Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2003.

Standing Committee E

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before we begin, I must inform the Committee that, due to a printing error, new clauses 8 and 9 are on page 1319 of the amendment paper. They should have appeared on page 1315 after new clause 7, and I shall call them then.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Are you saying that new clauses 8 and 9 are now grouped? I am anxious to know what will be required of me in a moment.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

No. I merely draw attention to the fact that they are on the wrong page. They are not grouped.Clause 19 Fixed-term appointments

Clause 19 - Fixed-term appointments

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 117, in

clause 19, page 12, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 118, in

clause 19, page 12, leave out lines 33 to 35.

No. 119, in

clause 19, page 12, leave out lines 36 and 37.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I believe that I have got my mind around this.

I welcome back several Members, and I imagine that this sitting will last slightly longer than one or two previous ones. I am remarkably relieved that there were no entries in the weekend press about who said what about being got out of bed of a morning. I am grateful to have escaped that. Those who were not here should read the Official Report of the previous sitting, which is enlightening.

On a more serious note, I am grateful for the Government's assurance that they will not use the Committee to introduce anything that is not immediately relevant to the Bill. True to their word, they have made no attempt to do so, and it would be churlish not to say that I appreciate that. That is what they said and that is what has happened, but there are discussions about a possible two days of consideration on Report. I wonder why we need two days on Report to discuss matters that we have not covered in Committee.

I am full of alarm at what is being contemplated, and I repeat that the Bill should not be used at any stage to address new issues that may have arisen from recent discussions. It is entirely proper that further changes to the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be made under new legislation, so that both Houses of Parliament can give them the fullest possible

scrutiny. We should not find that little bits have been tagged on to a Bill that has almost completed its progress through the House.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Has the Minister reassured my hon. Friend on that?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have not discussed the matter with the Minister, so to say that I have not been reassured would imply that I might have been misled. Suffice it to say that I had a preliminary chat through the usual channels. I did not discuss the matter with the Minister one way or the other, and I hope that that puts the record straight. I genuinely do not know what might happen. I have merely noticed that there is the possibility of two days' consideration on Report.

I know the Bill fairly well by now, and I have my doubts about whether those two days would be used to allow us to examine its technicalities. If the Government are contemplating what I fear they are contemplating, the official Opposition oppose that way of doing things. That is not to say that we oppose or support what the Government might want to do, because we do not know what they might want to do. I merely observe that we object to that way of doing things.

The first group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 117, is difficult to speak to without having a wider debate on the clause. To ask questions about the details, we need to know what fixed-term appointments the Chief Constable would be allowed to make, what they would involve, why they are necessary, what the terms would be and who would be involved—all stand part matters. They are relevant to the amendments, but I shall leave them as stand part issues until the Government have explained what they are trying to do.

Amendment No. 117 would change the term of the appointment from three years to five. From my experience of appointing people on fixed-term contracts in local government, I have a clear view that three years is too little to secure the quality of person and commitment required. Making an appointment for a three-year stint—the clause makes it clear that a constable cannot be involved—means that the person in question is unlikely to be starting out on a career. That person will already have a job and be asked to give it up for three years.

Someone above the rank of constable is likely to have a pensionable job, a family and a mortgage, so is he likely to risk losing all that for the sake of a three-year appointment? Perhaps someone near to retirement age could do the job as an extension to a working life, but the clause excludes senior officers, so we are talking about middle management. We are unlikely to secure the quality of person necessary by offering a job for three years.

The amendment would extend the job to five years, although I can understand people wondering whether five years is any different from three. I admit to proposing five years to tease out for how long the job will be available. I suspect that going much beyond five or six years would take the job to near permanency, and the value of having someone who is going to leave at a specified point becomes less

relevant if the period is to extend to the distant future. I acknowledge that it is possible to go too far, but the amendment is designed to tease out the Government's intentions and to establish whether only three years is justified and whether a fixed-term contract should apply in this example.

Amendment No. 118 allows me to get on one of my hobby-horses. Proposed new section 36A(4) states:

''The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications as he considers necessary or expedient to any provision of the 1998 Act or this Act in its application to persons appointed under subsection (1).''

What is the point of drafting and debating legislation when we end up with a provision stating that what the law says, what was said in debates or what assurances were given do not matter because the Secretary of State can tear it all up, ignore it and do exactly as he pleases? That amounts to government not through the democratic process of Parliament, but by diktat.

If it is necessary to have a provision on fixed-term appointments that sets out how long they can be and that the person appointed cannot be a constable or a senior officer and cannot do this, that or the other, we should debate it and agree to the proposal through the democratic process. As I have said in other Standing Committees, I object to the sweeping powers of the jackboot dictatorship of a Secretary of State who can do exactly as he pleases despite what Parliament has decided and pay scant regard to any assurances given by the Government of the day to Parliament.

I object to such provisions in any legislation, no matter who is in government. Parliament should be supreme. If the Secretary of State finds that the Government have made a mistake in their provisions and the arrangements they have made, let him come back to Parliament and say, ''I am sorry. We got it wrong. Please may we have permission to change this?'' He should not disregard everything that Parliament has said and the Government should not do as they please, which is what the amendment would prevent.

Amendment No. 119 is consequential on amendment No. 118. If we say that the Secretary of State cannot do those jackboot, dictatorship things, there is no point in having a clause that says that he must consult others before he does them. The amendment provides that the Secretary of State would have to tell the board and the Police Association what he intends to do before he tramples all over them with his jackboots, although there will be no need for that if parliamentary democracy prevails.

We should give serious thought to amendment No. 117 when we have heard what the Minister has to say. Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 would uphold the status of Parliament against ever-encroaching Government dictatorship.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

What a pleasure it is to return to the calm and peace of a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton, after the turmoil and

excitement of last Monday and Tuesday, and, to judge from comments made earlier, Thursday, too.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) asked about our intentions on Report. The discussions are still ongoing, and I do not know whether there has been a final agreement through the usual channels. It would be dishonest to duck the issue altogether, so I flag it up that we may consider new matters on Report. I am happy to discuss that in greater detail with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) at a more private moment.

As the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, the amendments would extend from three years to five the fixed-term period available to the Chief Constable to make appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It might help if I set the proposal in context. The British and Irish Governments signed an intergovernmental agreement on policing co-operation in April 2002 in which we committed ourselves, among other things, to introducing the necessary administrative and legislative measures to enable secondments from one police service to the other for periods not exceeding three years.

The three-year period was agreed by the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the chief commissioner of the Garda Síochana as the appropriate maximum for an officer to be seconded to the other police service. The hon. Member for Spelthorne made a strong point in arguing persuasively that, in his experience, which I accept, three years does not get the best out of a secondee in these circumstances. However, in the context that we are discussing the proposal, we should remember that secondees will return to their parent police service at the end of their secondment and retain the terms and conditions of their parent service during that period. In the discussions on whether three years is appropriate, it became clear that secondments from GB services to the PSNI that may already take place under the Police Act 1996 are generally of a similar, three-year duration or shorter. They do not tend to be longer.

Given that the three-year period specified in clause 19 will give effect to the intergovernmental commitment made by the Government on the professional advice of the Chief Constable, it would not be appropriate to extend the period to five years. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Spelthorne not to press his amendment.

The hon. Gentleman, in proposing amendments Nos. 118 and 119, railed against the Government's provisions, as we did in opposition. Taken together, the amendments would remove the order-making power in proposed new section 36A(4). It should be remembered that, before making an order under the powers, the Secretary of State would be required to consult the Policing Board and the Police Association.

I emphasise that we expect to make little recourse to the provision and that we are likely to make only a few modest modifications, whether wearing jackboots or not. However, there are issues still to be resolved, which may require modifications to the relevant legislation. For example, we might want to allow Garda officers to be represented by members of their

association—the Garda Representative Association—in any disciplinary hearings in which they are involved. That might require an amendment to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

There may be other issues that have not yet come to light or that might arise if the provision is used to facilitate fixed-term secondments from other police services. We therefore believe that it is prudent to ensure that we can make the necessary provision to facilitate sensible arrangements. Clause 19 requires the Secretary of State to consult the board and the Police Association before making any such provisions, and I assure Members that we would take careful note of the results of such consultations. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That was riveting, but unhelpful. It grieves me to have to be difficult with the Minister, but I shall discuss the amendments further.

I do not know whether it was a Freudian slip, but when the Minister referred to amendments Nos. 118 and 119, she said that she had railed against such issues in opposition. Consistency should be a virtue in politicians, but unfortunately it is not. I am unconvinced by her argument if her only defence against my amendments is to say that such provisions are acceptable now that she is in government, even though she agreed with my view when in opposition.

One reason why I languished on my party's Back Benches for 13 years was that I was consistent and used to complain about such things when on the Government side in Committee. There are those who would prefer me to be on the Back Benches now, but I would talk even more if I were, so perhaps I am safer where I am. If people believe such provisions to be wrong in opposition, they remain wrong and should not be adopted later for the sake of expediency.

The other argument that the Minister advanced, apart from saying, ''Now we have changed sides, we have changed our minds,'' was that we should not pursue amendments Nos. 118 and 119 as there might be things that have not yet been thought of. That is not a good approach to legislating. If such matters have not been thought through, why is the Bill before us?

I assumed that all sensible, possible thought had been given to the provisions when the Bill was drawn up. [Interruption.] Another reason why I may have been on the Back Benches for so long was that I worked on the assumption that the great and the good did those things sensibly and properly. However, I have discovered this morning that the approach is, ''We'll put a Bill together and shove it out. If it's not right, we'll come back again and sort it out.'' What an extraordinary way to try to run a country.

We should not be legislating if there are unresolved issues, because legislation should resolve them or give effect to agreements. If we are considering a situation in which a member of the Garda may or may not want representation, I should have thought that those matters would have to be cleared up before we even approached the question of seconding someone from the Northern Ireland police service to service in the Republic, or the other way round, rather than saying, ''Let's try this and see what we need later.'' That is an

extraordinary situation. To make those two discoveries having tabled the amendment is enlightening.

I have another point to make on amendment No. 117. Clause 19 states:

''The Chief Constable may appoint a person to the Police Service of Northern Ireland''.

However, in reply to my initial queries, we were told that that means that the Chief Constable of the PSNI may appoint a member of the Garda. If that is so, why on earth does the clause not say so? If that situation arises from an agreement between two sovereign Governments on what might happen with regard to seconding police officers from one force to the other, should not the clause say that the Chief Constable may appoint on a fixed-term contract a member of the Garda Síochana? That is what I understood the Minister to say. The clause will give the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland the power to appoint anyone, but that is not, I now discover, the intention.

The Minister has invited me not to press the amendments because they are not necessary. I shall not press them, not because they are unnecessary, but because they are wrong.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I particularly want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne a question about amendment No. 118, but I shall not do so if you would consider that out of order at this moment.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The amendments are grouped, so the hon. Gentleman may intervene to ask his question, as is the usual convention.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

In that case and if my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall remind him of something, because he has put a great deal of work, effort and study into these matters. The clause states:

''The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications as he considers . . . expedient''.

We are giving the Secretary of State the power to take action that he considers expedient. Is there a limit to that? Should this honourable House be in the business of giving a Secretary of State the power to do what he might, on waking up one morning, consider expedient?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have a lawyer on my right saying that and a lawyer on my left whispering in my ear that such a provision is frequently used. However, that is frequently wrong. Obviously, I did not do enough homework, because I did not alight on that point. My point was about the general principle, but yes, a reference to expediency makes matters even worse. There was I thinking that it was a dictatorial, jackboot approach to politics; now we are talking about just a whim.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Anything goes.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. The Secretary of State can just get up in the morning and think, ''What shall we do today? I know. We'll alter this for the fun of it, because that is expedient. It will make me feel better.'' That is extraordinary, and I apologise for missing that point.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me. Where subsection (1) states:

''The Chief Constable may appoint a person'',

presumably it means persons—plural—rather than a person. That is the usual form.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It will gradually become clear that I am not a lawyer and have not thought these matters through, but I imagine that if any lawyer wants to rescue me—

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

My hon. Friend makes a classic mistake among parliamentarians, which is apologising for not being a lawyer. As one who went straight some 15 years ago—I have not practised since; I have not touched the stuff at all—I think that it is a profound disadvantage to be a lawyer, and my hon. Friend is in a superior position, bringing to our deliberations his common sense and the views of his constituents, whom he represents so assiduously.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Spelthorne replies, I remind the Committee that we are not discussing the merits of being a lawyer and whether that is advantageous or disadvantageous for Members of Parliament. Let us return to the amendment?

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. My hon. Friend was being self-deprecating in circumstances that were not necessary or appropriate. That was the point of my intervention.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

That is not a point of order. It is up to the hon. Member for Spelthorne whether he wants to be self-deprecating. The Committee must return to the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am trying to remember where I was. Nevertheless, I enjoyed those few moments of flattery.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

May I remind my hon. Friend where he was? He was responding to a point that I was making. Subsection (1) reads:

''The Chief Constable may appoint a person''.

Presumably that is not one member of the Garda, but members.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I prefaced my comments by saying that I am not a lawyer, but I certainly work on the assumption that that is the legal formula for saying that it could be a large number of people, one after the other. I would happily stand corrected if that is not the legal way of doing it.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Is there any way that we could seek an assurance that the public will have the widest possible access to the Hansard record of these proceedings, so that they will know how seriously the Opposition have dealt with the dangers of a jackboot Government and the protection of democracy?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

That is not a point of order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the usual outlets for Hansard and other publications are readily accessible. I am sure that anyone who wishes to acquire a copy of Hansard can do so easily.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) will ensure that it is widely circulated. These are important issues that must be considered. The more the public understand how dictatorship is gradually creeping into this place, the better. I will join him in distributing the maximum number of copies of Hansard, if he would like. I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 117, but not because the Minister has convinced me that it is unnecessary. She has persuaded me that I did not word it correctly, and I understand what she said about three and five years. If the objective is to second a serving police office from one service to the other—

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am sorry to have to keep asking my hon. Friend to give way, but these are important issues. Although he is perhaps not entirely content with the wording of the amendment, the matters that he has drawn to our attention are sufficiently important for me to ask him whether he will reassure me, if not all members of the Committee, that his revised and refined amendments will reappear on Report. I do not want these matters to be abandoned. I am prepared for him to refine them. Will he give me a reassurance about that?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend has the final say about what will appear on Report in the form of Opposition amendments. What he says is exactly what I have in mind. We should say that the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be given the power to appoint a member of the Garda Síochana on a fixed-term appointment of three years. That is what the Government say that they want. Is the appointment limited to a serving police officer from another jurisdiction coming across for a short period designed to achieve certain objectives? When he returns, will his pay, conditions and all his rights continue as though it had been uninterrupted service? If so, I can see an argument for three years, but the Bill does not say that that relates only to the Garda Síochana. Either it relates to everyone—in which case my argument that three years is too short should stand—or it is restrictive about who may be appointed.

It will be on that basis that I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not think that my arguments are wrong. I think that the Bill is defective, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and I will be able to introduce an amendment on Report to change clause 19 so that the Chief Constable may appoint a person who is a serving officer in the Garda Síochana for a period of three years. If that is achieved, this debate will have been useful and important, despite our detour into the role of lawyers, because it will have helped the Government to clarify their intentions. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 125, in

clause 19, page 12, line 32, leave out

'constable or the rank of'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

amendment No. 126, in

clause 19, page 12, line 32, leave out

'or the rank of a senior officer'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

These issues flow on from the previous debate. I accept that amendments No. 125 and 126 are mutually exclusive. I am trying only to prompt the Minister into a debate about why the Bill says that a constable or senior officer may not be appointed. Amendment No. 125 would leave out the word ''constable'', which would mean that the Chief Constable could appoint a constable. Amendment No. 126 would leave out the phrase ''senior officer'', which would mean that the Chief Constable could appoint a senior officer.

The clause is clearly drafted as it is for a good reason, but the explanatory notes do not give that reason, and we should consider the point before we have a stand part debate on clause 19. It seems restrictive. The overwhelming majority of officers in any police service will be constables, so the clause will rule out most of the Garda Síochana. It will also rule out senior officers. I am not trying to raise the question of lawyers again, but I imagine that there is a legal definition of ''senior officer''. I do not know what it is, and it would be helpful if the Minister told us what it was.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman may have stumbled on a point of some significance, as the Bill does not seem to contain an interpretation clause. There may be standing definitions of what constitutes a senior officer in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but they may not expressly refer to this legislation. That could be usefully sorted out on Report.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has suffered my presence on other Committees. He knows that I tend to work on the Texas principle. If one drills enough holes in Texas, oil will come out of one of them sooner or later, and if one tables enough amendments, the Liberal Democrats will agree with one sooner or later. The hon. Gentleman said that I may have ''stumbled'' across something, and I will allow him to use that word because that might be what has happened. However, I want the Minister to define the phrase ''senior officer'' either in the general context or specifically for the Bill. I have spoken for long enough for messages to flow around the Room to provide an answer.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I must ask my hon. Friend to give way, as I am looking at the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and, in particular, page 41. About two thirds of the way down the page, in section 69(1), it says that

'' 'senior officer', in relation to the police service, means an officer above the rank of superintendent''.

That is interesting, because we have reclassified some of the police grades in England. I am unsure whether they have been reclassified in Northern Ireland; for example, I do not know whether there are chief superintendents as well as superintendents in Northern Ireland. The Minister must clear up these matters.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

An advantage of sitting between two lawyers is that one receives free legal advice from both sides.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

It is not free.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

In that case, I shall move further to my left; it is free on that side.

I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. We now know what ''above superintendent'' means, but it would be helpful if the Minister told us why constables are excluded and the reason for the decision about chief superintendents, if they exist. There must have been some discussion, and there must be some purpose behind this. Will the Minister explain the Government's thinking?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I hope to convince members of the Committee that the first amendment is undesirable and that the second is unnecessary.

The first amendment would allow the Chief Constable to make fixed-term appointments at the rank of constable. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, the reason that constables have been excluded from the clause is that constables and the appointment of constables are covered by other Patten recommendations, which we will discuss in relation to the 50–50 entrance criteria. Those recommendations deal with entry to the PSNI at the rank of constable.

On secondments, we want to introduce more senior officers so that we may benefit from their experience in other police services, as Patten recommended. That is an eminently sensible objective.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Will the Minister give way on the point about rank?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am about to talk about senior ranks, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Certainly.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The second amendment would remove from the clause the exclusion of senior officers. The hon. Gentleman for Spelthorne rightly asked for a definition of senior officers, and the hon. Member for Solihull drew our attention to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. In this context, senior officers are those at the rank of assistant chief constable and above, whose appointments are determined by the Police Board of Northern Ireland. We are talking about officers with experience and rank in other forces whom we may be able to second to the PSNI.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The Minister has a problem in that we may be anticipating the secondment to the PSNI of officers from other forces that might include the Garda Síochana from the Republic of Ireland. Inasmuch as the 2000 Act defines the appropriate ranks from a United Kingdom perspective, it is important to know the rank equivalents in the Garda Síochana. The Minister should circulate to members of the Committee the rank equivalents between the PSNI and the Garda Síochana, preferably before the end of this morning's sitting. We should know what they are

if we are to consider seconding police officers from other police forces in other countries.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am not sure that I can provide that detail, but shall endeavour to do so. I cannot promise that we will have it before the end of this morning's sitting.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I shall accept it this afternoon.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I shall try, but I do not accept that it is necessary to have that information before we can consider the proposal sensibly. The hon. Member for Solihull asked about the rank of chief superintendent. A decision was taken throughout the UK to remove the rank of chief superintendent, which was reversed. Regulations to make that reversal are due to come into effect in Northern Ireland, but the rank of chief superintendent remains.

Amendment No. 126 would extend the arrangements to the appointment of senior officers. I have sought to define what that means, so I hope that I have clarified my responses to the hon. Gentleman's questions. The Policing Board retains the responsibility and already has the power to make fixed-term appointments for senior officers, so the amendment is unnecessary and would not improve the Bill.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I rise at this stage to make a point that I originally intended to leave until we reached my own amendment, but the Minister has raised it now. When I first read the clause, I was not sure what it was for. The Minister has clarified the issue by showing that secondment from members of the Garda Síochana is permitted from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne that it would be preferable if that were evident in the Bill. I suppose the advantage of the present phrasing is that it would enable secondment from any other UK police service. I dare say that we shall actively canvass secondments from Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well as from the Republic of Ireland.

The provision is drafted in such a way that the 50:50 rule on police recruitment will not apply to secondments. The clause exists for the purpose of facilitating secondments from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland and to exempt them from the 50:50 requirement. This represents a huge departure. As hon. Members know, I am critical of that requirement and subsequent provisions will tackle the issue.

At this stage, I want to draw the Committee's attention to the huge inconsistency on the part of the Government, which will have unbalanced consequences. The reason for the 50:50 rule is to produce a police service in Northern Ireland that genuinely reflects Northern Irish society. The Garda Síochana cannot be regarded as reflecting that society. Privileging entry for the Garda Síochana and failing to apply a rule that is designed to ensure that the police force in Northern Ireland is representative of society is profoundly unbalancing.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I approach the point with the greatest circumspection and care, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties in the north has been recruiting adequate numbers of Roman Catholics? Given that the dominant religion in the south, not to mention the Garda Síochana, is Catholic, is it not a good idea to introduce Garda Síochana recruitment into the 50:50 mechanism to sustain and nourish the Catholic numbers?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the difficulties of attracting sufficient numbers of Catholic officers to the rank of constable, and the Government might want to reflect on his idea. My point was that having a privileged form of recruitment for the senior ranks is, in itself, rather alarming. The Garda Síochana is not reflective of society in Northern Ireland, and it could even be argued that it is not reflective of society in the Republic of Ireland. Notoriously, it does not recruit many Protestants and is therefore unbalanced in its recruitment.

In Northern Ireland, we are taking great care to ensure that we have balanced recruitment and that we employ people who will pay particular respect to equality and human rights. To recruit and give privileged access to people from a police service that has none of those characteristics, recruits in an unbalanced and discriminatory way and does not have a good record of upholding human rights is a matter of great concern.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I had not anticipated where the debate might lead us. I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and he reminded me of some anxieties that I have had for several years. My involvement with the politics of Northern Ireland goes back a long way, and it has taken me on many occasions into the Republic. The authorities there have always been anxious that I leave the country as safe and sound as I arrived, and they have often provided me with protection from the Garda, so I have got to know many officers over time.

I can see some benefits in letting what I will call ordinary police officers, or constables, mingling with one another. I share the right hon. Gentleman's general concern about the Garda, and I will come back to that, but the Minister said that leaving out the restriction on constables would be undesirable. She did not elaborate on why, and the more I reflect on the question, the more I think that we should ensure that policing is policing as I understand it, rather than social engineering, as it is almost becoming in Northern Ireland.

We should let constables mingle with one another. My experience of constables in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as it was, and in the Garda was that despite their huge differences, they are ultimately police officers doing a similar job. We should let both sides in the equation understand that, and there would be huge benefits from letting Garda constables spend time with the police in Northern Ireland. They might begin to understand some of the problems that the right hon. Gentleman referred to, and such a move might have an effect in the Republic. I am not persuaded by the Minister simply saying that it

would be undesirable at that level. If she wanted to intervene to elaborate on what she meant, I would be happy to give way.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I explained that police constables in Northern Ireland are recruited under specific arrangements. We will discuss those arrangements in detail later this morning, so I do not want to go too far into that debate, but the Committee should bear in mind that members of An Garda Síochana may already apply to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If they do so, they will be subject to the 50:50 recruitment arrangements. We will debate the efficacy of those arrangements later, but that is why constables are specifically excluded from the provision.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I will not pre-empt the debate on those rules, and I can see a benefit over and above that arrangement. The Minister said that the amendment is undesirable because constables in Garda Síochana may transfer, but that sounded like a permanent transfer subject to the rules. However, the arrangement in question would be in the short term and mean that constables could visit either to help practically with numbers or to help police officers at that level understand the issues on either side of the frontier.

There could be an argument for transferring constables on a fixed-term basis, and such an arrangement would be outside the permanent transfer. We would not need to debate the 50:50 arrangements if the constable were transferred for a short-term, three-year period. I am not persuaded by the Minister's comment that the amendment is undesirable, because we could gain from having short-term secondments of constables as well as other officers. However, I guess that she is not persuaded by my argument.

On the amendment to leave out the senior officer, I probably buy the Minister's argument about it being unnecessary. However, as has been said, when we compare like for like with the two police services, we need to understand that simply considering a rank arrangement, if the Minister can provide that, does not tell us anything. My memory tells me that what we are talking about applies to the rank of inspector and above in the Republic. It may not be inspector, but we need to have it in the back of our minds that, fairly well down the chain of command in the Garda, appointments are political.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is nodding. From memory, I think that the rank of inspector is where that situation starts. We must bear it in mind that, when transferring middle-ranking officers on a seconded basis, we are transferring people who have been appointed not by their commissioner, but by their politicians. We need to be aware of that, because it is the group of people in the middle that we are saying would be useful.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

May I add some weight to the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann? I want to underline the point that the reason behind the transfer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland was to create

a progressive force that reflected the needs of the north. To allow the guards to transfer men from the south, with the system that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has talked about, is, as the right hon. Gentleman said so clearly, a setback for the progressive nature of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and should be ignored if possible.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The longer I reflect on the clause, the more disturbed I become. I hope that it was only an oversight that what it really meant—transfers of the Garda—was not spelt out, and that the explanatory notes do not make one reference to the agreement, referred to by the Minister, as to why that is the case. I wonder what would have happened if we had not had this debate, although perhaps there were one or two moments when members of the Committee thought that exploring the clause was an unnecessary sideshow. The longer the debate has gone on, the more concerned I have become about what the clause is all about and what it could lead to.

As I said on the previous amendments, I am willing not to press the amendments, but only on the basis that the Committee clearly understands that this matter must be returned to on Report, with a great deal more thought and concern about what it might lead to. The Government need to be much more forthcoming about what is going on. That may be possible under a clause stand part debate, but thus far we have not even begun to scratch the surface of what the clause might unleash on us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in

clause 19, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

'(3A) The Chief Constable shall not make an appointment under this section unless he is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the general standards for appointment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and will receive appropriate training to the same standard.'.

As I said earlier, the amendment was tabled at a time when we did not have a clear picture of what the clause was for. It seemed to me, glancing at the clause, that it would be appropriate to make reference to the need for the appointments to meet the general standard for appointments to the police and training. Obviously, someone coming from outside Northern Ireland to serve, even for a short period, with the Police Service in Northern Ireland, would need to be appropriately trained and meet the appropriate standards. Consequently, the amendment was tabled.

I thought in particular that, in terms of our law—the criminal laws and criminal procedures that apply in Northern Ireland—it was desirable for someone engaged in policing to have some familiarity with them. We are talking about people who come from a different legal system. Even though the legal system in the Republic of Ireland was founded originally on a common law system, it has operated since 1937 in the entirely different context of there being a written constitution, whose provisions have affected and pervaded that legal system and changed it in quite significant respects. Therefore, even someone coming from the Republic of Ireland, although they would

have some general familiarity with legal provisions, would not automatically be in a position to exercise police functions in Northern Ireland without some training for that purpose.

On a more general point, I am concerned about standards. I am not persuaded that the Garda Síochana operates to the same standards as the police in Northern Ireland in terms of recruitment and the other standards that are required. Its conduct does not bear comparison with the police in Northern Ireland. One has only to refer to the heavy squad that existed in the Dublin police; inquiries are starting to be made into serious criminal conduct by members of the guards about which there have been concerns over the years.

We have raised the matter of collusion between members of the guards and terrorist organisations; there is evidence that the murder of Sir Maurice and Lady Gibson was the result of collusion between a member of the Irish police and the Provisional IRA, and there are reasons to suspect that that may have been the case in other circumstances, too. We are not aware of a serious inquiry having been conducted into those matters or about any serious efforts having been made by the Irish police to maintain standards in that respect.

Anyone who has close contact with the police in Northern Ireland is aware that they have grave reservations about the standards within the Garda Síochana, and what the Minister has disclosed about the purpose of the clause reinforces one's concern about standards. There may be provision elsewhere to ensure that the appropriate standard is met, but it is a matter to which we should give further consideration.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Will the hon. Gentleman give the Committee the benefit of an observation based on his wisdom and knowledge of the relationship between a secondee from the Garda Síochana, for example, and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland? Will the police ombudsman be able to inquire into the actions of a secondee in the same way as he can into those of a straightforward recruit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Having to consider the matter off the cuff, it seems to me that subsection (1) of new section 36A, which refers to a person being appointed

''to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for a fixed term'',

would have the effect that the person appointed is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland during that fixed term, and consequently the constraints that apply to members of the PSNI will apply to them too. I imagine that any misconduct or abuse of power by such a person would be capable of investigation by the police ombudsman. However, I am more concerned about the standards, quality and training of the person on appointment. I may have missed a provision elsewhere in the measure that will catch this matter and, if so, I shall be happy to hear what the Minister has to say.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann for tabling the amendment,

which is a useful issue for the Committee to explore. He brings a great deal to the Committee, not least the ability to say something interesting and relevant, as he did in debates on previous clauses, just as I feel the last of my will to live ebbing away.

My background is in the Scottish criminal justice system, and I know that it is difficult to deal with an alien jurisdiction without importing one's own practice and experience. I am also acutely aware that the clause deals with people who will be part of the PSNI on a secondment of up to three years. I am concerned that although they will not be seconded at senior officer level, it will still be at a fairly significant rank in terms of decision-making. Before someone is seconded to such a rank they should be given the sort of training that is at the heart of the PSNI.

The PSNI's new training course is the only one in the United Kingdom with university accreditation, partly because of the great emphasis that it places on community relations. That must be central to the operation of policing in Northern Ireland. I can see too many possibilities for people coming to a secondment with their experience and prejudices. They will dabble for three years, if I can put it like that, leaving a mess for others to clear up.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The hon. Gentleman speaks pertinently about the importance of training and the accreditation of police training in Northern Ireland. Has he ever had the opportunity to visit the police college in Northern Ireland? Does he agree with me that whereas the training may be of a high quality, the building is lamentable?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I have not yet had that opportunity, although I am well aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. The Minister is also aware of that, as the matter has been discussed on other occasion in the House of Commons. Having previously lectured and been lectured to at Tulliallan, the equivalent institution in Scotland, I wonder whether that is in the nature of police training colleges. Spartan is the kindest word that might be used to describe the facilities there.

The hon. Gentleman intervened when I was just about to conclude my remarks. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has tabled a useful amendment. He has highlighted the points that should be considered. I should be grateful if the Minister could find some way at some stage to address those concerns.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I rise to support the amendment, bringing my dated experience to the problem, which I hope is still useful. As I have said before, I have not served with the PSNI but I have served extensively both alongside and on attachment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have had occasion to observe the Garda Síochana's operations and have mixed with its officers frequently. The RUC, for the most part, admired the way that the guards conducted themselves on an individual basis, but still had grave reservations about them. It is worth reminding the Committee, particularly hon. Members who have not spent too much time in Northern Ireland, that most of the PSNI's work—the contentious work—is not the run-

of-the-mill style of operations in which English, Scottish or Welsh forces are normally involved. It involves the suppression and deterrence of terrorism in both the north and south of Ireland. That imposes special conditions on the force.

In my experience, it was crucial that there should be trust between the two police forces that operated both north and south of the border. Too often it was quite clear to the RUC that there was a difference in the training standards and the understanding of the techniques of policing that extremely dangerous and difficult border. The level of terrorist operations may have dropped but those areas are still patrolled by soldiers and airmen as well as policemen. In those areas, trust between the two forces was crucial. It was obvious that in matters such as vehicle checkpoints, firearms handling and the niceties of law the Garda Síochana were not up to the standards of the old RUC. That bred a reservation—although not a difficulty—between the two services. I know that the PSNI has taken great steps to improve the former operating procedures of the RUC, and has gone some way towards ameliorating the difficulties of liaison between the two services, particularly in border areas. However, to suggest that an officer from the Garda Síochana could be attached to the PSNI without a commensurate level of training, understanding of the problem and dedication to the particular task is not only risible but dangerous.

I believe the amendment to be sensible. It is worth going into further detail, and comparing the level of negligent discharges of firearms of the PSNI and the Garda Síochana. The PSNI officers have greater access to and carriage of firearms than the Garda Síochana but, man for man and weapon for weapon, the Garda let their weapons off by accident more frequently than the PSNI. If such accidents are not trained out of the system, and if the personnel being transferred from the south to the north are not up to the same standards of weapon handling, for example, that will be a significant problem. I therefore believe that the amendment makes sense and is practical.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I do not wish to doubt what the hon. Gentleman told the Committee, but I am curious about the example that he gave. Could he give more detail about the source of the information that he gave the Committee, the dates that it covered, and the implications that it has both for existing joint operations and for the subject under discussion?

In my contacts with senior members of the PSNI, they have always spoken highly of their joint contacts and operations. The hon. Gentleman raised an alarming point, so I would be interested to hear more information.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Much of what I say dates from my own time serving in Northern Ireland, and my investigations into these facts are probably no more than anecdotal. However, it was clear to me, operating alongside the RUC in the border areas, that there was a constant dribble of negligent discharges of the firearms that were at that time occasionally issued to Garda Síochana officers. The difference was that

officers of the RUC—now the PSNI—had more frequent access to firearms than did the officers of the Garda.

I am not suggesting that an officer who is seconded from one force to another cannot be trained and made proficient in such matters, but I believe that that example adds weight to the amendment. If officers are to be transferred across, they must receive a sensible and safe level of training so that they can carry out the sort of joint operations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I support the amendment, which raises some pertinent and serious issues. In response to a previous debate, the Minister said that it was not necessary to apply the 50:50 arrangements to secondees. The more I think about that, the more I believe that the argument about applying the same standards could usefully be incorporated into this area. If the standards of the PSNI state that there must be a 50:50 provision, we should insist on the same standards for the secondees. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about recruiting people differently in different jurisdictions.

As to conduct, I have anxieties about some of the Garda, so appropriate training is crucial. Secondees should be told that they might have to undergo appropriate training to understand that the standards of policing in Northern Ireland are different—I am not saying better—from those of the Garda Síochana. We should never lose sight of the fact that the Garda Síochana, as currently constituted, is a politicised police service.

Some people argue that the RUC was also a politicised service. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann shakes his head, but I do not want to develop that argument. Many of the Patten changes were intended to ensure that it was not so politicised, and that was the great justification for Patten. We are now contemplating the transfer, for a limited period, of officers from a police service that is openly politicised, reflecting quite rightly how a sovereign state wants to run its police service. If we are to bring people in from a politicised background, we must be reassured about standards and ensure that we do not import politicisation of another sort through the back door, which then becomes the norm for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That would take us back to where we started. We have every reason to support the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.

As for links to terrorism, one has to accept that rotten eggs exist everywhere in every police service. It is sensible to accept that all police services have their villains. I have no doubt that individual members of the Garda in the Republic of Ireland have either turned a blind eye to, or even helped with, terrorist activities. I would not rule out the same problem with the RUC because human beings are human beings. We must, however, guard against that and believe that the overwhelming majority of police officers that I have met in the Republic of Ireland, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else hate criminal activity, whether it is done in the name of terrorism or otherwise. The

overwhelming majority are on the side of law and order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the majority of police in the Republic of Ireland, and I would not want to suggest otherwise. He refers to rotten apples occurring everywhere, and we should be aware that terrorist organisations in the Republic of Ireland, in Northern Ireland and here in Britain always endeavour to penetrate the police force. That can be a major source of difficulties. In my earlier comments I said that where legitimate concerns were raised in the Republic of Ireland, we did not see the authorities respond with alacrity to investigate them and bring into the open the penetration of terrorists or the presence of rotten apples. That contrasts strongly with experience in the United Kingdom.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I wholly accept that. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must carefully examine the operation of a police service if people are to be transferred from it into another jurisdiction. The standards of particular police services are crucial. We must recognise reality. For better or worse—I am making no judgment—officers from the Garda Síochana come from a different jurisdiction. It is a police service enforcing the laws of a sovereign state that are different from our own. They may have the same background, but they are serving police officers from a different jurisdiction. They are from a country that has a different tradition from that into which they are moving, and they are coming from a police service that has different methods of operation, standards, techniques and experience of practical policing.

All of those differences are natural; they happen throughout the world. That is no reflection on the Garda, but the officers are different. Even if they were to come for only three years, we must be assured, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, that the standards are comparable and that the skills available and training given will make them able to contribute to policing in Northern Ireland. That is all that is being said, and on that basis I support the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

As has already been said, amendment No. 90 would require the Chief Constable to satisfy himself that anyone appointed under the clause meets the general standards for appointment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and that they will be trained to the same standard. I have no argument with the principle that lies behind the amendment, but it is important to remember that the clause will allow fixed-term secondments between other police services and the PSNI. [Interruption.] I stress other police services. As hon. Members will know, our main focus is to encourage secondments between An Garda Síochana and the PSNI, which has been the focus of our debate today, but the provision is not limited to that police service. It leaves the way open for secondments from other police forces, as was envisaged by the Patten recommendations.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

First, what level and numbers of secondment are we talking about? Is it

50:50, and are we talking about half a dozen people or 100 people a year? Secondly, individuals can be seconded into a police force either to gain experience or to share the experience that they have. Which is it, or is it a bit of both?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

On my hon. Friend's last point, it is a bit of both. On his first point, we envisage small numbers—more in handfuls than hundreds—but we see it as a two-way process. I will come on to that point later.

To avoid any doubt, I want to make it clear that provision already exists for the Chief Constable of the PSNI and for chief constables of Great Britain forces to provide police officers as cross-border aid within the United Kingdom—that is crossing the borders between different police forces. Under that arrangement, officers may be seconded to the PSNI with policing powers, so those powers already exist within the boundaries of the United Kingdom. We are talking about extending that flexibility.

Several points have been made, all of which are in keeping with the spirit of the Government's intentions. Specifically, the Patten report stated:

''We believe that any police service can benefit from the infusion of diverse talent and experience from elsewhere.''

I endorse that sentiment entirely. It is a completely sensible proposal to make.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister quoted the Patten report as saying that the police could benefit from forces from ''elsewhere''. Why do the Government appear to be precise in determining the ''elsewhere'' to be solely the Republic of Ireland?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I will come to that point in one moment, but I want to turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I am grateful to him for sharing his experiences, from which he said that the vast majority of work of the PSNI was involved in the suppression of terrorism. I am not sure how long ago he last worked with the RUC in Northern Ireland, but the nature of police work in Northern Ireland is changing. There continues to be a clear focus on the suppression of terrorism. Counter-terrorist activity remains a priority, and continues to tie up the resources of the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I entirely take the hon. Lady's point that things are changing, thank God, and that the PSNI has been adapted to take over from where the RUC left off. I also entirely take the point that policing is improving. However, counter-terrorism is conducted at the highest tempo. It involves police operations where the highest level of training is necessary and where the amendment would rub most and be most difficult.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I resist the description that policing in Northern Ireland is improving; it is changing. Policing, and its focus on counter-terrorism, has always been effective and has been carried out to very high standards.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the suppression of terrorism—the main point of the debate. It is worth placing on record the sincere and profound debt of gratitude that we owe An Garda Síochana for its success, especially against dissident republicans. Recent successes and arrests on both sides of the border have largely been the result of the close co-operation between the two police forces and their detailed work in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Co-operation with An Garda Síochana can only enhance the effectiveness of the police and benefit the people of Northern Ireland. It is worth bearing in mind that any officer who joins the PSNI under the clause will be attested as a constable in the PSNI. That means that they will swear to act with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality. They will also work to the code of ethics published by the board on 13 February. Copies are available on the Table for members of the Committee. Officers who join the PSNI will be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the prospect of officers coming to work in Northern Ireland from other forces; he referred to Canadian, American and possibly Australian forces. I believe that that would further enhance the experience and skills available to the PSNI, but it is also worth noting that police officers in the former RUC—now the PSNI—are highly regarded throughout the world. Indeed, the PSNI has loaned them specifically for their skills and experience. Their experience of working with the armed forces, for example, is unique. We loaned up to 60 police officers from the PSNI to help with the establishment of a new police force in Kosovo. Their experience of working with the armed forces in the environment in which, sadly, they have worked for so long in Northern Ireland, was found to be invaluable.

It is also worth noting that Assistant Chief Constable Stephen White was loaned, possibly through the United Nations, to assist Indonesia in its development of its policing structures. Police officers in Northern Ireland are highly regarded, although sadly not always at home.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I ought to know the answer to this question, but does the PSNI have an oath like the one that the RUC used to have? If it does, would a secondee be required to take it?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Yes, the PSNI has an oath and, as I said, any officer who came to work with the PSNI would be bound by the terms of that oath and would be required to attest to it.

Hon. Members rightly raised the question of training and standards. The clause provides for secondments to be made via a fixed-term appointment, so that anyone seconded under the clause may exercise police powers. That is important. They will not just give advice, but will work as a police officer. That will make the secondment of even greater benefit, to both the secondee and the PSNI. The clause does not allow for the permanent appointment of police officers to the PSNI. We are not talking about lateral entry, the term that has sometimes been used in

debate. Therefore, it is not necessarily appropriate to set the criteria for these short-term appointments as though they were permanent posts.

It is important, however, to remember that all candidates for appointment under the clause will be experienced police officers, of at least the rank of sergeant, in the police services from which they come. I hope that I can provide greater clarity on the ranks specific to An Garda Síochana before the end of today's consideration. The officers will already have met the standards for appointment to their own police services and have gained at least one promotion.

It is for the two police services concerned to decide on the selection procedures that they want to adopt and the necessary training. I can assure hon. Members that provision for both will be set out in a protocol to be drawn up between the PSNI and whichever other police service is involved. In the first instance, I would expect that to be An Garda Síochana.

Moreover, I have been assured that the PSNI is committed to giving all officers the training necessary to equip them to carry out their duties safely and effectively. I hope that that deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Newark about the discharge of weapons.

For each officer seconded to the PSNI under this provision, there will be a thorough training needs analysis to determine what training they require. We must also remember that some secondees will be coming as experts in a particular field and will need more tailored training. However, training will certainly include human rights issues; familiarisation with the new code of ethics and equal opportunities legislation; information on the role of the police ombudsman, which might impact on secondees' work; and training in the Northern Ireland legal system and relevant legislation. Where necessary, there will also be firearms and driving training. The Chief Constable will not put officers in a position where they are ill equipped to undertake the tasks required of them.

Given that explanation and the assurance that we have given this matter detailed thought, I invite the Committee to accept the Government's position that the amendment does not need to be written into the Bill, and that the relevant matters will be set out in protocols between the two police forces. The amendment is unnecessary, although I am grateful for the debate that it has provoked.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am very interested in the Minister's latter comments, especially about arrangements for each officer to receive a training needs analysis and for training to be given on specific matters where appropriate. Of course, that is the language of the amendment, which talks about

''appropriate training to the same standard''.

That qualification was included because one appreciated that the persons coming may well already have received training and would come for a limited period and for limited purposes. General training would not be applicable, but specific aspects would need to be considered. There are considerations

particular to Northern Ireland, which the Minister mentioned.

All the matters that the Minister mentioned in her latter comments would be covered by the amendment, but she says that it is not necessary in the Bill and that these matters will be in an agreed protocol. However, we legislate to give legal effect to the basic provisions under which we operate, so that everyone can be assured that these matters will not be decided on a capricious basis and that the law will apply.

The amendment would give legal effect to the provisions, which are desirable and of a general nature. The amendment is also of a general nature and sets out matters in broad terms, and there is no reason why the Minister should resist it. It simply provides a legal basis for what the PSNI proposes to do.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister can scarcely argue that clause 19 does not give other instructions to the Chief Constable? It does so; therefore there is no reason why the amendment, which also gives instruction to the Chief Constable, should not be accepted.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The amendment also gives reassurance to the public that these important matters will be attended to, because if they are not contained in law there can be no guarantee that the sensible arrangements that the Minister described, which will be included in the protocol, will be observed in future. It is appropriate for people to have the assurance that standards will be maintained. I am puzzled that the Minister will not accept the amendment; perhaps it has an imperfection that has not yet been mentioned to explain why she is resisting it, but I am at a loss to know what it is.

I will not press the amendment to a Division as I want to reflect upon it, refine it and return to the matter if I am not too distracted by other events and activities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I was deeply impressed by the presentation of amendment No. 90 by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who has now left the Committee Room, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on it. If the holders of office are to enjoy the respect of the legislature, they must show that they are capable of reflecting, changing their minds, listening to valuable and persuasive argument and acting upon it. I ask the Minister before consideration on Report to reflect on the amendment, which is worthy of her best attention.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall be brief, as we have considered the details of the proposal.

I urge the Government to reflect on the issues raised during this sitting and to ask themselves whether clause 19 needs an addition to make it clear that it is

about seconding people within police services. At present, that is not clear, as the Committee's debates have reflected. Debates on the clause could have been shorter if there had been more clarity in the Bill or the explanatory notes. I ask the Government to bear in mind that people will go back to the Bill after it has been enacted, and to make its intentions crystal clear.

We have not considered elsewhere the issue of secondment out of the PSNI, as that may have been out of order, but we should consider it if the reasons why it is a good idea to second in from the Garda Síochana to the PSNI are valid. I would not dissent in principle from any of them. We have not, however, given due attention to a problem this morning, probably because it would have fallen too obviously out of order, but we must insist that the secondment is a two-way process. Otherwise, it will raise suspicions in some sections of the community about what is really happening and whether a foreign police service is being introduced into Northern Ireland with the intention of making it similar to that which exists in the Irish Republic, which would have a counter-productive effect.

The Government may like to reflect—I certainly will—on whether a further amendment to limit the number of secondees coming in to the number going out might be appropriate on Report. The clause still requires clarification, but that is not enough to justify opposing it. A further amendment might help make the Bill as a whole more acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people, rather than to one section of society, in Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing the Government's views on a two-way process.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I shall not go over the justification for the clause, which has already been covered in earlier debates. It might help the Committee to note that An Garda Síochana has the same ranks as the PSNI with the exception of chief inspector. It has taken me two years to work out the ranks of the PSNI. If hon. Members feel that a diagrammatic explanation would be helpful, it should not be too difficult to provide it.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

At an earlier stage of my experience, I saw the Army and the police successfully co-operating in Hong Kong. Correlation of ranks between policemen and Army officers was evident and it would be genuinely instructive if the Committee could see the correlation between the PSNI and the Garda Síochana.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

With that prompting, I shall see what I can do before the close of today's proceedings.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has confirmed that he intends to return to the issue on Report, so it would be an unwise Minister who failed to take note and reflect on what was said in the debate to establish whether it is reasonable. I certainly undertake to do so.

Finally, arrangements between the two forces will be reciprocal. I understand that the Irish Government will shortly introduce legislation to enable

secondments to be made in the same terms for An Garda Síochana as for the PSNI.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 4 - Protected disclosures by police officers

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 83 to 87.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The purpose of the new clause, together with the consequential amendments that repeal the provisions of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and those of the Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 in schedule 3, is to afford protection to police officers who make protected disclosures. The new clause, which is supported by the Chief Constable and the ombudsman, replicates provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002. Subsection (1) provides that for the purposes of the 1996 order, relating to protected disclosures, police officers will be deemed to be employed by the Chief Constable under a contract of employment. Subsection (2) has the effect that the protected disclosure provisions in the 1996 order will apply to persons engaged in the police service under a contract of employment. The new clause provides for these provisions to be commenced by order.

A protected disclosure includes disclosures that a criminal offence has been committed, that a person has failed to comply with a legal obligation to which he or she is subject or that there has been a miscarriage of

justice. In the context of police conduct, protected disclosures would include disclosures that an officer had breached the code of ethics. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that police officers and trainees will be able to report wrongdoing by other police officers with the assurance of the full protection of the law if they are subsequently discriminated against or suffer detriment. In such circumstances, they would be able to make claim to an industrial tribunal. Amendments Nos. 83 to 87 contain consequential amendments. I hope that this is an uncontroversial measure and that it will be given a fair wind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1 - Discrimination in appointments

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Removal of discrimination from recruitment—

'(1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) for section 46 substitute—

''Underrepresentation

(1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently underrepresented in the Police Service.

(2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently underrepresented in the police support staff.

(3) For the purposes of this section ''persons currently underrepresented'' means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are underrepresented''.

(2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, leave out section 47.'.

New clause 3—Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland—

'In the event that—

(a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

(b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration,

the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Police Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 for a period of six months.'.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

New clause 1, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), and the two new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, take us back to what is now fairly familiar territory. Tempting though it is, I do not want to run round the whole argument of 50:50 recruitment, but I again place on the record my party's extreme unease and unhappiness about its operation.

Section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 currently reads:

''an even number of persons of whom-

(a) one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; and

(b) one half shall be persons who are not so treated.''

We want to replace that with:

''43 per cent. shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic;

43 per cent. shall be persons who are treated as Protestants; and

14 per cent. shall be persons who are not so treated.''

I should first like to explain why it is 43 per cent., rather than 42, 44 or any other percentage. The genesis of the figure is the latest census figures, which show that within Northern Ireland Catholics represent just over 40 per cent. of the population, Protestants represent 45 per cent. and just over 14 per cent are people of other religions or with no religious affiliation. The new clause takes that 14 per cent. and splits the remainder into half which gives us the figure of 43 per cent. I would be the first to admit that that is rather a messy compromise. It is far from ideal. In an ideal situation we would not be dealing with this set-up at all. However, it has some benefits in that it introduces into the equation an element of flexibility that is not currently present. It also gets away from the idea that people who might belong to other religious groupings but are not Protestant Christians should all be treated as one. I find that a curious.

We know the reasons why we ended up with 50:50 in recruitment, and some of those reasons had nothing to do with the recruitment of police officers. The constitution of the Policing Board may have been lurking in the background. However, there is no doubt that that policy has left many in the Protestant community with a continuing sense of grievance. There was also the recent case of Mark Parsons, a qualified candidate who was not recruited into the police because of the 50:50 requirement. When the Bill was on the Floor of the House, assurances were given that there would be no discrimination against Protestants. However, experience has indicated that the contrary is the case, and that the issue should be considered again. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and I have brought to the Committee a means by which that reconsideration could be effected.

It must be recognised that there has been some improvement in the number of Catholics who have

been applying for employment with the PSNI. About 36 per cent. of applications are now made by Catholics, as opposed to 22 per cent. previously. However, that may not be the result of the 50:50 requirement. I suggest to the Minister that that might be a sign that we are moving towards what, in the rest of the country, is considered to be normality, and that the intimidation that we have seen among paramilitary sections in the Catholic community has started, at long last, to lose its bite.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on how he sees the amendment working in practical terms?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

In terms of the practical application of the amendment, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. If he wishes to make a further contribution, I will deal with that when I sum up.

I will comment briefly on new clauses 2 and 3, proposed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. New clause 2 addresses the issue in a slightly different way. In my view, it is something of a curate's egg. I have some reservations about subsection (1), which reads:

''In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the Police Service.''

I can see some merit in the flexibility that that would introduce into the situation. I presume—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that he envisages that a 50:50 scheme or similar could still be introduced, but that that would be done by the Chief Constable. I have some difficulty with that, because the people responsible for any scheme of that sort—any such engineering—should be politicians. The amendment would move us one step away from political accountability.

However, I find subsection (3) useful. It relates to

''persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation''

who are considered by the Chief Constable to be under-represented. We on the Opposition Benches have addressed that point both in the House of Commons and in the other place. We should recognise that achieving balance in the police service is not simply a question of achieving balance on religious grounds. The under-representation of women in the PSNI remains a problem.

Briefly, I question whether new clause 3 is necessary. As I understand it, the 2000 Act gives the Secretary of State the power to vary the quota if that is appropriate.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for his comments on new clause 1 and the other new clauses.

On new clause 1, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is that we should resist the temptation to force every person in Northern Ireland into one of two categories. Compelling people into one of two categories would be deeply offensive and would infringe their sense of their own identity, especially

against the background of society in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the hurt that the Government's policies and legal provisions caused to a significant number of people. That should be addressed.

There is another evil in the existing legislation that the Government have promoted and that the hon. Gentleman's new clause fails to tackle. Not only does the current recruitment scheme force on people identities from which many are trying to move away, but it discriminates. I confess my ignorance on this point, but I am amazed that any assurance was ever given about hoping that the provisions would not discriminate. There is no doubt that they are intended to discriminate. The Government sought derogations from directives introduced in the European Union, because they knew that if they did not get those derogations, the European Court of Justice would strike down the legislation, because it clearly discriminates.

The hon. Gentleman should understand that there is a clear distinction between quotas, which are unlawful under international and human rights law, and what we now refer to as affirmative action, which can be designed in ways that are not discriminatory. We must understand that qualification. There is no guarantee that affirmative action will not involve discrimination, but if it is carefully drafted and properly supervised, it can be used to address areas of under-representation without involving discrimination.

We have endeavoured to do that in drafting the new clauses.

We have to deal with a situation in which there is under-representation in certain important ways. The matter is worthy of attention and it would be worth while to address under-representation where possible, but one should want to do that in a way that avoids discrimination. Unfortunately, the Government have decided not to tackle the problem in such a way. Instead, they are going down the path of attempting to legalise discrimination.

The hon. Gentleman is, I am sure unintentionally, going down the same path, as quotas of 43, 43 and 14 per cent. would provide for discrimination. He conceded that the relevant affiliations in respect of religion are 45, 40 and 14 per cent. respectively, according to the census, so he should have used those to avoid any obvious discrimination. However, using percentages means that he will arrive at discrimination. Even if he had used the figures that I mentioned, he would still be in danger of having a legal framework that resulted in discrimination, because the appointment should be made purely on merit.

It seems that, because of particular circumstances, a disproportionate number of persons from category A apply. If all those who applied were of equal merit, a disproportionate number from category A would be appointed. If that is the consequence of the merit principle being applied in a recruitment drive, that is what should happen. Any form of quota is wrong, as it will result in discrimination.

It may be said that it is undesirable for a disproportionate number of people from category A to apply, and that is a fair point. We should therefore develop appropriate affirmative action to ensure that under-represented groups apply in appropriate numbers. We should consider such measures rather than having quotas, which are always wrong. That is analogous to the debate raging in higher education and among those involved in university recruitment over whether people from working-class backgrounds get a fair share of places and opportunities.

A few days ago, a Minister who advocated quotas was rapidly slapped down by senior Ministers. This morning on the ''Today'' programme, that same Minister, having learnt the basic approach to the matter, went out of her way to say that of course she had no intention of proposing quotas. The penny has dropped with the lady in question that quotas are automatically wrong because they will result in discrimination. Affirmative action, which that Minister is now talking about, is permissible, but going beyond it and having quotas is wrong.

Many people in Northern Ireland feel very strongly indeed about the matter. We constantly hear about the need for equality and human rights. The Prime Minister, in the peroration of his speech in Belfast last October, said that any form of discrimination is totally abhorrent, and that the days of making excuses and justifying discrimination are gone, but they are not gone for the Government, who continue to discriminate and try to provide justification for discrimination. That is simply wrong.

It is a disgrace to the House that, in this day and age, it should be enacting legislation to legalise discrimination. Furthermore, that is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland gave the figure for the significant increase in Catholic recruitment to the police service, which is good, but it does not show that the barriers to recruitment have gone.

I make a general point, which, like all generalisations, is an over-simplification: it is possible to gain a rough idea of the persons who apply from their post codes, which show that there is not a significant number of Catholic recruits from what would be regarded as hard-core republican or nationalist areas. The recruits come from more mixed and middle-class areas, which is good as it will increase the percentage of Catholic recruits, which will feed through in time. However, there are not the numbers that we hoped for, and there will not be until the obstacles to recruitment are removed. That was a key recommendation of the Patten report, but the Government have not addressed it, as it would be embarrassing to have to tell people in republican and nationalist communities that it is time that they removed the barriers to recruitment.

The Government hope that there will be a significant change in the near future and that republicans will cease to discourage recruitment and, instead, encourage it. That is fine if it is done in the right way and in the right circumstances, but it would be better for the Government, rather than continuing

to legalise discrimination, to focus on real obstacles and concentrate their efforts on affirmative action.

All these measures are unnecessary. We have only to consider the target group for recruits—primarily 20 to 25-year-old males, but also females in that age range, as the appropriate number must be recruited. I believe that I am right in saying that there is a Catholic majority in that age range, so if there was equal participation there would also be a significant Roman Catholic rate of recruitment of at least 50 per cent., if not more. Therefore, there would be no need for the quota system if the obstacles were removed and the appropriate affirmative action taken. I repeat that quotas are wrong in principle. They lead to discrimination, which is why the Government have had to seek derogations from Community directives.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that even more annoying is the fact that Ministers' assurances that Protestants who qualified would not be rejected on the basis that insufficient Catholics were applying seem to have been misleading? Certain individuals rightly feel aggrieved because, through no fault of their own, they have been prevented from having a career in the police force in a way that the Government explicitly assured me and others would not happen.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Once again, I express my amazement that such assurances were ever given. The Government knew from the outset that that would happen. Indeed, they intended it to happen. Under the current recruiting system, hundreds of people were informed that they met the standard for appointment, but that they cannot be appointed as they have a Protestant background.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I would be interested to know whether there is a Hansard reference that the right hon. Gentleman can show us. The Government's intention is plain, even from the heading of section 46 of the 2000 Act—''Discrimination in appointments''.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister reinforces the amazement that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. She is entirely shameless about the matter. She acknowledges that the intention is to discriminate—[Interruption.] I shall not make any more pejorative comments about her conduct, but I would have expected her at least to be sufficiently concerned about the matter not to point so blatantly to the Government's intention, which she confirms is to discriminate. She has baldly said so. Will she point that out to the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have noticed that he is discriminating? Will she tell him that his policy involves discrimination? That might restore a little credibility to his comments.

It did nothing for the Prime Minister's credibility to visit Belfast last October and declare his total abhorrence of discrimination when everyone in Northern Ireland knows that he discriminates against Protestants in this matter, and against everyone else in Northern Ireland in other matters. His comments produced only a collective expression of disgust in the community and helped to undermine the other

objectives of his visit. His continuing adherence to a policy of discrimination also undermines his policies in other matters.

There is no need for the quota system. It is shameful, and sooner or later the Government will have to abandon it. It would be better to try to restore a little credibility to the Government and to lend them a little more integrity. I am sorry that it is necessary to use such terms, but they are acting disgracefully in the matter and the sooner they have a good, hard think about it, the better it will be for everyone.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on an ingenious new clause and a clever way of reconciling a series of points of view. He started from the premise of addressing the grievance that, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, is felt by all those who think that Roman Catholics—I use the term that is in the legislation—are unfairly given advantage by the provisions on the statute book.

Secondly, if the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland included in his new clause the figures representing the make-up of the population, I understand that they would be 45, 41 and 14 per cent., but here the ingenuity of the new clause comes through again. He feels that he must make some concession to the words that are already on the statute book, and address the problems raised by the issues that lie behind the measures on the statute book.

Consequently, the hon. Gentleman tries ingeniously to reconcile addressing the grievance with addressing the problem of the under-representation of Roman Catholics over the years in first the RUC and now the PSNI. Unfortunately, the new clause does not quite work, for two reasons. One is the series of arguments already advanced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann about quotas. He made a powerful point. Secondly, the new clause would instruct the Chief Constable to appoint 14 per cent. who were neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. What would he do if he could not find 14 per cent. from, I presume, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and, if necessary, Jedi? I understand that 400,000 people declared themselves to be Jedi in the census.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Not in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I am corrected by the hon. Lady, and I am sure that she is right.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry to introduce what might seem to be a frivolous note, but in view of the comment that has just been made, I have to refer to employment monitoring, whereby employees are required to fill in a form indicating a community affiliation. I remember a famous case from the town where I grew up in Bangor in which hundreds of employees of a particular firm decided to classify themselves as Shi'ite Muslims.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's observation. There is a serious point behind it, which is that one must never underestimate

the amount of religious and other forms of diversity in all places, including Northern Ireland.

To return to the main point—you would not want me to stray, Mr. Benton—the real weakness in the new clause seems to be that the Chief Constable might have genuine difficulty, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would acknowledge, in finding that 14 per cent. However, I warn the Minister against using such an argument in replying to the debate because, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has pointed out, the Chief Constable already has great difficulty in recruiting the number and proportion of Roman Catholics that he and the police service would like to recruit. Under the legislation as it stands, there are great difficulties in recruiting others who would fill those places were they not specified as Roman Catholics, so the Minister cannot use the line of argument that I have advanced.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In addressing new clause 1, I join other hon. Members in commending the Liberal Democrats' reasoning and rationale, and the ingenuity with which they have pressed their proposal. I support the thinking behind the new clause, but, unfortunately, it does not go to the heart of the matter.

Section 46 of the 2000 Act caused deep and grievous insult to the hundreds of Protestants who applied for positions within the police service who were given out to the merit pool and then discriminated against—that is exactly what occurred—on the ground of their religion. Discontent is not restricted only to those affected personally by that discriminatory legislation. I share some of the misgivings of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, but further hurt stems from the origins of section 46, which was unfortunately first alluded to in public by a member of the right hon. Member's party and former Member of this House, now Lord Maginnis of Drumglass. To his shame, he was the first to advocate a 50:50 recruitment policy.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. Member should be aware, first, that the comments to which he referred were not made on my watch as leader of the party and, secondly, were made many years before Patten and in a wholly different context. It is uncharitable of the hon. Member to continue to smear a former hon. Member of this House by insinuating that he is somehow responsible for the Patten proposals.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that a member of his party advocated the 50:50 rule long before Patten and, on his watch, was someone who endorsed that rule. It is a bit rich to complain about that now, when a senior member of his party introduced the proposal.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Is the hon. Gentleman insinuating that I in any way endorsed the 50:50 Patten provisions?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am happy to hear the right hon. Gentleman distance himself from the 50:50 rule, which a senior colleague of his introduced into the public domain.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It is nothing to do with Patten.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The right hon. Gentleman's digging, as recorded by Hansard, will be scrutinised by many people in Northern Ireland.

To grasp the depth of intensity with which section 46 is viewed in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to allude to the competitions held for the PSNI. Several competitions have been held under that section: I shall not go into every one, but suffice it to say, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, the number of Roman Catholic applicants has increased. Across the board in Northern Ireland, that is welcome. However, one wonders what the increase would have been without section 46. We simply do not know.

The first competition attracted almost 3,000 applicants—0.2 per cent. of the entire population of Northern Ireland. Although fewer people were attracted to subsequent competitions, that was a considerable response to the advertising campaign undertaken by the police in Northern Ireland. Of those 3,000, about 550 qualified for the merit pool. Of those 550, 400 were from the Protestant community and 150 from the Roman Catholic community. Those applicants were subject to a severe vetting procedure, and each of the 550 was found to be suitably qualified to be police officers.

The problem, which neither section 46 or new clause 1 deals with, was that of the 550 suitably qualified applicants, 250 members of the Protestant community were discriminated against. They were told, ''Yes, you are suitably qualified, but you are Protestant. Under the 50:50 rule, we cannot and will not offer you employment.'' Not only is that unacceptable, but it is shameful. One can only imagine what it would have been like had the reverse been the case and Roman Catholics had been told, ''Yes, you are suitably qualified but you are not being recruited purely on the ground that you are Catholic.'' However, that happened in the first and subsequent competitions. In other words, in the first competition every Catholic applicant who was suitably qualified was offered employment, but 250 Protestant applicants were told that they were of the wrong religion. There is no justification for that. It is abhorrent and shameful, and the provision should be repealed.

Will the Government take the 50:50 concept to its logical conclusion and apply it to other aspects of employment? For example, of the three hon. Members who serve on the Committee from Northern Ireland, two of us—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and myself—live in areas in which local government uses a recruitment practice that is heavily weighted against the Protestant community. Will the Government introduce legislation to implement a 50:50 recruitment strategy to redress that? My community would benefit from that, but I would be strenuously opposed to it. Will they apply the rule to the civil service, for which the general service grades also show a discriminatory outcome against the Protestant community? Will they apply the rule to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, with which my community also has problems? Again, I hope not, and I would oppose them if they did.

At the heart of the matter is the reintroduction of the merit principle. The Government and PSNI must do all that they can to attract applicants from the Catholic community. They must advertise and try to combat the disgraceful acts of intimidation that are experienced by some applicants from that community by republicans of both the dissident and provisional variety. However, having done that, people must be recruited purely on the basis of their suitability to be police officers, regardless of the number of applicants from each community, once they have passed the vetting procedure and reached the merit pool.

There cannot be, and there must not be, any other criteria on which we recruit police officers. Unfortunately, there is under section 46 and new clause 1. I respect the integrity of the Liberal Democrats' attempt to address the issue. They at least recognise that there is a huge problem, but I cannot agree with their new clause.

There has to be a reintroduction of the merit-only principle. What would that be, and where would it lead? It would lead to the most suitably qualified people from both sections of the community being recruited purely on the basis that they are the best to police a divided society in Northern Ireland. If that method of recruitment leads to an under-representation in the Protestant or the Catholic community, we will work to redress it. However, we should not discriminate, which is what the section does and what is at its heart. The Government must desist; they must move away from this policy before European legislation compels them to do so.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I rise somewhat wistfully in recollection of a time when my party was in government. This is therefore something of an exercise in nostalgia. I remember when I was a member of the then Government Whips' Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. He introduced a measure that became the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, which I thought, and still think, was brave. It was a serious attempt to regulate employment in the workplace. I know that we are talking about policing, but there are instructive parallels, which I hope you will allow me to draw, Mr. Benton. I shall not delay the Committee for long.

The Act set out goals and timetables, and I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport wrestling with the parliamentary draftsmen, who said that goals and timetables were not idiomatic to their arts of draftsmanship and could not be introduced as part of the text of a Bill that was to become an Act. My hon. Friend prevailed, however, and the parliamentary draftsmen eventually yielded to his will that the concepts of goals and timetables should be introduced into the workplace in Northern Ireland to achieve greater fairness.

I speak as an Englishman, but it would not be too dangerous or reckless—a word that we have seen recently on the front pages of newspapers—to say that

there was a time in Northern Ireland when certain employers tended almost exclusively to recruit Protestants. I believe that the Belfast dockyards of Harland and Wolff were notorious for that. Other employers tended almost exclusively to recruit Roman Catholics. The Protestant workers in the dockyards of Harland and Wolff posted a message to the Pope on one of those great gantries known as Samson or Goliath. Incidentally, that message was anatomically impossible, which may have been born out of a particular disposition or even ignorance.

An attempt developed to try to ensure that there were goals and timetables. Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann told us today that quotas are out of order under human rights legislation. I am not sure what has become of that employment legislation with its goals and timetables. My disposition, and that of my hon. Friends, is to support the broad sweep of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the two new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. They are all bona fide improvements. We will support them if the Committee divides this morning, or we will return to them with a will if our next rendezvous with them is on Report.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I want to respond to the Minister's challenge about why I may have naively inferred that the 50:50 regulations did not require the withdrawal on a reciprocal basis of individuals from one side or another. In Northern Ireland questions last November, I asked the hon. Lady:

''Given the evident need for good, well-qualified police officers in Northern Ireland, of whatever religion, will the Minister please explain the consequences if a police recruit from one religious denomination or another pulls out during the qualification process? Is there any pressure for a reciprocal withdrawal to maintain the 50:50 ratio?''

The question was quite clear and specific. She replied:

''The hon. Gentleman knows the detail of the arrangements that bring into effect the 50:50 recruitment of Catholics and Protestants to the Northern Ireland police service. He also understands that our efforts are directed towards achieving a more accountable, representative and effective police force.''—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 297–8.]

At the time I naïvely thought that she was trying to give me some reassurance that that did not imply that there would necessarily be a reciprocal withdrawal on account of the regulations.

I recognise that it was my wishful thinking to believe that. I did not want to accept that the Minister really was conceding the point about discrimination that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann had made. Indeed, had I been a little more on the ball and realistic about this, I would have kicked up a much bigger fuss at the time. With the benefit of what I have heard from her today, together with an analysis from Opposition Members, I realise that her response was simply to admit that reciprocal withdrawals are a necessary consequence of the legislation. Is it any wonder that applicants to the PSNI are so irritated and feel that the current legislation is resulting in an injustice?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It is helpful to go right back and ask why these problems have come about in Northern

Ireland in recent years? If my understanding as an Englishman is correct, we can trace the origins of much of the trouble back to what the Catholic community perceived as discrimination against them.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

With some justice.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Absolutely so. I do not for one moment suggest that it is unreasonable. There was discrimination. However, the whole of the process and much of the violence that flowed from it started with a sense of grievance driven by real discrimination.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Not in police recruitment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

No, no. I am not saying that it was in police recruitment. I am going right back to the problems of Northern Ireland and its troubles. Clearly discrimination happened and generated trouble. Much

of the effort that has been made recently is to overcome that discrimination. For that reason alone—there are many other reasons—trying to solve the problem of discrimination by discriminating proves that we have not learned much from all that we have done and said about Northern Ireland. If discrimination drove the Province into terrorism, why should it now drive it to peace and harmony? We seem simply to be replacing one angry and resentful community with another angry and resentful community.

As far as I am concerned, it beggars belief—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Standing Committee E

New clause 1 - Discrimination in appointments

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

New clause 2—Removal of discrimination from recruitment—

'(1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) for section 46 substitute—

''Under-representation

(1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the Police Service.

(2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff.

(3) For the purposes of this section ''persons currently under-represented'' means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under-represented''.

(2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, leave out section 47.'.

New clause 3—Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland—

'In the event that—

(a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

(b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration,

the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Police Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 for a period of six months.'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If we were not

quite ready, Mr. Amess, we are now. I welcome you to the Chair. You missed some riveting discussions this morning.

When we adjourned for lunch, we were considering new clauses 1, 2 and 3. A number of Members had spoken, and we had covered a lot of ground. I had spoken for only a couple of minutes, so I had not said a great deal. I will summarise the point that I was making, as it is crucial to the debate.

It may be simplistic, but I believe that it is reasonable to say that the origins of many of the problems of Northern Ireland and much of the cause of the violence in recent years lies in discrimination, both imagined and real. I do not say that the discrimination was not real. There was discrimination against one of the two communities in Northern Ireland. Much action taken with the aim of solving the problems of Northern Ireland has sought to eliminate that discrimination. Many arguments advanced by the Patten report and much of the reasoning for a complete review of the old Royal Ulster Constabulary were based on the fact that there was considered to be discrimination in how the RUC was set up and how it operated and recruited. Against the background of ending perceived and real discrimination, these changes have come about.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is summarising and seeking to portray the background to the current situation, but when he talks about discrimination in relation to the RUC, it is important that the historical context of that is put on record. When the RUC evolved from the old Royal Irish Constabulary in the 1920s, a significant proportion of places—approximately a third—were reserved specifically for members of the Catholic community. As the IRA shot and killed many of those who applied, the number applying from the Catholic community declined from those early days. It was not discrimination, but intimidation.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope to address that point in a moment. I deliberately used the phrase ''alleged and real discrimination'' because, for the purposes of this discussion, it is unnecessary to go into which discrimination was real and which alleged. Rightly or wrongly, it was considered that there had been discrimination, and that has been addressed. In that context, I deeply regret that the Government's solution to end discrimination is to discriminate. We are in the business of discussing discrimination to end discrimination. I do not understand—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but I do not recognise her as a member of the Committee.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I was led to believe in another Committee that Members who are not members of the Committee are allowed to contribute, but not to vote. Will you give guidance on that matter?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The advice that I have is clear. That matter is appropriate to delegated legislation Committees. In a Standing Committee such as this, I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Down must retire to the Bar if she wishes to converse with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Would your ruling have been different if we were considering a statutory instrument rather than a Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The answer to that is yes.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall try to deal with the issue of discrimination as briefly as I can. It makes no sense to say that the way to solve discrimination is to discriminate—there must be other ways. Before lunch, it was argued that affirmative action could achieve the same results, but replacing discrimination against Catholics with discrimination against Protestants serves only to replace one disfranchised, disillusioned and angry community with another. If the history of Northern Ireland teaches us anything, it is that violence soon follows when there are disillusioned, disgruntled communities.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his last statement and explain exactly why 50:50 recruitment discriminates against Protestants?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If more people apply from the Protestant community than from the Catholic, the service must say no to people whom it would otherwise admit. To me, that is blindingly obvious. If there are quotas and more people from one side than the other apply, the service, to meet those quotas, must discriminate against people whom it would otherwise let in, especially if vacancies in the other quota are not being filled as there are not enough applicants.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Given that the Chief Constable has met the full quota for recruitment year on year since the Police Service of Northern Ireland was set up, how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that people are losing out? There is a certain number of spaces, which are all being filled. In almost any situation, people apply for but do not get jobs because there are not enough spaces.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand that less than 40 per cent. of current applicants are Catholic, but even if the hon. Gentleman is correct and the quotas can be filled on both sides, the proper test—the non-discriminatory test—of who should be in an organisation, given a choice, is employing those who are best for the job. If a large number of people from one community are better able to do the job, but are turned down in favour of people who are less able, that is discrimination. In any other situation, it would be contrary to law.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk West)

There is a requirement to discriminate because of a historical pattern of discrimination. Sometimes we need to take unusual measures to address a problem that has existed for many years. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we are required in this case to take an unusual measure to deal with discrimination that has existed over the years?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I said that there has been discrimination and we have to do something about it. Of course I agree that there is a problem. I have no difficulty whatever in saying that we must find a way to make the PSNI more representative of all communities. I accept that, but I do not accept that we have to do it in ways that are anti-human rights. That is all that I am suggesting.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On police recruitment, I do not know whether my hon. Friend would regard a report on BBC Online of 8 December 2002 as persuasive, but according to that source and the Chief Constable, 250 applicants then before him were Protestant, while only 26 were Roman Catholic. As a result of the 50:50 rule, he was able to make only 52 appointments. That thoroughly underlines my hon. Friend's case.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is my understanding of some difficulties that have cropped up. I can only return to the point that we are being asked to include a measure that in any other circumstance would be illegal.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Section 46 of the 2000 Act states plainly that

''the Chief Constable shall appoint from the pool of qualified applicants . . . an even number of persons of whom . . . one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; and . . . one half shall be persons who are not so treated.''

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is clearly discriminatory against Protestants and members of other religions? Labour Members may argue that it is justified, but it is still discrimination.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I thank my hon. Friend for that, because it is true. This is a clear case of discrimination, which happened in the past and which we have tried to prevent from happening again. I do not buy the argument that we should do something that we have said is wrong just because the ends justify the means. There is a problem, but that is not the way to solve it.

We would make more progress in finding a solution if we understood the point about how the situation came about in the first place. I am well aware of the arguments about the RUC being biased and I can accept that there was some substance to them in the past. Due to that, the argument follows, people from the other tradition in Northern Ireland were unwilling to join an organisation that they saw as oppressive and discriminatory.

I understand that argument and there may be some truth in it, but, without any shred of doubt, it is also true that intimidation stopped people joining the RUC. Instead of addressing that problem, the Government have introduced a scheme that ducks the issue of intimidation. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has pointed out that the situation is getting better in many places in the Province, but not in hard-line republican areas. That should suggest to the Government that they are only papering over the cracks rather than addressing the problem.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I want to add a snippet of purely anecdotal information. I cannot comment on the prevalence of this, but an Assembly colleague has told me that in one hard-line republican area, people who are thinking of applying to the police have first to report to the local IRA leadership to get

permission to do so. Occasionally, they are granted it, which is an interesting sidelight on the character of their applications.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That invites some of us to draw conclusions about the people who are being given permission to apply. In reality, introducing the discriminatory scheme to address the problem will not solve it—we must address the intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman's comment may be anecdotal, but it is sufficiently serious to be checked out.

Time and again in policing debates, I have heard the reasonable nationalist argument, which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would make if he were here, about inclusiveness being essential. I know the argument and I accept that it is real, but there is the alternative argument that Sinn Fein-IRA have no interest in seeing the new PSNI functioning properly. They will continue to use every means at their disposal, including intimidation and torture, to ensure that even this concession and discretion in favour of the nationalist community will not work. The Government should address that, as I have no doubt that the problem would not exist if it were made acceptable and easy for members of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland to apply and be accepted.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The hon. Gentleman explained at length what is wrong with the legislation, but he has yet to propose an alternative mechanism to that proposed by the Patten report. Other than wanting to get rid of intimidation, what mechanism does his party propose to replace the existing one?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall explain why new clause 2, despite some of its imperfections, is the right way to go. We could refine the definitions, which I shall talk about in a moment. However, some mechanisms will encourage, assist and enable, and the results will be what we all want. The mechanisms will not include something that, under any other circumstances, would be declared illegal and the legislation struck down.

I disagree with new clause 1 in theory, but if the Government are determined do something illegal because they believe that the ends justify the means, I shall make my comments in that spirit. If we must go down that road, I welcome an attempt to be more realistic. We could argue ad nauseam about the percentage, but we do not need to get hung up about whether it is 43, 42 or 45 per cent. I shall not become locked in that argument. If we were trying to be fair, it would be interesting to note that 43–43, or another equal figure, would still be discrimination that we would have to address.

However we consider the quota system, the difficulty is that by debating these figures we are constantly forcing the people of Northern Ireland to decide which of the two camps they are in, just as they are trying to rid themselves of that mindset. The system should allow for another group, but a 50:50 system does not. It was suggested that the argument was religious—one had to decide whether one was Catholic or Protestant. However, that would appear to discriminate against the Orthodox religions, because if

one were to ask members of an Orthodox religion whether they considered themselves to be Protestants, the answer would be a very firm no. If one asked them whether they considered themselves to be Roman Catholics, however, they would also say no. At the moment, we have excluded members of Orthodox religions from serving in the PSNI.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

If the hon. Gentleman is searching for an alternative model to 50:50, will he consider the one proposed by the Conservative party chairman for her own party, in which there is a mixture of people of different genders, disabilities, ethnic minorities, indeed anything to get away from its current horrid face? Might that be an acceptable alternative?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I would be delighted to rebut the absolute rubbish that I have just heard, but I have little doubt you will rule me out of order, Mr. Benton, the moment that I try to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and does not begin to understand. I shall therefore not say how silly the hon. Gentleman's intervention was.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I do not want to enter fully into the debate on new clause 2, which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann tabled and which we will support, but will my hon. Friend confirm that it contains references to sex, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall come to that, but shall leave hon. Members to anticipate what I might say after yesterday's debate.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With respect, the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government's approach discriminating against members of Orthodox religions by preventing them from applying to join the PSNI is misconceived. The scheme proposed by the legislation is designed to guarantee 50 per cent. of places to Roman Catholic applicants, and 50 per cent. to all others. I am not sure how many members of Orthodox religions there are, but they would fall within the category of all others, as would Muslims, Jews and Hindus. The Government's approach has something to commend it because Jews, and probably most Muslims, Hindus and Chinese too, are Unionists rather than nationalists.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That puts me in my place. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman as what he said reinforces my sense of the injustice of the Government's approach. We said that there should be a balance within the Northern Ireland Police Service; there was discrimination against the Catholic community so it was decided that it should have equality with the Protestant tradition.

We then discover that although the Catholic community is to be given half the places, the Protestant community is to be given not the other half but the other half minus whoever else may come along. That makes the discrimination worse. It is not discrimination to be equal, but to force Protestants into an artificial minority within the Province. If that does not store up trouble for the future, I do not know what will. It shows the futility of using an illegal way of solving a problem, which arose in the first place from the same illegality.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is not illegal.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Gentleman says that it is not illegal. If there is not a derogation for the proposals under the Human Rights Act 1998, why on earth seek one to say that human rights legislation will not apply? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to contradict himself.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I concur with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). By definition, if there is a derogation from the human rights legislation, the clause does not fall foul of it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

How wonderful! The great Human Rights Act, much vaunted by the Labour party, applies only when it suits their convenience. They are not universal human rights; they are only for the people to whom the Government are prepared to give them and the rest of us can go hang if it does not suit their purpose. That is a wonderful admission and I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

One could argue that we could reintroduce hanging by getting a derogation and it would not be illegal.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Exactly. I refrained from making that comment. There will be no such thing as morals or ethics, only what the Government say by diktat will be illegal because it suits their purpose. That is the sort of world that some members of their party want to create and I am appalled by it.

New clause 1 would be an improvement but it does not go as far as I would want. New clause 2 raises important issues and it starts by providing that the Chief Constable will decide what is to happen. If there is to be an independent Police Service with the objective of taking positive action to achieve something and a Chief Constable is appointed on that basis, he will achieve that objective quicker if we let him get on with it rather than writing reams of measures saying what he will and will not do.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Would the hon. Gentleman welcome an initiative by the Chief Constable under the new clause to introduce a system of 50:50 recruitment of Catholics and Protestants?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Chief Constable has no alternative but to uphold the law, which states what he will and will not do. If it states that he will recruit 50 per cent. of this or that group and do it in a certain way, he has no choice but to do it, as that is the nature of the job. But it would be far more sensible for an Act of Parliament to lay down the ultimate objective and leave the Chief Constable with the discretion to achieve it in the most practical way, which causes the least difficulty and upset the fewest people. It would be sensible, not only in respect of new clause 2, to say that the Chief Constable must decide these matters.

New clause 3, which I would link with this part of new clause 2, deals with what happens if the current way of doing things does not work. If we reach a position where the threat of being burned out of one's house or having one's kneecap shot off is applied and the number of Roman Catholics seeking to join the police nosedives again through intimidation, only another handful of applicants—after all, only a

handful applied under current legislation—will apply and we will end up with a shortage of police officers. If something like that were to happen, new clause 3 would provide a sensible safety mechanism. I would be willing to place the responsibility with the Chief Constable, who has the operational challenge of providing practical policing in part of the United Kingdom, irrespective of whether we have solved earlier problems. That part of new clause 2 is eminently sensible and new clause 3 ties in with it by providing an escape clause if the practicalities become unmanageable.

New clause 2 may provide an opportunity to explore an alternative way of achieving the Government's objectives. We should flag up under-representation and introduce procedures that will help to recruit people to redress the balance. One of the problems is that the 50:50 rule is viewed as simplistic with 50 per cent. here and 50 per cent. there. The second 50 per cent. gathers the others, but no attempt is made to view it in other than sectarian terms.

Reflecting on the wording of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I wonder whether he has transposed social groups with ethnic groups. Are not the ethnic groupings the ones where a balance must be sought and the social groupings simply part of it? I have never viewed Northern Ireland's problems in terms of social groupings: focusing on different ethnic groups is important and referring to their religion is often only shorthand. Considerably more than religion is at stake, as religion is just one part of the different history, traditions and ways of life of two communities. I support the principle of the new clause, but not necessarily the wording.

As to the items listed in the new clause, I assume that it is reasonably straightforward to work out which ethnic group and perhaps social group people belong to. It may not be difficult to work out which sex people belong to, but I stop short of endorsing ''sexual orientation'', because I have not the slightest idea what would establish the sexual orientation of every police officer in the NIPS and I would not encourage the Chief Constable to ask.

Some practical problems remain with the wording, but I have no difficulty in supporting new clauses 2 and 3. At a push, I would support new clause 1 as well, but I would prefer to settle for new clause 2.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I should like to thank the Minister, who undertook this morning to provide the Committee with a schedule of the ranks of the PSNI in comparison with those of the Garda Siochana. She has done so and the papers are available under your good chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I thought that it was appropriate to thank her for acting so promptly.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

That was not a point of order, but it is nice to have it on the record.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The liveliness of your calling us to order, Mr. Amess, has inspired liveliness all around the Committee. This has been one of the most energetic debates in our consideration of the Bill so far.

I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) for his comments; the notes are available on the Table in front of me.

Let me draw the attention of hon. Members to section 46 of the 2000 Act, the title of which makes it clear that it deals with temporary provisions concerning the composition of the police. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is about discrimination in appointments. The 50:50 arrangements will, by their temporary nature, be subject to review by the Secretary of State next March. Renewal of the provisions would require the affirmative resolution of both Houses. There will be an opportunity for a further full and equally heated debate on this matter. Members of the Committee may wish to make a note of that in their diaries.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Noting what the hon. Lady said about affirmative resolution, could she tell us whether, rather than that taking place in a Committee Room, it could take place in the Chamber?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

That is not a matter for me. I would expect that it would take place through the normal affirmative procedure channels, which would be in Committee. However, I cannot predict that now.

I should like to deal with one or two of the comments that have been made today. I was surprised by the assertion that the Government had said that this would not discriminate. As I have said already, the Act is clear about this. I believe that there is a misunderstanding of the process by which appointments to the PSNI are made. Applicants for the PSNI are considered on their merits. They are considered according to the skills, experience and qualifications that they will bring to the post. They are then tested on their merits. All who achieve the appropriate standard enter a merit pool. It is only from that point onwards that the 50:50 procedure applies. Once a candidate has been appointed as a trainee to the PSNI, their appointment stands irrespective of what happens to other candidates for the PSNI regulars within that trainee pool. Once trainees are appointed, they are employees of the PSNI.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

It was three months, one week and four days ago that I asked the hon. Lady whether there was any pressure for a reciprocal withdrawal to maintain the 50:50. It sounds to me, notwithstanding what she said about existing trainees, that there is indeed a recipricocity that would cause eligible candidates to withdraw. Have I misunderstood her?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Yes, absolutely. I hope that I have just made that plain. Once candidates are appointed as trainees, there is no pressure on them to withdraw should a trainee of the other community drop out of the process. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. It is at the merit pool stage that the Chief Constable is required to draw the candidates on a one-for-one basis when appointing them as trainees.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister is right to say that there is no question of discrimination at the point of application; I do not think that that has been

suggested either in Committee, the House or elsewhere. But it is precisely at the merit pool stage where problems have arisen in the past. In each competition, there have been two or three times more Protestants than Catholics in the merit pool. To tell those additional Protestants that it is because they are Protestant that they are not being employed is discrimination. Surely the Minister must accept that?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The whole purpose of this is to provide arrangements that discriminate, on a temporary basis, in order to address a serious problem that I will come to in a moment. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes bears directly upon the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made. The Chief Constable has been able to recruit to the PSNI well in excess of the levels of recruitment that even the Patten commission had expected he could achieve. That being the case, individuals are not being turned away from vacant posts within the PSNI.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With respect, the Minister's point is specious. Yes, there were high levels of recruitment last year. If we had proceeded at the lower levels of recruitment that would otherwise have obtained, no more Protestants would have been appointed to the Police Service. However, the fact is that, presently, hundreds of people are being told that they have passed the merit stage, but that they cannot proceed further because they are of the wrong religion. That is discrimination. Indeed, as the Minister pointed out earlier, the legislation is quite bold about that; it admits that it is provision to discriminate.

The same has happened on an even worse scale with regard to civilian employees. That was not recommended by Patten. In a recent recruitment round for civilian employees, only 30-odd Catholics applied, as opposed to hundreds of Protestants. I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I believe that more than 300 were turned down because of their religion.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am not in a position to dispute those figures—I have not seen them—but they seem extraordinarily high. However, it is important to focus for a moment on the objective. Why are we proceeding with the recruitment arrangements? In a nutshell, their purpose is to address ''the most striking problem'' in the composition of the police service, according to the Patten commission, which is the under-representation of Catholics.

We are not endeavouring to recruit precisely according to the make-up of the population, which is the objective of new clause 1. Our goal is to rectify a particularly acute compositional imbalance that the Patten commission saw as being so significant as to have a real impact on the effectiveness of the police service. We must keep that as our focal point. What are we doing in moving the police service forward to make it as effective as it can be? The quicker we can achieve a proper balance in the PSNI in terms of community representation, and revert to conventional recruitment procedures, the better. I will certainly be among those who rejoice when that day arrives.

We also need to bear in mind that the independent commission chose the 50:50 profile because it reflected the demographic breakdown of people expected to be in the age bracket for recruitment during the operation of the policy. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right. That is not to say that other under-represented groups, such as those that we have debated—women, ethnic minorities and others—are to be ignored. However, for a range of reasons, the commission did not see discriminatory methods of recruitment or specific compositional targets, which one might call quotas, as the solution to that problem.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am sure that my hon. Friend already knows this statistic, but the number of female applicants for the PSNI is 36 per cent. of the total, and the highest of any police force in the United Kingdom.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

My hon. Friend is right. The police recruitment agencies are required by the recruitment regulations to advertise ''imaginatively and persistently'', particularly in places likely to reach under-represented groups, and there has been a degree of success, as my hon. Friend points out.

The legal basis for the 50:50 provisions is also worth considering. Comments have been made about that. As has been said, the Government were able to negotiate an exemption from the 2000 EU directive on employment equality, on the basis that the 50:50 provisions would

''tackle the under-representation of one of the major religious communities in the police service''.

That firm legal foundation was further underpinned in the High Court last year, when the compatability of the provisions with the European convention on human rights was challenged in the Parsons judicial review case. However, the Court was satisfied that there was no violation of article 9, on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. On the article 14 challenge, which related to prohibition of discrimination, the Court considered whether the 50:50 provisions pursued a legitimate aim—in other words, did they meet a pressing social need?—and whether they were proportionate to that aim. The court found that both those requirements were fully satisfied. In its judgment, it stated that

''the circumstances provide formidable support for a method of recruitment that would strike at the heart of the problem''

that we face in Northern Ireland.

Can we really say that the circumstances also justify positive discrimination in favour of those classed as non-determined, as the amendment would have it? Can we identify a pressing social need of sufficient strength to withstand legal challenge to increase the proposition of non-determined officers and civilians in the police service? I do not believe that we can yes to either of those questions, but let us set that aside for a moment and consider whether the quota that the amendment proposes would be workable. Quite simply, it would not. In the three competitions completed to date, the highest proportion of non-determined candidates to reach the pool of qualified

applicants was 0.64 per cent. Most recently, in competition three, no such candidates reached the pool. Of all the trainees recruited to the PSNI to date, only 0.62 per cent. have been classed as non-determined. All those figures clearly show that even if a quota of 14 per cent. of non-determined recruits could be justified, it is simply not achievable.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I rise in defence of the amendment and to point out to the Minister that she is getting confused between the census figures arrived at by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for those persons who do not want to declare a religious affiliation, and the figures that the Minister derived from the fair employment monitoring procedures, which attribute community origin to people whether they like it or not. The census figures for those who want to have a religious affiliation are 45 per cent. Protestant, 40 per cent. Catholic, and 14 per cent. other—those persons who do not declare. Once community backgrounds are attributed in accordance with fair employment legislation, the figures are 53 per cent. Protestant, 44 per cent. Catholic, and 3 per cent. other. The Minister's figures should therefore be compared with the 3 per cent. figure, not the 14 per cent. figure. She is getting confused, and I do wish that she would get around to dealing with my point that the target age group is roughly balanced, so the 50-50 requirement is not needed if participation rates are equal. That is the problem.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The numbers of applicants do not reflect the breakdown in the age groups but, for the reasons already given, intimidation continues against young men and women from the Catholic community applying to join the PSNI. I should not let that point be made without stating what might be perceived as the obvious, which is that intimidation from any quarter, which prevents young people from applying to serve in the PSNI, is unacceptable. I shall talk about our efforts to tackle that intimidation when concluding my remarks. I have not confused the figures. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman does not deflect me from my conclusion that the Liberal Democrat new clause is unworkable. It would not assist the current situation in any way.

New clause 2 would replace the 50-50 recruitment arrangements with a provision that would make statutory provision for affirmative action measures to encourage applications from groups currently under-represented in the PSNI. Similar amendments to those discussed today have been debated during the passage of this Bill and that of the 2000 Act, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is unfamiliar with the Government's arguments.

The Patten commission and report fully recognised the importance of affirmative action measures in bringing about compositional change in the police service. Indeed, the commission made a range of specific recommendations to that effect on, for example, the role of community leaders, establishing links between schools and universities and the police service, and developing advertising strategies. However, Patten's clear view was that the imbalance

between Catholic or nationalist and Protestant or Unionist was so extreme that exceptional measures were justified for a temporary period to lend some impetus to the process of compositional change.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann says that the scheme is not working and is unnecessary, but the impact of 50:50 recruitment can already be seen. The proportion of Catholics in the regular police service has risen from 8 per cent. at the time of the Patten report in 1999 to 12.2 per cent. as of 1 March this year. That compares with an increase of slightly more than 1 per cent. in the 10 years prior to the Patten reforms. The impact on the overall composition of the police service will be taken into account as part of the review of the 50:50 recruitment arrangements, to which I referred earlier, provided for under section 47 of the 2000 Act. That will take place early next year. The 50:50 arrangements also apply to police support staff, and although the independent recruitment agency has only recently been appointed, the recruitment measures are already having some effect, with an increase from 12 per cent. to 13.5 per cent. in the proportion of Catholics working among police support staff.

As I have said, under-representation of women and ethnic minorities is also a live issue for the PSNI. Section 48 of the 2000 Act provides for the board to make an action plan to address the under-representation of women in the service, and the Act also provides for the application to the police of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which places a duty on them to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. That provides an appropriate vehicle under which the matters raised in the new clauses can be taken forward. However, the under-representation of Catholics remains our current priority.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I want to take the Minister back a moment. She said that the arrangements apply not only to the police, but to civilian support services. What is the situation for contracted-out services? If something is put out to contract—catering, for example—will the contractors be required to follow the rules too? If so, how could the contractor plead when hauled before a court under human rights legislation for providing catering in a discriminatory way?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Contracted-out services are not subject to the 50:50 recruitment requirements.

As the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has stated, goals, timetables and affirmative action measures are unlikely to produce the necessary change in the composition of the police for a considerable period. It is not that the measures would not change the composition, but that they would not affect it for some time. We need to see a more balanced and representative police service in the shorter term, and the 50:50 recruitment rules will enable us to achieve that.

New clause 3 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State, if requested to do so by the board, to make an order suspending the 50:50 provisions

either if the required number of police trainees or support staff could not otherwise be appointed or if the number of serving officers or police support staff were below complement at the time of consideration. A similar proposal has already been discussed at some length in another place. It is worth reiterating that the Secretary of State's existing discretionary power under the 2000 Act to amend the 50:50 quota provisions has not been used. He has the power to amend the provisions when sufficient numbers of police trainees or support staff cannot otherwise be appointed, but he has never been invited to use it.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The Minister has been scrupulous in her dealings with the Committee, but she is now being somewhat complacent. I will put to her the point that I made earlier, regarding the severe difficulties and under-manning of the PSNI.

Last autumn, the Chief Constable sought to undertake civilian recruitment to free up officers and put them on the beat. According to the Chief Constable, 250 applicants were Protestant, and only 26 were Roman Catholic. As a result of the 50:50 rule, he was able to make only 52 appointments. The arithmetic is straightforward: 26 from one group and 26 from the other, which meant that approximately 224 Protestants who were willing to be recruited were not recruited. These are serious numbers. Will the Minister stay with the 50:50 rule even in the face of the fact that it is leading to severe under-establishment in the PSNI?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman refers me to a text that I do not have in front of me. I am not aware of the recruitment effort that was made to which the Chief Constable referred. I am aware of problems in one particular area that have now been addressed by the appointment of recruitment agencies to take recruitment matters forward. Since their appointment, all recruitment drives run by the two agencies have been so good that it has always been possible to appoint the required numbers of recruits under the 50:50 arrangements.

We are not complacent. If a problem has been caused by the 50:50 arrangements, we are prepared to listen to a clear case when it is made to us. Undeniably, there are shortages of skills and experience in certain areas. The PSNI and the Policing Board have together developed a human resources strategy to address the current manpower difficulties.

The Government have made it clear on several occasions during the debates that we are aware that Policing Board members are considering seeking a limited exception to the 50:50 recruitment arrangements, to allow the Chief Constable to address the current shortage of experienced officers at the rank of constable with specific specialist skills.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On that point, may I make it clear to the Committee that as recently as 11 October 2002, the total number of regular officers in the PSNI was 6,905, against an establishment figure of 8,488. The police service was therefore light by 1,500 regular officers. That is a serious situation. It is not the time to be lecturing the Committee about the fairness of the 50:50 system and the need to recruit more Catholics into the

police force. Of course there is a need to recruit more Catholics into the police force, but there is also a need for the police force to be up to strength. It has 1,500 officers too few.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I recognise the 6,900 figure, but not the 1,500 discrepancy to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will look into the matter.

Given that we received representations that the Chief Constable wished to recruit constables with a particular skill, and the Policing Board unanimously agreed that an exception should be made, the chairman of the board wrote to the Secretary of State yesterday to ask the Government to make an appropriate amendment to the 2000 Act to facilitate that. I am aware that from time to time difficulties are created.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

In response to the comment made by the hon. Member for Solihull, would the Minister agree that, unfortunately, a number of police forces throughout the UK regularly fail to reach their full complement of officers? It is therefore unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that because that has happened in Northern Ireland, it is due to the 50:50 recruitment policy. It regularly happens to other police forces that do not have such a policy. Would the Minister agree that the hon. Gentleman may be using the matter as a red herring, when there are many other reasons why police officers—

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Certainly not. Outrageous. How dare you say that?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

He does not. What I said was that—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to desist from making comments from a sedentary position.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to you and the Committee.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Entirely accepted.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We have carefully examined the board's proposals and we intend to table an amendment on Report to give effect to the board's decision and enable the appointment of constables, particularly detective constables, other than through the customary 50:50 route. I shall not go into further detail here, because we shall do so on Report. However, I want to flag up the fact that, where necessary, we are prepared to assess the impact of the 50:50 rule on the ability of the Chief Constable to recruit, particularly where adverse effects are discernible and the Policing Board unanimously reaches a decision.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It is important to place on the record our welcome for the Government new clause, which will mean a departure from 50:50 recruitment provisions. I am pleased that the Government have been prepared to reflect on the Policing Board's proposals. At the same time, I deprecate the fact that

the Government were prepared to act only on the basis of a unanimous decision by the Policing Board, which is a bad precedent. The composition of the board might change and the Government could place obstacles in the way of other good ideas coming from it.

Rather than attaching themselves to the unanimity of the board, the Government would have done better to attach themselves to the good sense of the proposal. I am pleased at the departure from 50:50 at the board's request, but I remain concerned that the Government act only on utilitarian grounds rather than in response to the injustice committed against hundreds of people. Should that not also be remedied?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about unanimity. I referred to that point because in previous debates we noted the Policing Board's ability to deal with extremely sensitive and difficult issues on the basis of unanimity. However, it is important to understand that we are not placing that requirement on the board. I am mindful of the need for properly skilled officers to deliver services that the community rightfully demands. I am sympathetic to the Chief Constable's difficulties in respect of detective constables.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I wonder whether I might go into semi-constructive mode for a moment. As I understand it—the Minister will confirm it or otherwise—the 50:50 rule applies only to the recruitment of constables. Is there no scope for the Chief Constable to recruit police officers above the rank of constable from other parts of the United Kingdom, thereby obviating the rule and securing good, experienced officers to meet the deficiency? Should not such a constructive route be exploited as far as possible?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Indeed. For officers of sergeant rank and above, that facility is available, if the Chief Constable wants to use it.

The problem with the new clauses is that they go too far and could significantly undermine the 50:50 recruitment policy, to which we remain firmly committed. Why are we so committed to it? [Interruption.] I sometimes wonder why it should need stating. Yesterday, I had the privilege to meet three people who were making representations to me on a different point. Their fathers had been serving officers with the Royal Ulster Constabulary who were murdered in the 1970s. Our focus is to bring about circumstances in which those murderous attacks no longer happen.

The 50:50 recruitment arrangements, which change the composition of the PSNI, will bring us to the point where the PSNI is not only representative of but wholly supported by all of the communities represented throughout Northern Ireland. They will do so more quickly and more effectively than any of the other arrangements proposed today. It is on that basis that we continue to support 50:50, notwithstanding the representations that have been made about the grief that it causes to those who fail in the recruitment process. I hope that the Committee will reject the new clauses. Indeed, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister is right when she says that we have had one of our best and liveliest debates so far. The two proposals, although different in their effect, both proceed upon the same basic premise: the 50:50 recruitment procedure is fundamentally wrong and obnoxious. The Minister talked of the progress that has been made. I fear that she over-eggs the pudding ever so slightly. Yes, a great deal of progress has been made in relation to the recruitment of Roman Catholics into the PSNI, but that is a reflection of the increasing normality of life in Northern Ireland. A full range of people are now prepared to take on board serving their community in the police service in a way that is considered normal on this side of the Irish sea.

By continuing to insist on this highly artificial and, to a large part of the community, obnoxious device, the Government undermine and diminish their achievement and the achievement of others, such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in bringing a degree of normality to the community and to the policing of the community in Northern Ireland. I do not believe for one second that any member of the Roman Catholic community will join the police simply because the device is available to them through the overall engineering of targets. They will join the PSNI if they feel that they have some stake in it, and if they can do so without intimidation from the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. That is the achievement. The Minister should be proud of that, and she should have rather more confidence than she appears to have by continuing to cling to a highly artificial device.

We have had two parallel debates. When I moved the new clause that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) I said that it was a messy compromise. Others have pointed out various flaws in it. I do not seek to run away from them. I think that arguably there might be a degree of flexibility that is not present in the current system. The Minister referred to the fact that only 0.64 per cent. of current applicants were from this non-determined category. That is a fairly meaningless statistic when the system as it is set up forces everyone to be in one of two camps.

I lived for several years in Glasgow, where the issue of whether one is a Protestant or a Catholic is still very much alive. I worked for several years in the licensed trade and in hotels and I overheard many conversations that always came back to the question, ''Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?'' Any attempt to avoid the question by answering, ''I am an atheist'' would be met with, ''Are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?'' There has been some fudging of such distinctions in the present system.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Perhaps I may make the inquiry in code: in the years that the hon. Gentleman lived in Glasgow, did he support Rangers or Celtic?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats, and so I supported Partick Thistle. It is the third way and is rising in splendour and improving every year. However, to be less coded, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I am an elder in the Church of Scotland.

The approach of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made me slightly uncomfortable, and my discomfort grew as I listened to the exchange between the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Glasgow, Cathcart. That was because what is being suggested puts inordinate policy-making power into the hands of the Chief Constable. That makes me uneasy. When we talk about big policy issues, we should remember that the job of the Chief Constable is to implement the policy that politicians give him, not to be its author.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made several points about the number of competitions there have been since section 46 was introduced. He said that that was unacceptable and shameful, and that is the point to which I return time and time again. There is no getting away from it. The Minister drew our attention to the fact that they are temporary provisions and reminded us that the matter will be visited again in Committee in March of next year. I can hardly wait.

However, Patten envisaged that competitions would last for 10 years. For a young person who wishes to join the police service, 10 years is a generation. People in that generation will feel aggrieved at having being denied the opportunities that they feel they have the merit to meet. That is why the Liberal Democrats feel that the 50:50 approach is wrong. I am mindful that time is marching on, and I do not wish to delay the Committee further in long Divisions. Accordingly, after discussions with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I shall withdraw my new clause on the understanding that his will be moved formally and that there will be a Division after all the points have been aired. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2 - Removal of discrimination from recruitment

New clause 5 - Time limit on investigations by the Ombudsman

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was largely inspired by clause 12, which empowers the police ombudsman to investigate current police practices and policies. I note that the Government clearly confined the ombudsman's role under clause 12 to dealing with current matters, an approach with which I heartily concur. I have not had the opportunity to check the report that led to the creation of a police ombudsman, but I am sure that it was not in the minds of those who decided upon such a role that it would be appropriate for her to conduct inquiries into events that occurred a long time ago. In principle, that is undesirable, but regrettably she has done so. Indeed, one of her first inquiries was into events that occurred some 30 years ago. That is quite wrong.

The provision has to be seen in the light of the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement. During those negotiations, the question of whether we should follow the South African practice and have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was canvassed. I and my colleagues took the view, as did others, that that would be undesirable. We acknowledged—everyone knows it—that during the past 30 years quite a few terrible things had happened, and that a large number of members of the community had been injured or victimised by events; but we said that, having agreed upon new structures and procedures, and having agreed a settlement, it was necessary that the settlement should be allowed to bed in, and to be broadly accepted.

We felt that the settlement would not bed in if people had the opportunity to pick and scratch at all

the sores in the body politic that had been occasioned over the past 30 years. Consequently, the greater number of those involved in the negotiations took the very conscious decision that we should not go back and revisit all the things that had happened in the past. Yes, we have to have concern for victims; and, yes, things should be done for victims—and things have been done for them. However, to allow people somehow to re-run all the arguments of the past 30 years, to give people a means of settling whatever scores they believed still had to be settled, would be wrong in practice.

That is one of the reasons why some of us have been so critical of the Government's decision to institute inquiries such as that now sitting in Londonderry. That inquiry has raked up at least £100 million in court costs—the costs are likely to exceed £200 million by the time that it is finished—but it is a wholly misconceived approach, which is doing nothing to encourage reconciliation in the community. But that is by the way.

I mention that simply to make the point that we considered it best to draw a line, and to persuade the community to move on. In that context, it would be wrong for the police ombudsman to go back into the past; she has done so once, and she may do so again. We entirely approve of the approach adopted by the Government in clause 12, whereby the ombudsman will be directed to deal solely with current matters. We think that that should be the case with regard to other complaints received by the ombudsman. That is the reason for new clause 5.

The new clause would limit the ombudsman to dealing with complaints relating to matters that have taken place within the last 12 months. That is a reasonable and adequate period for all those who believe that they have suffered as a result of an abuse of police powers. Indeed, some might feel that 12 months is a bit generous, and that if people want to pursue a complaint they should do so within 12 months of the incident. It is obviously a matter of balance as to how far back one should go, and we chose 12 months.

I raise the issue in order to direct the Government's attention to the matter. I suggest that, having adopted such an admirable approach in clause 12, they should be consistent and apply the principle elsewhere.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

In principle, I support what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has proposed. However, I am not sure that 12 months is an appropriate time limit. It could be argued that a two-year period would be necessary to enable people to collate enough evidence to justify what they are doing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to go to the stake for the sake of 12 months; he has certainly made the point.

The right hon. Gentleman might also have addressed the fact—perhaps he will reflect on it on Report—that not only is it sensible to say that there has to be a time limit that starts from the date on which the complaint is made, but there is still an opportunity to delay the procedure for a huge length of time in the hope that something else might turn up

that would be handy to the investigation. I support not only a time limit backwards from the point of making the complaint, but a limit on how long a person making a complaint can work at keeping the file open by saying that more information will be supplied before the investigation can be completed. There could well be a time limit within which the ombudsman has to complete the investigation. I commend that to the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right.

The role of the ombudsman is to address, for the future, the sort of complaints that have been made in the past, relating to minor issues, rather than Bloody Sunday-type issues. I understand the Government to have stated that the ombudsman should be a safeguard for the future of the Northern Ireland police service. However, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that intention has already been changed into something entirely different—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was given as an example. Had the intention in creating the role of ombudsman been that that person would play the role of the president or chairman of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government should have said so at the time and we could have debated the matter.

If the Government accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that that is not the way to proceed and that it is sensible to draw a line in the sand to show that what had happened in the past was dreadful but it had happened, so it was time to move on, I would have though that they should accept the new clause in principle, even if they want to debate the length of time that is specified. That would put it beyond all doubt that the purpose of the ombudsman is to secure the future of the Northern Ireland Police Service rather than to provide yet another vehicle for raking over the past.

I have watched events in South Africa with amazement and interest and can see the value for some people in the approach taken in that country. However, I have also looked at what has happened in respect of the investigations into what happened in Londonderry all those years ago—at the moment the only beneficiaries are the lawyers, and I suspect that at the end of the day the only significant beneficiaries will be recipients of the £200 million in fees run up by the legal profession.

You might be interested to know, Mr. Amess, that at one stage I tried to rent a flat in County hall across the river to help me do my job here, only to discover that virtually every single available flat had been taken, at exorbitant rents with no negotiations, by lawyers who were coming across to appear at Methodist central hall. Some of the inflation in rent was due to an inquiry.

That illustrates my point. What good that is supposed to do to truth and reconciliation, I do not know. It is good for the landlords over there and it is good for the lawyers who are across the way arguing. All that it has done, and all that it will do, if the ombudsman goes down the same route, is that the moment that the Bloody Sunday thing gets out of hand someone will come along and say, ''We must have something about the Omagh bombing.'' We will have to do the same thing all over again. There will

almost be a bidding war to see who can spend the most on which inquiry.

I cannot believe for one minute that that is what the Government intended for the role of the ombudsman. If the Government agree with that argument, I suggest that there is a way of making it absolutely clear once and for all that the ombudsman is about the future of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and not yet another vehicle for raking over things that are probably best left buried in the past. I do not believe that we will make progress or improve the situation in Northern Ireland by endlessly raking over the past. However, I do think that we will make progress by making sure that the future is safeguarded, and the new clause goes in exactly in the right direction.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We do not accept the need for new clause 5, because the point is already covered in regulations. The general principle, set out in the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001, is that it is a requirement that a complaint is about the conduct of a member of the police service

''which took place not more than 12 months before the date on which the complaint is made.''

However, there are three exceptions to that general principle, and those three exceptions, where they are demonstrated, allow the ombudsman to investigate an allegation of an incident that may have taken place some time previous to that 12 months.

It might assist the Committee if I briefly spell out the three exceptions. First, if there has been a delay in complaining, if it appears that a criminal or disciplinary offence has been committed or if the complaint is not the same or substantially the same as a previous one, the ombudsman may investigate if she considers that justified by exceptional circumstances or the gravity of the matter. Secondly, she may take on a case even if it has been dealt with before if there is new evidence and it appears that a criminal or disciplinary offence has been committed, and, again, that the matter is grave or exceptional.

Thirdly, even if the grave or exceptional test is not met, the ombudsman may take on a case where she believes that the officer may have committed a criminal offence if the complaint has not been dealt with before or if new evidence has come to light. The proposal tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann would remove those exceptions. Investigations, therefore, are already confined to complaints about incidents that are no more than 12 months old, unless the exceptions apply.

The great value of the office of the police ombudsman is to build confidence in the police service of today, not continually to rake over the coals of the past. The right hon. Gentleman is right on that point. From my contact with the ombudsman, I believe that she shares that view. The office is not a truth commission. It is, however, a mechanism for ensuring the proper investigation of complaints and for ensuring transparency and justice.

I know that the ombudsman and her staff fully recognise the vital role that they have to play by securing the confidence of the public and of members of the police service. It is appropriate to pay tribute to

the work of the ombudsman's staff in successfully operating a completely new and independent police complaints system that has been functioning for just over two years.

The Government agree with the general principle articulated in new clause 5. Indeed, it has already been established in regulations, but the principle is in the regulations, subject to the exceptions, which we believe are important. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment is appropriate or necessary.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her contribution, but I still believe that such an amendment is appropriate and necessary. It will be ineffectual to rely purely on the regulations, as they are subject to exceptions that are drawn in such a way that the ombudsman, if so minded, would have no difficulty in pursuing any matter whatever. She merely has to say that she considers that an offence might have been committed. The other exceptions are couched in such broad terms that they could easily be exploited in the circumstances.

I am heartened that the Government consider my approach to be right in principle. I urge them, therefore, to examine the regulations more carefully and to consider whether it would not be much better to write such an approach into primary legislation rather than relying on regulations that are so widely drawn that they have not prevented the ombudsman from raking over a case that is more than 30 years old. There is a danger that that might happen again, and in circumstances in which the ombudsman feels like getting a little more publicity. I do not share the Minister's confidence in the system and it is appropriate for those matters to be covered in primary legislation. I want to return to them on Report, however, as they should be discussed again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Membership of district policing partnerships

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Disqualification from membership of district policing partnerships—

'.—In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (Political members) after subparagraph (5)(c) insert—

''(d) he is convicted of a terrorist related offence;

(e) he is found to have links to a terrorist organisation.''.'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The new clauses relate to schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and district policing partnerships—DPPs, in the jargon that the Government like to use—which we have not yet had the opportunity to get our heads around. In a DPP, a local council is required to set up what everyone, including me, would probably want to call a committee, although calling it something else seems to suit Northern Ireland. That committee would consist of 15, 17 or 19 members,

''as the council may determine'',

as it says in paragraph 2(1) of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act. Paragraph 2(3) says how that will be done:

''Where a DPP consists of 15 members, of whom—

(a) 8 shall be appointed by the council from among members of the council in accordance with paragraph 3.''

A minimum of eight people are therefore appointed in accordance with paragraph 2(3). If the numbers increase, the figure could be nine or 10.

Paragraph 3 relates to what the Act calls political members. Paragraph 3(1) states:

''A council shall exercise its power to appoint political members of the DPP so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the political members reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council immediately after the last local general election.''

Some councils in the Province have Sinn Fein-IRA members and, so far as I am aware, there are also councils with one or two members who are loyalist paramilitary apologists.

The Act therefore requires the appointment to DPPs of members of a political party that is totally bound to an armed terrorist organisation that has yet to disarm. I wait to see what the Government have managed to achieve by giving them even more concessions so that they might relinquish a few more arms and explosives.

The policing partnerships are required to appoint armed terrorists, or apologists for armed terrorists, who show almost no inclination to cease their terrorism as a means to achieve what they want, irrespective of the wish of the majority. Under the 2000 Act, those people can—indeed, must—be appointed to an oversight role in relation to the PSNI, which is the very body that is required to try to put such people out of business. That is utterly perverse. It is to put the criminal in charge of the organisation that exists to hound the criminal. It is to put the terrorists in charge of people who are trying to eliminate terrorism. I have never believed that that is acceptable. There should be no place for terrorists or apologists for terrorists in any democratic organisation until they have given up terrorism. Even then, I would have my doubts.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Will my hon. Friend explain whether any political member of Sinn Fein or, say, the Progressive Unionist party, is automatically a political member who has not renounced violence? Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a member of one of those parties claimed that he or she had renounced violence. What proof would my hon. Friend accept to show that that was so?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.