The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Sir
John
Butterfill
†
Chaytor,
Mr. David
(Bury, North)
(Lab)
†
Cohen,
Harry
(Leyton and Wanstead)
(Lab)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
†
Goggins,
Paul
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland)
†
Griffith,
Nia
(Llanelli)
(Lab)
†
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
†
Kaufman,
Sir Gerald
(Manchester, Gorton)
(Lab)
†
Khabra,
Mr. Piara S.
(Ealing, Southall)
(Lab)
†
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Lidington,
Mr. David
(Aylesbury)
(Con)
†
McDonnell,
John
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
McGrady,
Mr. Eddie
(South Down)
(SDLP)
†
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
Penrose,
John
(Weston-super-Mare)
(Con)
†
Prosser,
Gwyn
(Dover)
(Lab)
†
Shepherd,
Mr. Richard
(Aldridge-Brownhills)
(Con)
Spink,
Bob
(Castle Point)
(Con)
†
Strang,
Dr. Gavin
(Edinburgh, East)
(Lab)
†
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
†
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Wright,
Mr. Anthony
(Great Yarmouth)
(Lab)
Mark
Etherton, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Seventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 13
March
2007
[Sir
John Butterfill
in the
Chair]
Draft Police (Northern Ireland) Act2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul
Goggins):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal
of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007.
It is good to see you in the
Chair this afternoon, Sir John. The purpose of the renewal
order is to continue the temporary provisions for the appointment of
police officers and police support staff for a further three years,
with the aim of increasing Catholic composition in the Police Service
of Northern Ireland to a level considered representative of that
community.
Committee
members will be familiar with the temporary provisions, which have been
debated in both Houses of Parliament on numerous
occasions—including during our recent debate on the draft
Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, when
the hon. Member for North Down spoke with considerable conviction,
authority and passion, as did other hon. Members. The fact that we
disagreed does not detract from the fact that views on all sides of the
argument are strongly and sincerely held. I warmly welcome the hon.
Member for North-East Milton Keynes, who will shortly address us from
the Front Bench for his party for the first time. We warmly welcome him
in that role.
The
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 gives effect to the report of the
independent commission on policing for Northern Ireland, commonly known
as the Patten report. It made a number of recommendations on policing
in Northern Ireland, including on the need to address the religious
imbalance within the service so that it is representative of the
society that it
serves.
The commission
recommended that all candidates who wished to join the PSNI as police
officers, and who reached a specified standard of merit in the
selection procedure, should be placed in a pool from which one half of
those appointed would be Catholic and one half non-Catholic. That
arrangement became known as 50-50 recruitment and is in place today for
all trainee police officer recruitment campaigns and directly recruited
support staff when six or more similar posts are
vacant.
The report
also recommended that Catholic police officers from Northern Ireland
serving in police services elsewhere, particularly at more senior
ranks, should be identified and encouraged to apply for positions in
the Northern Ireland police. That arrangement is commonly known as
lateral entry.
The
Government are committed to this legislation. We welcome the positive
impact that it has already had in addressing the religious imbalance
experienced by Northern Ireland’s police service. However, we
are equally committed to removing it once the imbalance is
addressed.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): I am delighted to serve under
your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir
John.
Will the
Minister explain whether there is any tangible evidence whatever that,
since late January when the Sinn Fein ard fheis ostensibly supported
policing, the Sinn Fein leadership has actively encouraged young
republicans in west Belfast, west Tyrone and south Armagh to join the
PSNI?
Paul
Goggins:
Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, has been on
the record very publicly encouraging people from his community to come
forward and offer themselves to the PSNI. Although it is probably too
early to tell whether the ard fheis decision, taken only a short time
ago, is impacting on the number of applications, we should all take
some encouragement from the fact that, although the general level of
Catholic applications since 2001 has been at about 35 per
cent., in the latest, 12th, round of applications, the rate was 41 per
cent. We are beginning to see an increase in the application rate from
that community. I am sure that all hon. Members on the Committee will
welcome that.
As we
clearly set out in the St. Andrews agreement, the Government’s
target is to increase Catholic composition in the PSNI to 30 per cent.,
and we are on target to meet that commitment by March 2011. The
temporary provisions may be renewed by the Secretary of State for up
to, and not exceeding, three years, following consultation with the
Northern Ireland Policing Board. The provisions were first renewed for
a three-year period in March 2004, and I am here to seek a renewal of
those provisions for a further three years, which would keep them in
force until March
2010.
I recognise that
some hon. Members have principled objections to the provisions. I
understand the frustration of individuals whose prospects have been
affected by the policy. I do not hide from the fact that a number of
candidates have indeed not been appointed as a result of the temporary
provisions. However, the vast majority of unsuccessful applicants have
failed to be appointed simply because the demand to join the PSNI is so
high.
It is worth
reflecting on the fact that since the temporary provisions were put in
place, no fewer than 73,000 applications have been made to join the
PSNI. The only justification for the policy that we have been pursuing
is the need to increase the Catholic composition in the PSNI, and in so
doing increase community confidence in policing in general. That policy
is
succeeding.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister put on record the main reason
for the low representation of the Catholic community in what was the
Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was in fact the intimidation of
Catholics joining that force and in no way discrimination within what
was the RUC?
Paul
Goggins:
I am happy to repeat what I have said to the hon.
Lady before, which is that threats, intimidation and fear were
certainly crucial elements in deterring people from the Catholic
community from coming forward. I make no comment about the selection
procedure, which would certainly have operated in the normal way. The
reluctance of people from the Catholic community to come forward was
certainly a clear element. That is why the temporary provisions that we
seek to renew today are important. Equally important is the
encouragement that we all offer to the Catholic community to come
forward and apply to join the PSNI.
When the Patten report’s
recommendations were made and the temporary provisions first
implemented in November 2001, the Catholic composition of police
officers was 8.23 per cent. When the first renewal order was debated
and approved in March 2004, the composition had increased to just over
14 per cent. Since then it has increased still further, to the current
figure of 21.43 per cent. Throughout that period, the application rate
from the Catholic community has remained consistent, at about 35 per
cent. We should be encouraged by the fact that the level reached 41 per
cent. in the latest recruitment campaign. That is exceptional progress.
That, coupled with the fact that the number of applications from across
the whole community since the temporary provisions were introduced now
exceeds 73,000, means that we can be optimistic about both the quality
of new recruits and the level of community confidence. We should be
further encouraged by the fact that the majority of applications are
from a new generation of young people who are committed to policing as
their chosen career and are building on the loyal, courageous and
dedicated examples set by the many men and women who have served the
community as police officers over many years, including in the service
of the
RUC.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): The Minister says that the
quality of the recruits has been exceptional. However, does he accept
that, despite the scores that both Protestants and Catholics have to
obtain in order to secure the 50-50, in some cases Catholic recruits
have scored 20 per cent. less than those who gain entry from the
Protestant community? In the light of that, how can the Minister say
that the quality has been
maintained?
Paul
Goggins:
In order to qualify for the pool from which all
new police officers are appointed, it is necessary to reach a certain
standard and to be suitably qualified in the first place. As I have
said, I do not draw back from the fact that some non-Catholic
applicants have scored more highly than their Catholic colleagues who
have actually been appointed to the PSNI, yet have not been appointed
themselves. That amounts to 1.7 per cent. of all non-Catholic
applications that are made. However, I emphasise that everyone who is
appointed as a newly recruited police officer in Northern Ireland has
reached that suitably qualified threshold that allows them to join the
pool in the first
place.
I
should like to take this opportunity to address the importance of
gender and ethnicity in the police service. A number of hon. Members
have voiced their concerns about the effect that the temporary
provisions might be
having on ethnic minority applications. Although
Patten acknowledged that such issues were important, he concluded that
the imbalance between the number of Catholics and Protestants in the
composition of the police was “the most striking
problem”. It is this that the temporary provisions are aimed at
addressing. However, we have made encouraging process in those areas,
with an increase in the representation of female officers in the PSNI
from approximately 12 per cent. in November 2001 to more than 21 per
cent. in February. The police have also undertaken a number of positive
outreach measures aimed at recruiting people from ethnic minorities,
and although Patten recommended that every effort be made to recruit on
that basis, given the small population involved, he did not set a
target. The PSNI’s ethnic minority representation is 23
officers, which is a small percentage—0.3 per cent.—of
the overall number of regular officers in the PSNI. However, it
compares favourably with the relatively small ethnic minority
population of working age in Northern Ireland.
[
Interruption.
]
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister will be well aware of recent
statistics showing that 700 people have chosen to come to Northern
Ireland from New Zealand, the Philippines and throughout the world.
They have undergone the British citizenship examination and ceremony,
and they are now new British citizens. If they come from the
Philippines and are of the Catholic faith, are they discriminated
against when joining the PSNI under the crooked procedure that we are
approving this afternoon?
Paul
Goggins:
No. Anybody who is entitled to live and work in
Northern Ireland is entitled to apply to join the PSNI, and they will
follow the same route as anybody else. If they are from another
country, come to live and work in Northern Ireland and they are
Catholic, they qualify as Catholic under the 50-50 provision. If they
come from another country and they are non-Catholic, they qualify as
non-Catholic under that provision. There is no discrimination; they
just come under the 50-50 temporary procedures that we are debating
this afternoon.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I made an aside from a
sedentary position because the Minister seemed concerned that he could
hear a little voice in his head. Indeed, it was the voice of
conscience, because what he has said is not quite right. Does he not
accept that ethnic minorities who are not Catholics come under the
legislation? He must accept also that the legislation represents
positive discrimination towards Catholics, so how can he say that those
ethnic minorities, including Lutherans and Baha’is, are not
victims of the same negative discrimination that the Protestant
population now experiences, and which the hon. Member for North Down
described?
Paul
Goggins:
That is a fair question, but it is not the same
as the hon. Lady’s. She asked me whether Catholics from the
Philippines would be discriminated against, and my answer was that they
would not. Of course, people from other countries and of other faiths
who qualify to live and work in Northern Ireland come under the same
discrimination—if we like—in the
temporary provisions as any other non-Catholic
person who is indigenous to Northern Ireland. I have not
hidden and I never will hide from the fact that there is some
discrimination in the provisions. Some 1.7 per cent. of all
non-Catholic applications reach a high enough standard that, without
the provisions, they could be appointed; however, they are not, because
we want 30 per cent. Catholic representation in the PSNI. That is the
only justification for taking the temporary measures before us, but the
decision that we take today to extend the provisions is vital. We
should ensure that Catholic representation in the PSNI reflects
Catholic representation in the community, because it is vital for
retaining and building the confidence of that community. I am coming to
the end of my speech, and there will be ample opportunity for other
hon. Members to speak.
Lady
Hermon:
If the Minister were to phone the recruitment
branch of the PSNI to check his assurance to the Committee, it would be
helpful. I phoned about people from other countries who have gone
through a British citizenship test, and the reply last week was that if
they tick the box for Roman Catholic or other faith, they can go on to
a second question about which school they attended. Their Catholic
faith does not necessarily mean that they will benefit from being
treated the same as indigenous Catholics in Northern Ireland. It is
absolutely despicable, but that was the reply from the recruitment
branch.
Paul
Goggins:
As always, advised by the hon. Lady, I shall
check up as she has asked me to. There have been many applications from
Polish people during the 12th round of applications. Some live
in Poland and some now live in Northern Ireland, but many of them will
be Catholic. If they are successful, they will count in the 50 per
cent. of Catholics—it is as simple and straightforward as that.
However, I am sure that the Committee is looking forward to hearing the
hon. Lady’s comments, so I shall try to conclude my remarks and
leave hon. Members ample opportunity to debate the issue and, indeed,
to hear from the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes, who is
speaking in his new role for the first time.
When the provisions were
previously reviewed, the relationship of some elements of the community
in Northern Ireland to their police officers remained uncommitted,
unsupportive and unco-operative. As a result, crimes remained unsolved,
local communities remained a target for offenders, and murderers
avoided justice. That was all because of the lack of assistance given
to the local police, whose job it is to protect all citizens. Today,
with all parties committed to policing and the rule of law, the climate
is notably different and it continues to change for the
better.
In just over
five years, the proportion of Catholic officers in the Police Service
of Northern Ireland has nearly trebled and it continues to grow. If we
renew the temporary provisions, I am confident that that trend will
continue and that the Catholic proportion of the PSNI will reach the
Government’s target of 30 per cent. by March 2011. Once we have
reached that point, the temporary provisions will have achieved their
aim and will no longer be necessary. I commend the order to the
Committee.
4.46
pm
Mr.
Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con): May I say
how reassuring it is to undertake my first venture from the Front Bench
under your supervision, Sir John? It is equally reassuring to be
debating the issue with the Minister, given his reputation and the
contribution that he has made to progress in Northern Ireland since his
appointment in May 2006.
If you will indulge me, Sir
John, I should first like to make a few remarks about the slight unease
that many people feel about the fact that we are currently considering
so many Orders in Council. This is the second or third such order of
the five that we shall consider this week, and I quite understand the
urgency for it, but there seems to be a mad rush to get these things
through before the historic date of 26 March. That may lead to
mistakes; indeed, drafting errors in the draft Policing (Miscellaneous
Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007—this is certainly not
intended as a criticism of the hard-working staff involved—have
meant that we shall be considering it for a second time on Thursday.
There is therefore a slight concern over the speed with which some of
these provisions are being pushed through.
The renewal of temporary
provisions order is short but contentious, and I intend to be brief,
partly because that is probably the most sensible thing to do on my
first outing from the Front Bench, and partly because I do not want to
steal the thunder of the hon. Member for North Down, who feels
passionately about the issue.
As the Minister highlighted,
the main point of contention is the 50-50 recruitment of Catholic and
non-Catholic officers into the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As I
understand it, the process means that if there are 100 vacancies, and
applications are received from 50 Catholics and 75
non-Catholics—be they of the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith or
whatever—we would have 50 Catholics and 50
non-Catholics, subject to their being approved as suitable to be police
officers. That means that 25 non-Catholics would be unable to
join the police force, even though they would normally be qualified to
do so.
Will the
Minister confirm, however, that the position could be even worse? If
the same 100 vacancies were available, for example, but only 30
Catholic applicants were deemed to be suitable for training, that would
restrict the number of non-Catholics who could go through at that point
to 30. Despite the fact that there were vacancies and that the
remaining non-Catholic applicants were deemed suitable for training,
they would, through no fault of their own, be unable to join the police
force. If that is the case, it seems grossly unfair and
discriminatory.
Sammy
Wilson:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he
describes is exactly the case? Indeed, in some cases no appointments
have been made, because only Protestants have applied. That is
particularly true for support staff, who are much more difficult to
recruit. As a result, vital support staff have not been appointed in
areas such as forensics.
Mr.
Lancaster:
The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, makes
the point far better than I can, and it will be interesting to see
whether the Minister can confirm the hon. Gentleman’s point when
he sums up.
Let me
turn to the examples of South Africa and Rwanda. In order to overcome
their problems, they ended the requirement for people to define their
nationality or their ethnic or tribal group. It could be argued that
the Government have institutionalised sectarianism and hence
discrimination in Northern Ireland, and I feel very uncomfortable about
that.
Nevertheless—credit
where credit is due to the Minister—progress has been made. As
he rightly pointed out, since September 2001 the percentage of the
police force that is of the Catholic faith has increased from 8.28 per
cent. to 21.19 per cent. However, the Minister clearly stated that the
Government target is 30 per cent. Will he explain that figure? My
understanding is that approximately 40 per cent. of the population of
Northern Ireland is Catholic, so where did the 30 per cent. figure come
from? Is it arbitrary, or is there some logical explanation for it? If
the target can be 30 per cent, why could it not in theory now be 21.19
per cent.? We want to make progress, but where did the figure come
from?
The hon. Member
for North Down made an intervention to the effect that one of the
reasons why so few Catholics originally joined the police service was
not that they did not want to, but fear of, and intimidation by, the
IRA. Given that Sinn Fein has now welcomed the Police Service of
Northern Ireland, why should the problem remain? Surely that welcome in
itself should solve the problem and enable us to dispense with the
order. There is no need to perpetuate it for another three
years.
I feel
slightly uneasy about whether the order needs to be continued, and in
summing up I shall highlight some questions for the Minister—I
already mentioned a couple of them. In short, what is the need for the
order if Catholics are now genuinely free to join the police? Why is
there a Government target of 30 per cent. for police officers? How many
non-Catholics have passed the selection procedure—for lack of a
better phrase—but are currently unable to join the police force
because of the quota? Why, if Sinn Fein is being true to its word, is
the policy still necessary? And why do the Government not trust Sinn
Fein on the matter, given that they are asking the Democratic Unionist
party to trust Sinn Fein on power sharing—which hopefully will
come about from 26
March?
4.52
pm
Lembit
Öpik:
I welcome the hon. Member for North-East
Milton Keynes to the latest proceedings in what I am sure he regards as
the many scintillating and enjoyable years—if one adds it all
up—that have been spent on Northern Ireland Statutory Instrument
Committees. I echo his concern that once again we find ourselves
discussing a matter of great importance that is presented in the highly
unsatisfactory format of a statutory
instrument.
I recall
that when the legislation was first passed, the Government gave all
kinds of assurances that they would monitor the situation and be
willing to modify it if circumstances suggested that that was
appropriate.
However, they have done absolutely nothing to entertain any form of
amendability of the current process, and that makes me rather cynical
about their claim to be genuinely willing to take feedback on board. If
the Government fail to carry out their promise to modify the
methodology that is used for such important debates, and if the
Assembly does not get up and running, they will have failed in their
promises and in their responsibilities to those of us who take Northern
Ireland matters
seriously.
Let me turn
to the specific order before us. My party recognises that the
provisions were introduced in 2001 and that since then there has been a
significant increase in the number of Catholics who have applied to the
police. In fairness, and as the Minister implied, the Chief
Constable’s last annual report states that on average 36 per
cent. of applications come from Catholics. That compares favourably to
the pre-existing scenario. However, it is worth noting that, even in
the pre-existing scenario, 22 per cent. of applicants were Catholic,
which was a laudably high figure when one considers the courage that
those individuals must have shown when applying to the police as
Catholics in the face of quite a lot of intimidation and
dissuasion.
The
Minister was also right to express encouragement about the percentage
of women who are applying, which is 37 per cent. However, the Minister
should really inform the Committee of the percentage of applicants from
ethnic minorities. I do not think that he did, although he said that
the recruitment figure was 0.3 per cent.
Paul
Goggins:
I was about to give the hon. Gentleman some
information on that. The proportion of ethnic minority working age
applicants is 0.48 per cent. We are talking about small
numbers—23 officers—but there is a broad
parallel that should offer us some comfort.
Lembit
Öpik:
That is a useful figure, but one could argue
that it is 50 per cent. out. It provides an indication that the numbers
are necessarily small, so one should not read too much into the
variation.
Nevertheless, the principle
discussed in earlier interventions stands. We heard anecdotal evidence
that ethnic minority groups feel that the 50-50 quota system is a
discouragement from applying to the police. Indeed, it seems that the
way in which the legislation is worded means that Catholic candidates
from ethnic minorities are considered in the non-Catholic pool of
applicants, which is larger in number than the Catholic pool. The hon.
Member for North Down made that point quite lucidly. As far as I can
tell, her criticism of the system is in line with an objective analysis
of the guidance.
On
balance, when an applicant is Catholic and from a discernible ethnic
minority, the latter status is taken above the former. If that is the
case, a great disserviceis being done by the working of the
positive discrimination system. I am sure that the Minister would agree
that, even if the percentages are relatively small, it is highly
desirable to have a population of officers who reflect the diverse
population of ethnic minorities.
I
shall declare an interest. On account of my presence in Parliament, the
Estonian community in the United Kingdom is over-represented by
something like 5,000 per cent. Such over-representation probably
happens with some ethnic groups in the Police Service of Northern
Ireland. I am not sure, but I would be willing to bet, that the
Baha’is are not represented at all in the police—I could
be wrong. The point is that once we go down the track of positive
discrimination, groups that we might wish to encourage are discouraged
because they end up in a negative discrimination category. That is
certainly the case for the ethnic communities in Northern
Ireland.
Lady
Hermon:
Can I get a clear line from the Liberal Democrats?
It is not so long ago that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire voted in
favour of 50-50 recruitment for police community support officers. Has
the Liberal Democrats’ argument changed? Have they done a
U-turn?
Lembit
Öpik:
As the hon. Lady will recall—I made
this point in the earlier debate, which she needs to re-read—I
voted in favour of 50-50 recruitment for community support officers
because I thought that that legislation was sufficiently important for
the structure of policing in Northern Ireland as a whole. It was better
to pass that legislation, notwithstanding my fierce and continuing
opposition to the 50-50 element. Since we are now talking primarily
about the 50-50 recruitment policy, I do not have such a conflict of
interest. That is why I am able to focus on the concern that both she
and I have rightly highlighted, as I suspect the Democratic Unionist
party spokesman will.
The
order deals with the recruitment of Catholic officers. It is pleasing
to see, from reading the Chief Constable’s report, that the PSNI
is on target to achieve the increase in representation that the
Government set as a goal. Given the recent republican declaration of
support for the police in Northern Ireland, one must return to a
question that the Minister has already been asked. Given that the
biggest restriction on, and discouragement of, Catholics applying to
the police force is, as everybody knows, intimidation by the republican
movement, why is it that we need to enshrine a policy of positive
discrimination in legislation?
There are two
possible conclusions. The first is that the fear continues; in other
words, there is an underlying practice of intimidation to discourage
Catholics from applying. The second conclusion is that people are
concerned that there is a prejudice within the recruitment system
itself. However, we do not have to revisit too many recent Northern
Ireland debates to know that the Government adamantly dismiss any
accusation that the police recruitment service is prejudiced against
Catholics. We can only draw the conclusion that Catholics are still in
some way disincentivised from applying to the police. I am at a loss to
see what motivation there could be for Catholics not to want to apply
to the police. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Committee has
a right to expect a logical response to the question about what the
positive discrimination seeks to address.
Sammy
Wilson:
Given that recruitment to the police is now in the
hands of an independent company, Consensia, and the police have nothing
to do with it, does the hon.
Gentleman accept that the explanation—I know that he was trying
to help the Minister—cannot be that there is some prejudice in
the police? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Minister must be
making some comment on the security
situation?
Lembit
Öpik:
I have reached the same conclusion as the
hon. Member for East Antrim. The Government cannot genuinely think that
there is prejudice in the recruitment service, although we might
legitimately have had that discussion in the past. I see that the
Minister is shaking his head, so we all agree that no one in the
Committee suggests that there is any kind of systemic prejudice towards
applicants once they have applied to the police. That leads to the
inescapable conclusion that there must be some other motivating or
demotivating factor that the positive discrimination policy seeks to
address. The only one that I can think of is intimidation, and a sense
of being discouraged by the republican movement from applying, as we
have seen in the past. The Government have made it clear that they take
in good faith Sinn Fein’s claimed support of the police and the
inference that the IRA will no longer stand in the way of Catholics who
seek a career in the police. That being the case, the Minister needs to
explain why we are debating a 50-50 policy that seems to have no ill to
fix.
I ask the
Minister to try to do something that none of his predecessors have
succeeded in doing in the recent past, which is to give a single
logical reason why the Government think that we still need 50-50 when
the prejudice has gone and when we have been told that the intimidation
has gone too.
I put
down a clear marker for the Government. If, in three years’
time, the Government propose to renew the provisions for another three
years, they will have acted in bad faith with regard to the promises
that they made when they forced the legislation through in the past.
Every single one of us wants to see adequate representation of the
Catholic community in the police, but the principle that it embodies,
which necessarily discriminates against ethnic minorities in the
non-Catholic population, is an unnecessary evil. Through the logic of
my argument, I cannot see the good that comes from the 50-50
process.
If the
Government do renew the provisions again, they will have reneged on
their promise. Unfortunately, I predict that that is exactly what will
happen in three years’ time. One gets the feeling that the
Government are abysmal at generating a mindset of abandoning temporary
orders. The 50-50 policy is set to become yet another permanent feature
of the temporary legal framework that we find ourselves discussing so
often in the House. I hope that the Minister can give some sort of
reassurance, but frankly I am sceptical. For that reason, I do not find
myself in a position to change my stance from the annoyance that I have
felt all the way through debates about the 50-50 process, and I do not
feel that I can support the
order.
5.4
pm
Sammy
Wilson:
At the outset, I want to say that, although on the
face of it this might seem to be an innocuous piece of legislation, the
wording disguises how pernicious it is. Its result is that in Northern
Ireland we have Government-sponsored, institutionalised discrimination.
The result of that is that there are people who are suitably qualified
for a job in the police—more qualified than some successful
applicants—who will receive through their letterbox a letter
stating that, because of their background and religion, they have not
been accepted for the job for which they have applied. They will have
gone through a recruitment process, as I mentioned in my earlier
intervention, and some will have scored up to 20 per cent. higher than
those applicants from the Catholic community who are eventually
accepted into the police, yet they will get a letter saying,
“Although you have scored significantly more, you will not have
this post because of your background.” That is what this
legislation is all about. It is not becoming for the House to simply
nod through such a pernicious piece of discriminatory
legislation.
The
Minister has argued that the purpose of the proposed legislation is to
change the climate of policing to make the police more acceptable to
the community. I have to say that in many cases and in many places the
police found it difficult to do their job not because, when the
policeman appeared at the door someone said, “I do not want you
near here because you’re a Protestant”, or
“because you’re not a Catholic.” Policing was
difficult in some areas, because even to call the police or be
associated with them meant that people’s families, including
their children, would be intimidated and their houses put under attack.
That was nothing to do with the religion of the police
officers.
I work
closely with the community association in Seacourt in my constituency,
which is a predominantly Catholic estate. In fact, until recently it
was the one part of East Antrim that had the Irish tricolour flying
over it. The people in Seacourt community centre are not interested in
the background of the police who come out to see them. I do not think
that they are even aware of what the percentage of Catholics in the
police force is. All that they want to know is whether the police will
do the job that they have brought them out to do and ensure that their
community is secure and
safe.
The Minister and
the Secretary of State have told us that we are now in a different era
and that intimidation of people who wish to call the police should no
longer be an issue. Therefore, the composition of the police
force—whether there is a certain percentage of
Catholics—should not affect the ability of the police to do
their job. I have never heard anyone, whether in Glenville estate in
Newtownabbey at one end of my constituency, which is predominantly
nationalist, or Seacourt estate at the other end, or in Carnlough at
the very top of my constituency which is predominantly nationalist,
saying, “Don’t bring the police down here because too
many of them are Protestants.” That is not the issue. Confidence
in the police will depend on how well they do their job and how those
who associate with them are treated by their own
community.
As the hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire has mentioned, we are being told that
republicans have now met the conditions of supporting the police and
that we are now in a terrorist-free environment in Northern Ireland, so
if the Secretary of State and the Minister really believe what they are
telling people in Northern Ireland, there is no need for this
legislation other than that the Government are determined to
carry out a process of discrimination. Let the Minister not argue here
today that this is nothing to do with making the police acceptable or
making their job easier in Northern
Ireland.
The first of
the many results of this legislation is the resentment that it causes.
The figures can be interpreted in many ways, but at the last count more
than 1,700 people in Northern Ireland had received letters through
their post box saying that they were not acceptable as police officers
because of their religion. The Minister may come up with a different
figure because some people have received multiple refusals because of
their religion. Constituents of mine have gone through the process
seven or eight times. They have finished the recruitment exercise only
to be turned down not because they were not good enough to serve in the
police but because they were not of the right religion. Whatever way
the Minister wishes to present the figures, the fact is that more than
1,700 letters of that nature have gone out, and that has caused great
resentment.
The second
problem is suspicion. There is a perception that it does not matter how
good or suitable people are for the job; that all that matters is their
background or religion. I served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board
for a number of years and one of the functions that I carried out with
real enthusiasm was speaking to recruits about the role of the Policing
Board. I could understand one of the things that came through time and
again especially from young Catholic recruits. They did not want to be
seen as officers who got into the police because of their religion.
They wanted to be seen as people who got there because they deserved to
be there and merited the
position.
Unfortunately,
this measure and exercise in 50-50 leads to the perception that people
are in the police not because they merited it or were the best
qualified candidates but because they were Catholics. They might even
well have been recorded as second-class police officers. Some may have
even scored as high as their Protestant counterparts; some may have
scored lower. The second result can lead to the perception that there
is almost two-tier
recruitment.
The third
result has already been mentioned. It has been especially so not in the
recruitment of police officers, for which there have always been plenty
of applicants, but more in the recruitment of support staff. That has
happened for a variety of reasons, such as that there is not an
abundance of skills within the Catholic community or that the pay is
quite low. The vacancies may occur in areas where mostly Protestants
live; people would have to travel some distance and do not consider it
worth their while to do so for a job that pays
£11,000.
Recruitment
exercises have resulted in no people being appointed or, in some cases,
only half the desired number being appointed because there were not
enough Catholic applicants or no Catholic people came forward. During
my time at the Policing Board, when people were needed in the forensic
labs—a vital job—the recruitment exercise produced no
one, because only eight Protestants applied. Each district command unit
had to appoint a personnel officer. That recruitment exercise stretched
over a long time because there had to be several exercises for
sufficient Catholics to apply. There have been other instances like
that.
The wastefulness of the exercise
must also be considered. The irony is that the 50-50 rule is meant to
apply at police constable level in Northern Ireland, whether constables
are coming from another force or are raw recruits. After the Patten
proposals, there was a great dearth of detectives in Northern Ireland.
At one stage, so many detectives and people who were qualified as
detectives had left that a recruitment exercise had to be carried out
to recruit detective constables from mainland forces.
We see how pernicious the
legislation is when we consider that the only time at which the 50-50
recruitment requirement was dropped was when it came to inviting
applications from serving police officers in forces here on the
mainland. That is because what is tolerated in Northern Ireland would
never be tolerated in mainland forces. No one would understand why they
had to declare their religion to get a place in the PSNI, yet the
standard that applies to people who come into the PSNI is totally
different to that for the recruitment of constables in this part of the
UK.
Lembit
Öpik:
This creates a preposterous situation in
which an applicant who is rejected in Northern Ireland could, in
theory, apply successfully for a place in a police force in England and
then reapply in Northern Ireland and get in, because this
discrimination would not then apply. Does the hon. Gentleman
agree?
Sammy
Wilson:
That is exactly what some people plan to do. They
have applied to police services here in England, such as the Met, with
the sole purpose of getting back home after they have been recruited,
although, they would have to be in an area with a skills shortage, and
the police service would have to be recruiting constables. That is the
nonsense of this legislation and why it is resented in Northern
Ireland. I doubt whether any member of the Committee would accept that
as a standard for the police service in their area. It was foisted on
the people of Northern Ireland, and will be renewed if the order is
agreed.
The hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire made my next point very eloquently, but I
want to emphasise it. If republicans have accepted policing, the only
explanation for this legislation is not that we need to find a way to
encourage Catholics because they are being intimidated, but must be
that there is some innate discrimination within the process. Those are
the only two possible explanations. Do we have to make things easier
for Catholics to join because they face intense intimidation from their
community? The Government have told us that that no longer happens and
that Sinn Fein has accepted and signed up to policing, so there should
be no issue with someone from the Catholic community joining.
The second possible explanation
is that there is some kind of institutional barrier within the
recruitment exercise. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister will
tell us where he has identified that barrier and whether Consensia has
been challenged about it. Are there plans to stop its contract and
appoint someone else? If there is no such institutional barrier within
the process, is this legislation required because outside factors such
as intimidation still affect people within the Catholic
community? If so, why is the Secretary of State telling my party almost
daily that it is time to go into government with Sinn Fein because it
has met all the requirements on policing and security to qualify for
ministerial places in Government? The Minister and the Government
cannot have it both
ways.
As
they consider this piece of legislation, can hon. Members justify
voting for something that institutionalises discrimination? As the hon.
Member for North Down pointed out, the measure will affect not just
Protestants but ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland as well. I happen
to be the political representative on the Chinese chamber of commerce,
and it has raised the issue with me because it believes that by being
lumped together with Protestants and other non-Catholics, people from
the Chinese community are being discriminated against as well. If hon.
Members come to the conclusion that discrimination is not acceptable in
this part of the United Kingdom, then I challenge them not to vote for
discrimination in the part of the United Kingdom that I
represent.
5.20
pm
Mr.
Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): Thank you,
Sir John. Mine is a very narrow point, which follows from what other
Opposition Members have said. I am grateful for the explanatory notes,
paragraph 4.5 of which makes it clear that the order conforms, as one
would expect, with the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997,
because it has been tailored to do so, and with the Fair Employment and
Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. It states that that
ensures
“that the
application of the 50:50 selection procedures doesnot conflict
with these elements of anti-discrimination
legislation...Separately, the Government obtained an exemption
from European Directive 2000/78/EC on employment equality, to allow for
these exceptional recruitment
arrangements.”
I would
expect the Government to do so. However, I note the word
“exceptional”—the Government clearly accept that
these are exceptional
circumstances.
Paragraph
6.1 states
that
“It is the
view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, that
the provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of
Temporary Provisions) Order 2007 are compatible with the European
Convention on Human Rights.”
That is where I have a difficulty. I am
surprised that more has not been made of that, because on the face of
it they are incompatible. There can be exceptional or pressing social
reasons for a temporary derogation, but they do not seem to apply here.
The order does not redress discrimination, because it seems to be
accepted that there is no social discrimination. Recruitment is fair
and open and is not conducted by the police—it has been given to
one of the Government’s beloved arm’s-length recruitment
agencies, paid for out of the public
purse.
It seems that
the order has been introduced to redress an employment problem that
might have arisen because of intimidation. I am not sure why a
recruitment drive of these proportions—or any proportions, for
that matter—in itself redresses intimidation. If there is
intimidation, then clearly people are frightened from applying for
employment.If I have listened carefully enough, going by
the
arguments put forward by Opposition Members there is no intimidation at
that sort of level at the moment. The order has not therefore been
introduced to redress discrimination—not even temporarily, as
the European convention on human rights or the European Court of Human
Rights has allowed in the past. We know that from the equality of the
Labour party selection processes, which allow contravention because
there is temporary leeway on the matter—it is in British
statute. If it is not about that, what is it designed to
redress?
I feel for
the Opposition Members who have spoken. There is no explanation and no
detail, as so often happens in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998
and the European convention on human rights. There is just a bland
assurance and no argument is put forward. I look forward to seeing
somebody in Northern Ireland testing the proposition, which would be
very interesting, because the case that has been made by the most
amiable of Ministers does not stand
up.
Lady
Hermon:
In 2002, I actively encouraged a courageous young
constituent to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman has suggested by
challenging the 50-50 recruitment procedure. The hon. Gentleman is
entirely correct. The judge accepted that the provision was
proportionate to address the low level of Catholic recruitment, but
only because it was of a temporary nature. That was in 2002; we are now
in
2007.
Mr.
Shepherd:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, in both senses.
She is, of course, right, and that judgment was consistent with earlier
judgments. It was based on the temporary nature of a provision to
redress an exceptional situation. It is challengeable, and it is
difficult for the Government to sustain the argument that the provision
is necessary on a continuing
basis.
I did not
intend to take up much of the Committee’s time, but we should
all be cautious about mandated proportions and so on, particularly if
freedom of expression or freedom of religious belief is involved. I
believe in blindness as to race, creed and colour when it comes to the
selection of citizens for such an important role as that of policing
their fellow
citizens.
5.26
pm
Lady
Hermon:
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship,
Sir John. I believe that this is the first occasion when I have been
able to do so. I thank you for undertaking the Chairman’s role
this afternoon for this controversial and utterly repugnant piece of
legislation.
Like
hon. Members who spoke in opposition to the order, I believe that
religious discrimination is utterly contemptible. I find myself
offended to the very core of my being that a British
Government—a Labour Government at that—are legalising
religious discrimination in the United Kingdom specifically in Northern
Ireland, which is, of course, an integral part of the UK. I want to
pick up on remarks that have been made by speakers of all
parties.
The hon.
Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is absolutely correct to highlight the
order’s inconsistency and incompatibility with the European
convention on human rights. The relevant case is in fact the one that I
described in my intervention on him. It was taken in
2002 by my young constituent, who was 19 years old and of the Protestant
faith. He had been rejected by the Police Service of Northern Ireland
on account of his community
background.
The issue
has been examined by the oversight commissioner, who, as the hon.
Member for East Antrim has rightly said, criticised the provision
because of its negative impact not only on the applicant but on their
siblings and those with whom they socialise. In fact, several young
people have left Northern Ireland. They were committed to serving in a
police service and would have preferred to serve in Northern Ireland,
but they were driven out courtesy of the appalling 50-50 recruitment
procedure. They have joined police services elsewhere not only in the
United Kingdom but in
Canada.
In
the instance of my constituent, Mark Parsons, and the 2002 judicial
review, Mr. Justice Kerr was careful to identify that in
fact the provision discriminated and breached the European convention
on human rights. However, in considering the proportionality argument
some five years ago, he upheld the procedure on the basis of its
temporary nature. I agree with the hon. Member for
Aldridge-Brownhills.
Mr.
Shepherd:
This is a simple question: was the case heard by
a Northern Ireland justice or in the Court in
Strasbourg?
Lady
Hermon:
The case was heard in the High Court in Belfast
and did not go all the way to Strasbourg. Since this Labour Government
made the convention part and parcel of our domestic legislation, one
does not have to go to Strasbourg. The beauty of that is that one can
go to the High Court in Belfast to enforce one’s
rights.
Mr.
Shepherd:
The beauty of that is that if one gets leave,
one can have a case referred, if it is an important area of law, to the
court in Strasbourg. It is not the end of the
process.
Lady
Hermon:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene once
more to clarify whether the article 177 reference is to the European
Court of Justice in Luxembourg or to the European Court of Human Rights
in
Strasbourg.
Mr.
Shepherd:
I am talking about the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg, which is the final determining court on these
matters.
Lady
Hermon:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That
reference could have been to either of the courts, because they have
both taken an interest in human
rights.
The young
gentleman to whom I have referred decided that his time would be better
spent doing something else, and he did not challenge the decision
further. However, I suggest that if a challenge were mounted now, five
years later, it would be successful. Mr. Parsons persevered
and did not leave Northern Ireland. Eventually, after a lot of
perseverance, repeated applications, and encouragement from
his
parents and MP not to leave Northern Ireland, he was successful and is
now serving with the PSNI, but he bears the scars of the discriminatory
recruitment
procedure.
Part of my
bitterness about the legislation is that the Minister knows full well
that in 1988 every household in Northern Ireland received a copy of the
Belfast agreement. It is a collector’s item and, whether or not
it is valuable, I would not be tempted to give it to
anyone—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Antrim
(Sammy Wilson) is indicating that he would like a copy. DUP Members
have moved into the space occupied by the Belfast agreement, as we
shall
see.
Every
household received a copy of the agreement, and 71 per cent. of
eligible voters in Northern Ireland voted in their thousands to support
it. I was one of them, which makes me an endangered species—a
pro-agreement Unionist. I voted for the agreement, and I read it from
cover to cover, from the front to the back rather than the reverse,
which is important. Page 16 is headed, “Rights, Safeguards and
Equality of Opportunity”. Under the subheading, “Human
Rights”, it guaranteed to everyone in Northern Ireland a key
factor for which thousands of people
voted:
“The
parties affirm their commitment to the mutual
respect”
and
“the
right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity,
regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or
ethnicity”.
The British
Government, as one of the parties, also indicated on page 16 that it
was
“a particular
priority to create a statutory obligation on public authorities in
Northern Ireland to carry out all their functions with due regard to
the need to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and
political opinion”.
On
that one page, it gave a commitment twice under the heading,
“Human Rights”, that the people of Northern Ireland would
be guaranteed equality of opportunity. That is what thousands of people
voted for.
The
Minister has prayed in aid the Patten report, “A New Beginning:
Policing in Northern Ireland”. I have always found it an
interesting document. Paragraph 4.6 is pertinent to our
discussion:
“We
recommend a comprehensive programme of action to focus policing in
Northern Ireland on a human rights-based approach...It is more a
matter of the philosophy of policing, and should inspire everything
that a police service does. It should be seen as the core of this
report.”
Respect
for human rights, which includes the right to one’s religion and
the freedom of religion without discrimination, is a core value and a
fundamental human right. The Patten report ostensibly puts human rights
at the core of policing. However, it also recommended that there should
be religious discrimination and that the Government should obtain an
exemption from European directives. The British Government did that,
and the gentleman who is highlighted on the front page of the
report—a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for whom
I have enormous regard—was the Secretary of State at the time in
Northern Ireland. He specifically negotiated an exemption from the EU
directive on the basis of religion. The commitments given by the
British Government to the population were voted on not only in Northern
Ireland but by thousands of
people in the Republic of Ireland. Two years later, they were reneged on
in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Section 46 of the
2000 Act introduced an appalling recruitment procedure on the basis of
one’s religion, which we are being asked to renew this
afternoon.
What makes
it doubly ludicrous is that having recruited young people on a
blatantly discriminatory grounds to join the Police Service of Northern
Ireland, every officer is obliged to swear an oath or to affirm an
oath. I shall read what every police officer who has come through a
discriminatory procedure is then obliged to
swear:
“I
hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I
will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable, with
fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental
human rights and according equal respect to all individuals and their
traditions and
beliefs”.
Having put
recruits through a discriminatory recruitment procedure to join the
force, those recruits are then obliged to swear an oath upholding
equality and fundamental human rights. It is idiotic in the
extreme.
In
1997-98, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced a very
interesting report entitled “Composition, Recruitment and
Training of the RUC”. The membership of that Committee included
Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Tony McWalter,
Mr. Harry Barnes, now retired from the House, and the
current Secretary of State for Defence. The report said that a
community attitude survey had shown that
“the major reason preventing young
Roman Catholics coming forward to join the RUC is the fear of violence
which would be offered towards them and members of their
family.”
When I
intervened in the Minister’s speech, I wanted him to confirm on
the record for both the public and the Committee that the main reason
for low Catholic representation within the RUC was in no way and no
manner to do with discrimination within the police force. On the
contrary, the main reason was to do with intimidation and
violence perpetrated mainly by the
IRA.
Let me deal with
the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the new
Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes,
who is now ungagged. In previous Committees, the hon. Member for East
Antrim was not able to speak. On this occasion, however, he is allowed
to speak and has been completely ungagged, which is very welcome
indeed.
All hon. Members
have highlighted the intriguing position in which the Government now
find themselves. Ostensibly, Sinn Fein voted overwhelmingly in support
of policing at its ard fheis at the end of January. Given, as the
Secretary of State keeps reminding us, that we all live under a new
dispensation in which Sinn Fein has signed up to policing, there is no
earthly justification why we are again being asked to legalise
religious discrimination in the recruitment of police officers. I
cannot in any way agree to vote for such legislation, and I hope that
Government Members who have listened to the debate will think twice
before rubber-stamping the
order.
5.40
pm
Paul
Goggins:
As predicted, views on this issue are strongly
held and passionately argued, and I welcome all hon. Members’
contributions.
I begin with
the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes. He and
the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned the issue of orders and
the number of orders at the moment. I apologise to those hon. Members
who will have to come back on Thursday to debate again an order that we
have debated before because of a technical problem, but whether or not
we had reached this point in devolution, we would have debated the
order before us in any event, to bring back temporary provisions to
help us get to the 30 per cent. target.
Lembit
Öpik:
I will stay in order. I make this observation
rhetorically, because the Minister knows that it is true, but does he
not accept that if we had an amendability process, we would never have
ended up in the mess of running the same Committee
twice?
Paul
Goggins:
There will be opportunities to debate that later
in the week, but it is a genuine and technical issue that has caused us
to have to come back on Thursday. The hon. Gentleman knows and has
welcomed the fact that, post-devolution, the Government have made a
commitment to examine the Order in Council process. We will do so,
because it is important that we take democracy
seriously.
Lembit
Öpik:
I am just keeping the pressure
on.
Paul
Goggins:
I understand.
The hon.
Member for North-East Milton Keynes posed the theoretical example that
there might be 100 posts to be filled but only 30 suitably
qualified Catholics, with the potential therefore to recruit only 60,
leaving 40 vacancies. That example is certainly theoretical in relation
to those applying to become police officers, because we have never
faced that situation. I shall give him the figures for the eleventh
round of recruitment under the arrangements. Altogether, 7,861
applications were received, with 600 suitably qualified candidates in
the pool and 220 appointments made. It was not a problem. An abundance
of Catholic and non-Catholic applications were
made.
Since 2001 when
the temporary measures were first introduced, there have been 170
civilian recruitment campaigns, 22 of which fell within the 50-50
provisions. On only two occasions—they may be the occasions to
which the hon. Member for East Antrim was referring—was it not
possible to fill the vacancies because of a deficit in Catholic
applications. On both occasions, the posts were filled after a
readvertisement. By and large, we have not suffered from what I agree
would be a difficulty if it were to happen in practice. In fact, we
have had an abundance of applications, thankfully, so we have not been
caught
out.
The
hon. Gentleman asked why the proposed level was 30 per cent. Clearly,
that goes back to the recommendations of the Patten report. The 30 per
cent. is not intended in any way to parallel directly the proportion of
Catholics in the population. The purpose is to reach a level at which
all communities can be confident that the police service is their
police service and can identify with it. Patten took evidence from a
range of experts. Having listened to the experts, he recommended 30 per
cent., which the Government accepted.
The figure was not just plucked out of the air; it
came from the advice of a range of leading experts on such
issues.
Harry
Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): My hon. Friend has
given us some figures for recruitment and spoken about the 30 per cent.
target. Can he give us an idea of the current composition of the
Northern Ireland police force? Presumably he has statistics on how many
are Catholic and how many are of other religions, presumably mostly
Protestant.
Paul
Goggins:
I am happy to do so. As I mentioned in my opening
remarks, Catholic representation in the PSNI is now 21.23 per cent.,
which is 1,604 police officers. Officers from the perceived Protestant
community now number 5,757—some 76 per cent. of the
PSNI—and there is a small group of somewhat less than 3 per
cent. whose faith is not determined. Broadly speaking, 21 per cent. are
Catholic, and slightly more than three quarters are from the Protestant
community.
Virtually
every hon. Member who spoke asked why the Government are putting
forward temporary provisions once again. I simply put it to the
Committee that we started at 8 per cent., went to 14 per cent. and have
now reached 21 per cent. We are determined to reach the 30 per cent.
level that was recommended by Patten, and which we accepted, in a
timely fashion. It is welcome that Sinn Fein now supports the police
and rule of law, and that its leadership is encouraging people from its
community to apply to the police. Nevertheless, we have to get to the
target in a timely fashion, and we would not do so if we did not make
these temporary
provisions.
The hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire asked for details of the application numbers
for ethnic minority communities. If he will forgive me, I shall write
to him with the precise numbers, because I do not wish to detain the
Committee with a string of figures, and I think that he will accept
that. It is important that we encourage people from ethnic minority
communities to come forward, and indeed the PSNI has engaged in a range
of initiatives to try to encourage applications from those communities.
However, the overriding priority is to ensure adequate Catholic
representation in the PSNI.
I have not dressed things up at
any stage in my comments—the provisions are concerned with
positive discrimination. We want to get to 30 per cent. in a reasonable
time and we believe that we can do so by March 2011 if the temporary
provisions are extended for the length of time proposed. I am
encouraged that the normal rate of Catholic applications has now
increased from 35 per cent. to 41 per cent. in the last round, and I
hope that the proportion will increase further. However, I am not
prepared to accept a situation where the proportion might or might not
creep up over time. I want there to be a mechanism in place to ensure
that the 30 per cent. figure is reached.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister clarify whether pressure was
brought to bear on the British Government by the Irish Government at
the time of the St. Andrews agreement to ensure that 50-50 recruitment
would last longer than three years? Will he confirm that that was the
case, and that it was not just Sinn Fein that applied
pressure?
Paul
Goggins:
There was considerable discussion at St. Andrews
about this issue and many others. What emerged in the agreement was a
commitment that, when 30 per cent. was reached, the temporary
provisions would lapse. Of course, various parties had all kinds of
opinions at St. Andrews on the present issue and on many others.
However, that was what the agreement said. I emphasise that the
measures are not a permanent feature, as I shall no doubt repeat one or
twice before I conclude. If they were, it would not be acceptable, but
by the end of March 2011 they should get us to the point of having 30
per cent. Catholic
representation.
I
acknowledge the tremendous work of the hon. Member for East Antrim as a
member of the Policing Board, and I congratulate him on his re-election
to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish him and his colleagues well,
as we move—hopefully—to devolved government in 13
days’ time. I am sure that he will play an important part in the
Assembly.
The hon.
Gentleman said that we are dealing with organised discrimination. I
have not hidden away from that, and if the measures were permanent they
would not be acceptable. We have heard about court challenges, and no
doubt if the measures were permanent those challenges would be
acceptable.
The hon.
Gentleman invited me to clarify one figure that is important. Some 708
non-Catholic applicants reached the pool of suitably qualified
candidates and were not appointed, although they scored more highly
than Catholics who were appointed. I acknowledge that from the start.
The figure corresponds to 1.7 per cent. of non-Catholic appointments.
There was some confusion in Northern Ireland, because some
non-Catholics received letters explaining that they had not been
appointed because of the temporary 50-50 provisions, when in fact they
had not come high enough up the merit order and would not have been
appointed in any event, even without the arrangements. There was some
confusion, but thankfully that has been sorted out, so it is now clear
whether people have failed to be appointed because of the 50-50
arrangements or whether they have not reached a sufficiently high point
in the merit pool.
Just to give one or two more
figures, more than 8,000 applicants have reached the merit pool. They
are suitably qualified people who could have been appointed to the
PSNI. More than 5,000 of them have not been appointed, such is the
number of applications that have been made. Again, we should be
encouraged by that. We are in a new era. I am happy to reaffirm the
comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about that. A
characteristic of that new era must be a police service that more
adequately reflects the composition of the community and enjoys its
full confidence.
The
hon. Member for East Antrim talked about wastefulness. There is some
wastefulness in the system, but we are seeking to remove some of it
through the policing order that we will debate later this week. Until
now, everybody in the pool has been vetted and has received a medical
examination, which is of course wasteful if people are subsequently not
appointed. We are removing that requirement, so that in future only
those who have been provisionally appointed will have to be medically
examined and vetted. That will save about £540,000
year.
Sammy
Wilson:
Since it currently costs about £12,500 to
recruit each successful applicant, will the Minister indicate by how
much those changes will affect the recruitment costs per
applicant?
Paul
Goggins:
I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman with a
precise figure, but I can tell him that the move will save around
£540,000 a year in global terms. Those savings will in no way
reduce the level of vetting that takes place or the scrutiny of the
medical condition of applicants, and that money can then be spent on
front-line policing. However, I will happily write to him to say by how
much the change will reduce individual costs per
recruit.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the other provisions that we are introducing to
address the shortage of detective constables in Northern Ireland. They
are not a back-door route round the 50-50 arrangements; rather, the
Chief Constable genuinely needs to recruit about 100 detective
constables to fill a gap in the system. In time, as the new recruits
become more experienced, they will come into those positions. The
measure is temporary and can be actioned only with the unanimous
support of the Policing Board, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I hope
that that offers him some reassurance. It is important that we give the
Chief Constable the powers to make those appointments if he needs
to.
I say again
plainly that the fact that we are again bringing such temporary
provisions forward is not a comment about any bias in the recruitment
procedures, which are scrupulous. Indeed, I acknowledge that levels of
intimidation have reduced dramatically. That should encourage people
from the Catholic community to come forward in greater numbers. The
issue is simply that we will not get to the 30 per cent. Catholic
representation in anything like the time scale that we need unless the
temporary measures are in place.
The hon.
Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked about compatibility with the
European convention on human rights. The answer emerged in his exchange
with the hon. Member for North Down. The reason why the order is
compatible is that it is a proportionate measure, and proportionate
only because it is temporary. The Equality Commission for Northern
Ireland shares that view. It has supported the arrangements as an
acceptable temporary measure, but it would not have done so if they
were permanent.
Sammy
Wilson:
Given what the Minister has said about not meeting
the required level of Catholic police officers if we simply allowed
natural events to take their course and the fact that 41 per cent. of
those who are now applying are from the Catholic community, is he
saying that the quality of Catholic recruits is less than that of
Protestant recruits and that we therefore can bring in Catholics only
by such discriminatory measures? If that is what he is saying, there
are severe implications. If there is no shortage of Catholic
applicants, there should surely be no difficulty if they are all of
equal quality.
Paul
Goggins:
All recruits have to reach a suitable standard in
order to be in the pool in the first place. The rate of applications
from Catholics has been around 35 per cent. On the latest occasion it
has gone up to 41 per cent., and it might fall back next time. It
certainly is not at 50 per cent., and that is why the temporary
measures are necessary. It is not a comment about the ability of one
community or another. Everyone who is recruited has to reach a certain
standard, but in order to maintain the level and the rate of progress
towards 30 per cent., we need these temporary measures.
Finally, the hon. Member for
North Down raised the case of her constituent, and through that example
she argued forcefully for her point of view, as she always does in this
Committee. I do not hide from the fact that I have enormous sympathy
for those 708 people who might otherwise have had a job in the PSNI,
but I also have enormous ambition to get the 30 per cent.
representation in place. I am delighted that the young man in her
example persisted and eventually was recruited to the PSNI. That is
welcome.
The hon. Lady
quoted from page 16 of the Belfast agreement, and referred to the
commitment to equality of opportunity. I do not see any discrepancy
between that commitment and the measures that we have in place today
for a commitment to ensure that we have a Police Service of Northern
Ireland that more adequately reflects the community that it serves and
should therefore have the confidence of that
community.
I have tried to answer as
succinctly and briefly as possible the comments made by hon. Members. I
urge the Committee to support the order.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
5.
Division
No.
1
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee
has considered the draft Police(Northern Ireland) Act 2000
(Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order
2007.
Committee
rose
at two minutes to Six
o’clock.
