---

10.4 am

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West): I, too, am delighted that the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has been selected for debate--I wish that more Select Committee reports would receive this treatment. Like my colleagues, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for the enigmatic way in which he chaired the Committee's deliberations. Our Select Committee must be one of the most diverse in the House of Commons. There are strongly held views on all sides--from Belfast, East to Brent, East--yet the vast majority of our deliberations are

24 Feb 1999 : Column 309

conducted in a friendly and co-operative manner. That is certainly a tribute to the way in which the Committee is chaired, managed and, dare I say, directed by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster--although I wish that he would represent a constituency with a shorter title.

To some extent, I believe that our report has been overtaken by events. We have witnessed the signing of the Belfast agreement and the establishment of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, whose terms of reference are remarkably similar to our own. The terms of reference state:

"Proposals will be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole."

I believe that the report makes a significant contribution to the debate about policing--and a range of views have been expressed this morning. Furthermore, I believe that the report provides a signpost for the work of the commission and highlights issues that were thrown up by the Committee's extensive and beneficial evidence sessions.

Perhaps the main issue is to ask: how do we achieve widespread community support for a police service and ensure that that police service is representative of the community? This is a significant day upon which to discuss policing. We shall hear later from the Home Secretary about the Macpherson report--and there are some parallels with this report. It is regrettable that a report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been leaked. I am also sorry that some of our more controversial recommendations were leaked to sections of the media in advance. That aside, I put on record my tribute to all those who are working for peace and fighting against terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

The key question is: does composition and religious affiliation really matter in the context of a police force? The answer must be an overwhelming yes. If people do not believe me or other Labour Members, they should read the evidence provided by Colin Smith, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. He was asked:

"Should the RUC be concerned about the religious affiliations of its members? If so, why?"

Mr. Smith's answer was unequivocal. He replied:

"Yes. It is a basic precept of policing in a democracy that the composition of forces should reflect the composition of the communities they serve. 'Policing by Consent' requires the police to have the respect and trust of all sections of society, and in a divided society it is essential the police officers and civilian support staff reflect both sides of the divide. Policing inevitably involves intervention in conflicts between individuals and groups, therefore adherence to this principle is an important way of demonstrating impartiality and securing universal confidence and support."

I hope that we can ignore the argument that this issue does not matter--because it does.

In a society where there is a split in religious affiliations--there is some argument about the figures, but it is about 55 per cent. Protestant and 45 per cent. Roman Catholic--some 93 per cent. of RUC members come from the majority tradition. That clearly means that, in terms of composition, the Royal Ulster Constabulary fails the most basic test. There is no doubt about that. In the course of taking evidence, we observed examples of what I would

24 Feb 1999 : Column 310

call institutionalised sectarianism. It exists--let us not deny that--from the level of canteen culture bigotry through to systematic religious harassment.

However, we also heard clear and significant evidence about intimidation of members of the Roman Catholic community who wish to pursue careers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I had the privilege of speaking to several people who wish to pursue such careers but who have been prevented from doing so by intimidation and threats of violence. We cannot ignore such behaviour. There are those in both communities who have a vested interest in creating no-go areas for the police force. I had the opportunity to discuss those issues in the terrorist mutilations debate on 27 January, so I shall not go into them now.

There is a clear link between gangsterism and paramilitary activity dressed up as political protest. A few months ago in west Belfast, I had a private meeting with a former inspector there who highlighted a poignant situation. He wants to send officers to discuss personal safety with schoolchildren but cannot because picket lines prevent the pursuit of that basic tenet of community policing. He wants to provide home security advice for pensioners but cannot because officers might be at risk. That is clear evidence of a systematic campaign to prevent the RUC is from doing its job. It is not only nationalist areas; this occurs in many of the more front-line loyalist areas. Let us return to some of the internal problems.

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): If the RUC achieved this proper balance, would the situation change in west Belfast when police wish to visit some schools?

Mr. Salter: I believe that it would. If we signed up to the principle of policing by consent, it would be difficult to get community support for making areas ungovernable.

The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) will not like hearing about the evidence not of a propagandist but of the RUC's own internal survey of religious harassment in the work place. Some 63 per cent. of Roman Catholics have been subject to religious and political harassment in the RUC during the course of their careers. I do not want to expand on that at length but let us not deny the facts. There is intimidation of people who wish to join the RUC and, within the RUC, there is intimidation of people from the minority community. What are we going to do about it?

I suggest, especially to Opposition Members, that one of the first things that we must do is accept that there is an issue. We must accept that the people who call for reform and want to achieve policing by consent in Northern Ireland are not rebels. They are not all insurrectionists trying to overthrow the British state.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there is some harassment within the RUC of Roman Catholics, which, of course, we deplore. Does he accept that it is not institutional to the force but an example of what might be called the canteen culture, which exists in all police forces, and that the RUC is trying to address that? I acknowledge that he mentioned the intimidation of Catholics to dissuade them from joining. Does he also accept that there is a chill factor, which is not addressed in the report, in the nationalist community, quite distinct

24 Feb 1999 : Column 311

from the intimidation and criminality that he mentioned? Does he agree that we will not succeed in changing the RUC's composition until the chill factor, which is reflected in the social ostracism of Catholics who join it, in the Gaelic Athletic Association ban and in the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to appoint chaplains, is changed?

Mr. Salter: Yes and no. Yes, I believe that religious harassment is institutionalised. Careful reading of the evidence shows that. I accept that there is a significant chill factor. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party were at almost every evidence-taking session of the Select Committee and had ample opportunity to explore the issue but chose not to. I suggest that he talks to them.

We addressed some of the significant issues involving flags, symbols and the loyal orders. Let me highlight something that needs to be praised. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I do not believe that the RUC community awareness programme at Garnerville road is limited. If he had had the chance to visit it, I am sure that he would have been as impressed as we were. I pay tribute to the members of the nationalist and Roman Catholic community who were taking part at some personal risk. Like us, they have reached one simple conclusion: the achievement of policing by consent and a police force that tries to represent the community that it serves is a precondition for a peaceful democratic society. I believe that there is no case for revolution but there is a clear case for gradual reform. I hope that this report is a significant contribution to that process.

10.15 am

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I wish to address a controversial issue that emerged from the report: the membership of exclusive organisations. I was advised when the Committee met that, as a member of the Loyal Orange Institution of England, I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. I have some doubts about that advice because I have no involvement whatsoever in the Orange Order of Ireland or any of its constituent lodges. Nevertheless, I make the declaration.

I strongly agreed with the Secretary of State's response to the report when she wrote:

"the overriding principle is that those who hold positions of public responsibility should be, and should be seen to be, impartial in the discharge of their duties."

I believe that that goes to the heart of the issue. The argument that membership of the exclusive orders runs counter to that lacks any evidence.

Some may love it to be otherwise, but the impartiality of the RUC, with members of the loyal orders in its ranks, cannot be seriously or significantly challenged. It is evident from the higher arrest and conviction rate for loyalist terrorists and from the fact that the RUC has been on the receiving end of loyalist terrorism. Most recently, PC Greg Taylor was kicked to death by loyalists in Ballymoney. PC Frank O'Reilly was critically injured by a blast bomb during loyalist rioting in Portadown last August. Most especially, the RUC's impartiality is evident in the continuing and sometimes ugly saga of Drumcree, where it demonstrates exemplary courage, valour and discipline in its confrontation with loyalists, some

24 Feb 1999 : Column 312

of whom, no doubt, are members of the loyal orders. The fact is that the RUC, with many members of the loyal orders in its ranks, has served both sides of Northern Ireland's divided community with magnificent heroism and restraint.

In her response, the Secretary of State, pending the findings of the independent commission, chose not to challenge the assertion of the Apprentice Boys that there is nothing incompatible in membership of their organisation and of the RUC. Nor did she challenge, again pending the findings of the independent commission, their opposition to any move that would prevent police officers from following their religion and culture. I agree with that approach, which is why, in Committee, I tabled an amendment to the effect that RUC officers, both current and new recruits, should be allowed to belong to private societies such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the loyal orders, but be required to register their membership. That view is shared, according to the Secretary of State's response, by the police authority. I still believe that that is the right approach. If we were to deny members of those groups the right to be, or to become, police officers, we would be guilty of bigotry and prejudice comparable with that which we condemn in others.

---