in particular, in relation to existing employees. There might
be some problems of a technical matter, dealing with existing
situations. So do you feel that there might be some scope for
arguing that the area should be extended as far as the possibility
of training provision is concerned?
(Mr Ingram) If I have picked up the thrust of
your question correctly, you rightly say that one of the changes
here is the right to be religion-specific in terms of training.
That is an important strand, I recognise that. I think that would
help greatly if we get the training programmes correct, because
then we will get the willingness to co-operate on those training
programmes. We are left with the skills base accordingly in areas
where there have been economic disadvantages and perhaps are determined
for employers to locate in a particular area irrespective of what
the religious group is, whether it is Catholic or Protestant.
In terms of the retraining elements of it, it could well create
a divide within the workplace if an employer was selecting people
on a religious basis who were already in employment and upping
their skills, which it could then be said would be seen to be
to the detriment of the other group. We do realise the type of
language and the type of division which still exists in Northern
Ireland. So it is for that reason that it was felt not to be appropriate
because it would be very specific to people who were in employment
and, therefore, could create a division which would not be healthy.
28. But there could be a skills shortage
which existed within the local population, as it were, which would
be the majority population, but which was under-represented in
terms of its ability to get promotion to advance itself within
that particular area.
(Mr Ingram) Again, it is not my area, I do not
have responsibility for this. It is one of my colleagues who currently
has that responsibility and, again, it would be something which
would devolve to the new Assembly. What we have to be trying to
do overall is to improve the skill base irrespective of religious
affiliation. This is what is the key to economic success in Northern
Ireland. So it is not just in terms of fair employment. It is
in terms of specific and proper targeted training schemes, which
match the need of potential and existing employers. It is sometimes
difficult to get that right because you do not know what the next
generation of demand will be. It is important in this area. Let
me give you a good example in Northern Ireland, where there is
a tremendous shortage of gas fitters. Gas has now been introduced
into Northern Ireland. The companies find it difficult to expand
that network in one sense because there are insufficient gas fitters.
People think you can simply train a gas fitter. Of course, you
cannot. The regulations which apply to such skills is that people
need to be, in the main, plumbers, to be qualified plumbers, before
they can go to the next level of gas fitter. So it is not just
a case of saying that if we need gas fitters we need plumbers
because that is a three- or four-year process to go through. The
demand is there. This is an example of proper understanding of
the working environment with, hopefully, people trained to meet
new needs. It did not happen so we have now got to be cleverer,
better, sharper, in trying to achieve that for the future needs,
whether it is the electronic sector, or whatever sector is the
next area of potential growth in Northern Ireland. However, that
does require a lot of joined-up thinking between Government departments
and employers as well.
29. I want to move on generally to the harmonisation
of the different Equality Commissions on race, equal opportunities,
disability, fair employment, which has taken place. I realise
some of these matters will go beyond your specific areas of involvement,
but now that there is going to be an Equality Commission, is it
envisaged that there is going to be a need to harmonise and draw
together the different legislation in order to fit in together
the operations of that Commission? If so, are you proposing to
bring in draft legislation?
(Mr Ingram) It is slightly outside my remit. It
is Paul Murphy, my colleague, who has this responsibility of taking
forward the whole of this equality agenda but I think, on the
question to which you are seeking an answer, my response to that
would be yes, if it were still the Ministers who were driving
this forward. I hope, yes, when the Assembly gets its hands on
it, because it is sensible to try and ensure integration between
various elements of the Equality Agenda. There should not be discontinuities
and disparities and weaknesses within the legislation. Sometimes
that is easier said than done, of course—trying to mesh
diverse pieces of legislation—but the principle is one which
hopefully (and I am sure will be the case) is for the new Assembly
to take forward because probably all the parties in that Assembly
will be committed to the idea of equality of opportunity. If not,
then the old divisions will still remain and discrimination, with
all its tragic consequences, will still be visited on Northern
Ireland. However, hopefully, in a new climate, everyone will accept
that equality agenda for what it is trying to achieve.
30. I do realise that all this is caught
up in the Agreement and, therefore, as we move in this particular
direction there is this overwhelming reason why these things have
to be developed. But from your wider responsibilities, what would
you feel are the advantages and disadvantages of moving into a
larger Commission? There must be some areas in which the disability
problems which exist work and, therefore, you have interconnections
and links with that, but in other areas there may be difficulties.
(Mr Ingram) I think it is down to the quality
of those who have been on that Commission. I know that there are
opportunities in the Commission, although the disability groups
feel they may be disadvantaged. Again, only time will tell. What
we are seeking to do, through the single delivery agency, is to
achieve some of the things which you referred to earlier about
the co-ordination of strategies. Importantly, the single commission
strategy also helps employers and it is a clean relationship with
the employers because at the end of the day this is legislation
which is visited upon employers to implement and the cleaner and
the more efficient that system is, then it helps them to live
within the framework of the legislation, remembering of course
that many employers, a large number of employers, a substantial
proportion of them, are small employers and what we have got to
do is try and minimise the burden of government legislation upon
them, so the one commission approach can help them. I do not believe,
at the end of the day, that groups that serve on that Commission
will automatically suffer from it. If they do, then they have
shown in the past their effectiveness in taking arguments forward
and demanding their place in the sun and it is up then to the
Assembly again to have the responsibility to respond to that,
so if the disability agenda has not been taken forward because
somehow or other it is ranking lower than other areas of interest,
then they have got to make their case, they have got to get people
on-side and the legislation probably will be changed as a consequence
of the strength of the case they advance. Personally I am comfortable
with what has been done. I think it will prove effective for the
reasons I have set out, but again, like everything else, only
time will tell the effectiveness of that particular piece of legislation.
31. How are the interest groups in the area
of employment, employers and trade unionists and others, sort
of responding to your proposals now that the detail is there?
Many of these bodies supported the Agreement, but then when it
comes to the actual details of implementing the provisions in
the Agreement, then people find difficulties about their own circumstances
and their own conditions and they get worries around it. Are you
finding that generally people are taking it on board because it
is the Agreement and they sort of try to nibble at the edges,
or are you getting any major response to say, "Hold on, we
have made a mistake here"?
(Mr Ingram) I think it would be wrong for me to
say that there is not some unease around and clearly there are
groups that have expressed unease about going into a single agency
and into a single Commission. Government has to govern and we
have had to decide what is the best way forward and hopefully
I have set out strong arguments as to why we have achieved that
and why we do not believe that the fears which have been expressed
will manifest themselves. While, at the early stage, if the single
Commission approach is not successful because, let us say, disabled
groups feel that they are just totally disadvantaged and they
are not getting their arguments heard, then it is a case for those
who have responsibility for that Commission, one, the Commission
itself and, secondly, the new Assembly, and the residual responsibility
of the UK Government, to ensure that no one is disadvantaged through
this process. We have listened to the fears and we have taken
them on board and we have tried to address them as best we can.
The White Paper dealt extensively with all of those issues and
we have moved forward for the reasons I have set out. I do not
believe the fears which have been expressed will manifest themselves
in the process of this new approach.
Mr McWalter
32. The other issue that we were particularly
concerned about was the whole business of how you try to ensure
that employers do actually promote clear equality of opportunity.
Again the Standing Advisory Commission of Human Rights said that
perhaps the Government really ought to develop a series of initiatives
so that public contracts are awarded to companies which have proper
anti-discrimination policies, practices and procedures and which
promote a secure and safe working environment free from harassment.
Now, that suggests that in issues like the placement of government
contracts, there would be some sense in which those who were seen
to be actively promoting fair employment would be given, as it
were, a faster track than those that are not, so it is that general
idea of having contract compliance. Now, the Government has not
incorporated, I understand, in the Order any kind of emphasis
on contract compliance and I think a large number of organisations
are rather disappointed with that and I would be grateful if you
could say whether you continue to refuse to countenance that and,
if so, why.
(Mr Ingram) Well, we gave due consideration to
the contract compliance area because it is one of those areas
which is clearly subject to a lot of debate and consideration
as to the effectiveness of such a system and people lobby very
hard for contract compliance strategies. The Government's policy
on this is that we do not believe that public sector, talking
specifically of the public sector, procurement policies should
be used as a means of achieving social policy objectives, but
there are two other areas that were taken into account. One was
to ensure that best value was achieved in any particular contract
because it is taxpayers who have an interest in whether they achieve
best value. The second area is to have put into the legislation
the risk in our judgment of a challenge under the EU Regulations,
European Union law, so we considered, one, do we do it, and whether
it would be in conflict with their existing policies, but, secondly,
whether it would achieve best value and, thirdly, by doing so,
we could find ourselves at a risk of challenge in law and we cannot
act where there is a possibility of a risk of a challenge in that
way and that is on the best legal advice available to us, so those
were the reasons that we did not accept, I think, recommendation
2(35) of the SACHR Report.
33. So you feel that, as a private individual,
you can go and shop and purchase goods that have been produced
under fair conditions and choose those goods rather than goods
that have been produced as a result of sweat-shop conditions,
but, as a Government Minister, you cannot do the same thing?
(Mr Ingram) An individual consumer, by making
that choice, is making a personal choice not to have a best value
approach because he may be buying something which is dearer and,
therefore, they have that right to do so, but this is public money
which is being spent and at the end of the day there is a fiduciary
duty upon those who have a public responsibility for spending
public money to achieve best value. Whilst we all seek to achieve
proper ethical policies, and of course the Government is seeking
to achieve that in the foreign affairs field, it is an area which
we will clearly continue to seek to deliver on, but again these
are not easy equations because the definition of where the ethics
lie is different for different people. The other element of this
of course is that the individual consumer is not bothered about
EU Regulations, is not obliged when he goes into a shop to think,
"Am I going to be sued or fined by virtue of the fact that
I am making this judgment by not purchasing something from a country
with a different line?" Governments have to take those factors
into account and we live within that framework of law.
34. Chairman, I do think it is quite possible
that the Government's best value legislation will actually recognise
the environmental and human rights factors as up-front requirements
and I do not accept that someone who buys a good which has been
produced fairly and is somewhat more expensive is not getting
best value if, by doing so, they are protecting a rainforest somewhere
or stopping dolphins from being killed, and I hope that the Government
will have that enlightened concept of best value and not the very
limited concept of best value which corresponded to another regime
which was effectively that it is only best value if it is the
cheapest.
(Mr Ingram) I do not disagree with that——
Chairman
35. I am not discouraging Mr McWalter from
this somewhat partisan diversion, but do answer the question.
(Mr Ingram) Well, as I say, I do not disagree
with that assertion. Clearly governments have the right to lay
down, where it is not in conflict with international law, those
things which they are seeking to achieve, but it was not felt
on this occasion that by putting into the fair employment strategy
contract compliance concepts which, it had been advised by SACHR,
could have been achieved without risk of being in conflict with
EU law, so that was an important element in this and we had to
consider that. Best value is something which has to be taken into
account in terms of the way it is defined at a point in time.
If it is then so decided by a government to change the framework
as to the nature of what we are trying to achieve through purchasing
strategies and trying to engineer the social dimension, then that
is a matter which governments will be considering all the time
and under pressure from public demand as well, but the public
do expect to see best value from public procurement strategies
as well.
Mr McWalter
36. Could I, in conclusion, Chairman, just
ask the Minister, first of all, if he might be prepared to reconsider
this in the light of the best value legislation which is forthcoming
and, secondly, if he will in any case revisit it before 2011?
(Mr Ingram) Well, that is predicated on the assumption
that I will be making the decision in 2011, but I will make sure
that my successor in 2011 is aware of the point. Seriously, we
will of course take into account any change in Government policy,
as we are obliged to do anyway, but this legislation then becomes
the property of the Assembly and it is then for them to determine
any subsequent modifications to that, although clearly the UK
Government can encourage them by the standards that we set.
Chairman
37. Minister, as will have been apparent,
the affairs on the Floor of the House caused me to invite Mr Donaldson
to ask you the initial questions and I find myself in the role
of asking some sweep-up questions at the end. One follows immediately
on in one respect the questions Mr McWalter has just asked and
relates to compliance costs, and he was referring to contract
compliance. I have to say that the explanatory document, which
I think was published on the 24th November, reached the Committee
in a formal sense this week. It was obviously possible under private
enterprise for individual Members to have secured a copy for themselves,
but, for the purposes of quality control, I just allude to that
because the Clerk himself, I think, was not aware that the explanatory
document existed until it reached us. In the explanatory document
on page 15, you publish the one-off costs and recurring costs
which are going to be incurred and if you take out the public
sector administration costs, it looks as though there is the best
part of £0.5 million which is going to be incurred on the
private sector in additional expenditure in order to comply with
the amendments to the existing legislation. Can you remind me,
can you remind us of what the recurrent cost was previously to
which this £0.5 million is being added?
(Mr Ingram) You have caught me offside a bit,
Mr Chairman.
38. Perhaps the explanatory document was
not available to you either!
(Mr Ingram) I am not owning up to anything, but
I think the best thing is for us to come back to you on that and
I apologise for the delay[10].
39. That is all right, it reached us. There
was no great edge to my remark, but I was just reporting it.
(Mr Ingram) But we will give you a detailed response
to that.
10 See Ev. p.20. Back
|
