HC Deb 21 November 2000 vol 357 cc255-66

Lords amendment: No. 59, in page 21, line 27, at end insert— ("() In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.")

Mr. Ingram

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 62, 64, 65, 67 and 138.

Mr. Ingram

I shall first discuss amendment No. 59, which deals with lay involvement in the recruitment process, and amendment No. 138. Amendment No. 59 obliges the Secretary of State to ensure, in recruitment regulations, that sensitive information is protected appropriately. Amendment No. 138 allows references to "the Board" in the recruitment provisions to be construed as reference to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland before the board replaces the authority. This is to enable the recruitment regulations to be progressed before the board is appointed.

Amendment No. 61 places a ceiling of 75 per cent. on the level to which the Secretary of State is permitted to aggregate the 50:50 quota. The issue generated much discussion in Committee in the House and in the other place, so it might be worthwhile taking time to explain why we have arrived at our conclusion.

The Bill allows for the 50:50 recruitment quota for police trainees to be adjusted for the purposes of recruiting police trainees in two sets of circumstances. First, a "set aside order" may be made when there is an insufficient number of candidates from either community background to fill the number of required posts—in effect, that means setting aside the 50:50 provision. Secondly, an "aggregation order" may be made when at least one such set aside order has been made in the previous three years—its purpose being to redress, or partly redress, any imbalance that has arisen as a result.

Ulster Unionists and Liberal Democrats pointed out to us that, in the absence of any safeguard, the Secretary of State could, in theory, adjust the quota under an aggregation order to permit 100 per cent. recruitment from members of either community background group—Catholic or non-Catholic. The amendment accordingly sets a limit of 75 per cent. on the aggregation power, thus ensuring that a minimum of 25 per cent. from either community background group are appointed. Amendment No. 62 is consequential on that.

I come to the amendments that will add new clauses to the Bill. Amendment No. 60 is designed to meet recommendations 127 and 128 of the Patten report that police officers serving outside the RUC should be encouraged to apply for the ranks above constable. The report particularly said that Catholic officers from Northern Ireland serving in police services elsewhere—especially those in more senior ranks—should be contacted and encouraged to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police. So-called lateral entry to the RUC from other United Kingdom forces already takes place to a limited degree. Our aim is to enhance the use of such channels at all levels in the police service, including from the Garda Siochana.

Dr. Godman

I have recently met two senior officers in the RUC who were recruited from police forces in mainland Britain. Would it be possible for an officer in, for example, Strathclyde, to be seconded to the RUC for three or four years?

Mr. Ingram

I do not know the detailed provisions for that. However, the answer is probably yes if there is agreement between the forces. For example, a police officer with particular expertise or knowledge of the investigation of fraud could be called in to meet a deficiency in a police service. A police officer from Strathclyde, from any other force in Great Britain or from the Garda Siochana could be seconded for his expertise in certain circumstances. I am sure that such interrelationships already exist. However, transfers on secondment may cause difficulties if the officers have to attest by means of different oaths. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I shall write to him if my explanation is not correct.

I was describing how so-called lateral entry, including from the Garda Siochana, could take place. Such lateral entry will be based on selection and open competition. The fundamental principles of merit will be applied as Patten recommended. Amendment No. 65 is consequential on amendment No. 60. It makes the lateral entry provision temporary, subject to our triennial review and renewal.

Amendment No. 67 was tabled in response to an undertaking given in Standing Committee to consider female representation in the police. The RUC suffers a marked imbalance in terms of both community background and gender. Only 12.6 per cent. of police officers are women, a third of whom are in the part-time reserve.

9.15 pm

The provision enables the Policing Board to monitor the representation of women in the police, the police support staff and the board itself, and to devise measures to increase their representation if necessary. The board may invite the Chief Constable to draft the plan, which can be accepted or amended by the board. Consultation is required with the Equality Commission, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State before the plan is made or revised. However, publication of the plan will be a matter for the board. Amendment No. 64 is simply a drafting amendment to that process. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Trimble

As the Minister said, we have debated this issue before and there are some very strong views on it, as I am sure all hon. Members will be aware. Indeed, the amendments raise matters of principles such as the merit principle which the Minister referred to as fundamental.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is not here. Perhaps he will be able to join us when he has had dinner.

Mr. McDonnell

My hon. Friend is telephoning his wife and will be back shortly.

Mr. Trimble

I am glad for that reassurance. No doubt the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) can convey my comments to the hon. Gentleman.

1 have listened to contributions by the hon. Member for Hull, North and his colleagues in which they talked about human rights. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern that human rights be upheld. Indeed, the amendments that he has tabled reflect his anxiety that human rights issues are raised and given more attention in the Bill. Human rights are never more important than when they are about to be abused, and we now have a chance to apply an acid test to those concerns about human rights. I hear a great deal about human rights from many hon. Members and from many people here and in Northern Ireland. Let those hon. Members stand up for human rights tonight.

We intend to divide the House on amendment No. 61. It relates to some of the provisions on quotas in clause 45. The clause heading—"Discrimination in appointments"—is refreshingly honest: the clause provides for discrimination in recruitment, and it is clear and open about that. The Government are deliberately setting aside human rights to discriminate. Although they talk about the importance of human rights and putting them at the heart of the process, they have started off by corrupting the process because they have deliberately decided to discriminate.

Furthermore, the proposals are quite unnecessary. The Government have discovered that they have problems. That is why amendment No. 61 was tabled in the other place. They realised that they were getting into a situation that would produce not only absurdities but indefensible positions. The Government have realised that their proposals are not practicable and will give rise to difficulty, but the proposals are unnecessary because the target population for recruitment is roughly 50:50 in Northern Ireland between Protestant and Catholic. There is a slight Catholic majority in some ages but not in others. If there are equal levels of participation in both communities there will be roughly 50:50 recruitment. Equal participation depends upon the attitude taken by individuals who apply. We have every reason to believe that now that, as we hope, a major terrorist campaign is a thing of the past—although violence has not completely ended—there will be a significant increase in the number of Catholic applicants. We shall have to see whether the proportion moves immediately to 50 per cent. Given the nature of things, it might not do so in the first year or two. However, we could be surprised.

The attitude taken by leaders of the Catholic Church and by community and political leaders will be significant. If political and community leaders encourage people to join, we shall rapidly reach a 50:50 position. It would be proper in the present circumstances to have various forms of what is called affirmative action to encourage people to apply. Members are familiar with the concept of affirmative action and are aware of the range of things that can be done in those terms.

It is unnecessary to provide for a legal quota, and by doing so the Government will discriminate. They may try to console themselves with the thought that in the first few years they may discriminate against only a handful of people—perhaps only a dozen or a score will be discriminated against. They will meet the merit or quality requirement and be put into a recruitment booth, but will not get a job. Other persons who come along after them will get jobs ahead of them. Each of those persons who are so discriminated against will be entitled to have their human rights respected. The Government are deliberately legislating to violate those rights. That is not the way to proceed.

The Government's approach will sour the atmosphere from the outset, and in the long run it will not work. Given the amendments that the Government have tabled, I think that they know that. They realise that when discrimination occurs and complaints are pursued, their position will not be sustainable. I think that the Government will be unable to operate the system for more than a few years before their own absurdity and injustice catches up with them. However, think of the unnecessary damage that will be done during those years.

We have pursued the matter in this place and in another place. We were glad to have the support of the Liberal Democrats in Committee when we tabled amendments and new clauses to provide for targets and affirmative action. That would have been a sensible way in which to proceed. I regret that the Liberal Democrats did not lend their support in another place. Had they done so, the amendments would have been carried and we would have a different set of Lords amendments, which we would have been pleased to support. We can only guess what the Secretary of State's smile indicates in terms of whatever was done—given the way in which the House operates—and what was done with the Liberal Democrats so as to induce them to do a U-turn as these matters proceeded to another place. When we vote later this evening, it will be interesting to see whether Liberal Democrat Members do what they did in Committee or adopt the U-turn that was taken by their colleagues in another place.

I refer to those matters in light terms, but there is still a serious issue. A significant number of people in Northern Ireland have a rather cynical attitude towards the use of the term "human rights". I believe in human rights—despite the sour comments that I have heard from members of other parties—and I am anxious to ensure that people's rights are upheld. That is why I find the provisions so disappointing. Although they are unnecessary, they are being forced through in the knowledge that they will injure people's rights.

The Government have gone to the length of persuading the European Council of Ministers to produce a derogation from the equal rights directive. That might be the end of matters in Europe, or it might not—I suspect the latter, as issues remain that can be pursued there. There is also the question of the European convention on human rights. No doubt, cases will be brought based on the convention, allowing us to discover whether the certificate in the Bill is accurate. I suspect that several cases relating to the provisions will get to court.

The provisions do the Government, the Bill and, consequently, the police force great damage, unnecessarily. There is still time for the Government to think again and realise that all that is necessary is that encouragement is given: the Government and community and religious leaders only have to encourage people to come forward, because the irony, as I have said before, is that the target age group for recruitment is roughly evenly balanced. That is the right way.

Legally coercive methods are the wrong way, and run quite contrary to the agreement into which we entered. This evening, I have reflected on the fact that some parties that say they support the agreement set it to one side when it suits them to do so. I am afraid that that is happening again now.

Mr. Grieve

As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Ministers know, when this matter was debated in Standing Committee, I, on behalf of the official Opposition, expressed serious reservations about the entirety of the provisions of clause 45. Whatever is done in respect of the European Union and its directives, I wholly share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the clause is in breach of the European convention on human rights.

It is in that light that one must see Lords amendment No. 61, which is apparently the device whereby a degree of approval was secured in the upper House for allowing the Bill to pass containing clause 45 in its present form. However, it seems to me that the amendment makes matters worse, because it emphasises the fact that there will be occasions on which up to 75 per cent. of the recruitment pool have to face a discriminatory bias. I do not understand how the provision will achieve the goals that the Government desire.

From the comments I made in Committee, the Minister of State knows that the Opposition share the Government's desire for a massive increase in the number of members joining the police service in Northern Ireland who are drawn from the minority Roman Catholic community. If that means that the day comes when Roman Catholics comprise more than 50 per cent. of the Northern Ireland police service, as it will be called, we shall not lose one second of sleep. Indeed, taking into account matters of demography and employment, that scenario may well come to pass. I am sure that it is likely that Roman Catholics are more heavily represented in the Metropolitan police in London than their numerical strength in the general population might appear to dictate. We shall not worry about that.

However, positive discrimination is discrimination, and the effect of Lords amendment No. 61 on clause 45 is to institutionalise even further the discrimination that is clear in the clause as it stands. The amendment may be ingenious in terms of persuading Liberal Democrat peers in another place to support the insupportable, but we cannot support it. We agree entirely with the view of the Ulster Unionists that this is a proper matter on which to divide the House.

9.30 pm
Dr. Godman

I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on amendment No. 67. The promise was made that careful examination would be carried out concerning the role of women in the police, the police support staff and the board's staff.

No one can criticise subsection (4), which states:

Before making or revising its action plan, the Board shall consult—

  1. (a) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland;
  2. (b) the Chief Constable; and
  3. (c) the Secretary of State.
Certain police functions are better carried out by women police officers than by male police officers. That provision is a useful improvement to the Bill. I am sure that the board and the Chief Constable will deal humanely with the problem of under-representation, if there is one.

I refer to recommendation 154 of the Patten commission, and ask a question that my right hon. Friend may consider to be of minor importance. When a recruitment programme is finally under way for new recruits, and to bring in experienced officers from other police forces, will they be able to wear the new uniform suggested in recommendation 154? That recommendation refers to paragraph 17.7 of the Patten report, which states that we have been persuaded by the Police Federation and individual officers who commented on the present uniform that it is somewhat outdated and we recommend that a new, more practical style of uniform be provided to police officers. I have often thought that about RUC uniforms. How far has that recommendation been carried out? Is there a new uniform—I almost said, "on the stocks" to my right hon. Friend. How close are we to a new, more sensible, more appropriate uniform?

My right hon. Friend knows that I disagree with one part of the recommendation—that the colour of the new police uniform should remain the same as the present uniform. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke about the display cabinets at the headquarters of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I, too, have looked at them a couple of times, and I concur with what he said about the badges worn by members of the other 66 police forces in the United Kingdom. They have a common colour uniform, I believe. Eventually, the new police force in Northern Ireland should wear the identical colour uniform. I should like to know about the design of the new uniform, and how far matters have progressed.

Mr. Öpik

I shall share a secret about the mysteries surrounding the apparent change of heart by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Mandelson

Oh no, please don't.

Mr. Öpik

At this moment I feel more powerful than I ever have.

Now that I have the attention of the House, I reaffirm that, as we would all agree, we are trying to achieve a demographic balance in the police force consistent with the demographic balance in Northern Ireland itself. On the uncontroversial part of this group of amendments, Lords amendment No. 67, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, is encouraging.

On several occasions, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde and others, including me, have said that by fixating on the simple sectarian divide that has traditionally been regarded as Protestant versus Catholic, we forget the fact that 11 per cent. or so of Northern Ireland's population do not categorise themselves as part of either grouping. Those people risk continuing to be under-represented in the police force. The symbolic importance of considering the gender balance cannot be overstated, and, given the amendments that we have already discussed, I hope that the increased influence of the Equality Commission will lead to other groups being taken into consideration. I hope that the Equality Commission can ensure equality for ethnic groups such as the Chinese—although at this point perhaps not quite the Estonians, who traditionally have almost no representation at all in the police.

On the crucial issue of Lords amendment No. 61, my concerns about the Government's original proposal have not changed. I still believe that the solution lies primarily in focusing on applications, and that dealing with recruitment quotas is not the optimal way of tackling the issue. I have often claimed that once Catholics have applied for a police job, I have not seen evidence of discrimination in the recruitment process itself. Although that is still my belief, nevertheless I shall share with the House an honest assessment of why my party and I feel it appropriate to evolve our position—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may snigger, but this is the key issue in what I have learned about the whole process.

There sometimes seems to be a great desire for black and white, or binary, politics in the Chamber, especially on emotive issues such as this. It is almost as if it is regarded as a sign of weakness to evolve from the position in which one starts to another which is, in this case, less close to that of the official Opposition and the Ulster Unionists. There has been discussion and dialogue, and I have often raised issues with Ministers and others who have an intimate involvement in these matters in Northern Ireland. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have spoken with the same people. The modification proposed by the Government did not fully satisfy our worries, but it was better than the point at which we started.

As the Minister said, before the amendment was tabled, there was the prospect of 100 per cent. recruitment from one side or the other, which, clearly, would be badly received by the community that lost out. More to the point, it would send all the wrong signals on the egalitarian recruitment policies that we are trying put together.

Mr. Grieve

I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman may be rather delicately situated. However, does he agree with the principle that there is no difference between discrimination against 100 per cent. of the population and discrimination against 75 per cent? Is that not equally bad? I remember the hon. Gentleman's compelling words in Committee against that course of action, so how can he justify the change when the principle has not been touched at all?

Dr. Godman

The hon. Gentleman is an evolutionary Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Öpik

Perhaps so. I look forward to a definition after we have finished our debate.

I do not want to detain the House too long, as we have only 21 minutes left. However, I shall answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in simple terms. The principle remains the same. As one reads the Hansard record of our debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, one can see that all three Ministers have given repeated assurances that they will not countenance discrimination against those who have managed to make it to the end of the recruitment process on merit. The implication of what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said is clear. I agree that it is hard to see how, even with the 75-25 modification, that will be avoided. Nevertheless, it is clearly incumbent on Ministers to honour the commitment that they have made on a number of occasions as a result of the pressure from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield keeps asking from a sedentary position why the Liberal Democrats have changed our vote. We have done so because, through dialogue with Ministers, we have achieved some form of compromise. [Laughter.] I do not understand why that creates such mirth among those on the official Opposition Front Bench. That is what normal people try to do. We were not in a position to convince the Government to turn 180 degrees on their position. We might have won in the other place, but it was my judgment that that would have delayed the Bill and perhaps resulted in some headlines at the time, but was unlikely to achieve a further concession.

I always feel disappointed and rather uncomfortable when I cross the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I have enormous respect for his position and I still agree with him in principle, as I agree, in principle, with those on the official Opposition Front Bench. Time will tell if we made the right decision to modify our view. The result of the recruitment process, and whether the Minister can deliver a genuinely non-positive discriminatory result in Northern Ireland will be the touchstone of whether the Government overpromised. As I have said, I am a little sceptical about whether they can achieve that.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to do two things. First, I ask him to reaffirm that the Government are sincerely committed to avoiding positive discrimination towards any sector of the community in Northern Ireland with regard to police recruitment. Secondly, I ask him to give the assurance that, if the Government fail to achieve that, they will review the arrangements on the lines proposed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and, by implication, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I, too, should like to see that review.

Consensual politics is sometimes difficult because we become habituated to winning and losing. The position that we have put forward today is a risk; it is an experiment. More than anything, it will be judged on clear results in the months and years ahead. But what is the point in politics if one never genuinely listens to other people's points of view? We shall be judged by the outcomes. Perhaps that approach is why we should have proportional representation. However, I shall not go into that now.

I have explained why the Liberal Democrats have changed. We have given an honest answer to the questions posed by the right hon. Members for Upper Bann and for Bracknell and by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. We stand by our record of trying to tell the truth—and as much as we can, more than anything, we stand according to the principle that the Government will honour their half of an honest and open dialogue which is for anyone to see and for anyone to participate in if they are willing to take the risk of stepping outside party politics. On this occasion at least, higher issues are at stake.

Dr. McCrea

This matter goes to the heart of the policing issue. Many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have drawn attention to the discrimination which will clearly result from the Bill. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that 11 per cent. of the ethnic community would not be represented. It is interesting to note that anyone who is not a Roman Catholic or a Protestant is taken as a Protestant. That is one reason why the numbers and percentages are skewed in one direction. But there is a genuine concern that over the years, there has been a propaganda exercise against the RUC because of its make-up. One must ask why we have the present percentage from the Protestant community within the RUC and the RUC reserves. The reality is that SDLP Members opposed the Royal Ulster Constabulary and did not want members of their party or people associated with it to join the organisation, against which they carried out a policy of vilification for many years. Ordinary Roman Catholics therefore found that they had no political back-up. The Church joined the political representatives and opposed individuals' membership of the organisation.

9.45 pm

In the community in which I live, many members of the Roman Catholic community served in the RUC with excellence, determination and courage. They faced not only opposition from their political and Church representatives, but the prospect of being attacked and murdered by the IRA. I ask hon. Members to consider the number of members of the Roman Catholic community who have been murdered by the IRA. We must identify clearly the reason why the proper percentage of people from the Roman Catholic community did not join the RUC.

If members of the SDLP decide to sit on the sidelines because they believe that they have not got enough and can push for a few more concessions from the present Administration, they will certainly oppose members of the nationalist community joining the new service that is being commissioned. There is nothing new under the sun. They told us that the B Specials were the problem, so we got rid of them. They told us that the Ulster Defence Regiment was the problem, so we got rid of them. They move from one thing to another. Of course, the RUC is now the problem, so we move on again.

The interesting question is whether members of the SDLP will directly encourage members of the Roman Catholic community to join the police force. Furthermore, will Church leaders do so, and will the SDLP's hench-party, Sinn Fein-IRA, also allow such people to join? No one wanted the establishment of a police force that represented only one section of the Northern Ireland community. We had sought to encourage the Roman Catholic community to cast aside its political representatives and join the RUC and had hoped that that would happen because we believed that they had a vital contribution to make to the protection of ordinary, law-abiding people throughout the Northern Ireland community.

The basic human right of employment will now, however, be taken from the Protestant community. Interestingly, we are being told in the House that members of the Garda should join up and take over the RUC offices. In other words, people living in the United Kingdom are to be put out of their jobs and on to the unemployment lists, and people from a foreign country are to be put in their positions. Will that policy carry easily in the community? Will it establish a community relationship and unite a divided community?

Hon. Members know that that will not be the outcome. Positive discrimination is at the heart of the proposals. It is institutionalised discrimination against a community that has stood against IRA terrorism, as well as all the other terrorism that has been fired at it. The basic human right to be employed on merit, not according to religious name or tag, should be established clearly, once and for all. That is why I feel that the suggestions under consideration will sit well neither with the basic human rights of the people of the United Kingdom nor with the population about which I am talking. I refer especially to those who have served well and diligently and have withstood the onslaught of terrorism to achieve peace and stability in the Province.

Mr. Ingram

As ever, the matter under discussion has generated a hot debate. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a strong speech and has held consistently to his view. In one sense, however, he did not take account of the breadth of the debate. That also applies to the contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

The House does not necessarily need to accept the view of a Minister or of those who spoke in support of the Government amendments that were introduced in another placeit should listen to —the views of the Equality Commission. On the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann about using targets and affirmative action to deal with the issue rather than our approach, the Equality Commission said: It is the Commission's view that goals and timetables and affirmative action measures which are currently lawful under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 are unlikely to produce the necessary change in the composition of the police for a considerable period … the Commission believes that the creation of a police service which is representative of the community is essential both to the effectiveness of the police service and to the establishment of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I recollect our debate on Report. One of the strongest arguments against the Government's approach was that it would place us in a situation that was incompatible with EU employment directives. That argument has not been mentioned this evening. We said at the time that it was not and is not incompatible, although there was a possibility that it might be, but that we should seek an exemption, which we have achieved. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen would recognise that—

Mr. Trimble

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram

In a moment. I was making the point that those hon. Gentlemen who previously rested so much of their argument on that suggestion—[Interruption.] We could all go back to the record.

Mr. Grieve

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect our discussion in Committee on that matter? I always took the view that the potential breach of the European convention was the central issue. The need to obtain a derogation from EU directives shows how sloppy the EU is if it has to enforce its own human rights legislation. However, I leave that to one side because it was never the central platform of my arguments, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge.

Mr. Ingram

I will not enter into a debate on Europe at this stage of the evening.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister makes a point against himself. The fact that the Government had to get a derogation from the directive shows that the arguments that we made about the directive before there was a derogation were sound.

Mr. Ingram

No, it does not. [Interruption.] I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that it does not. Our argument has been consistent all along.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. …pik) discussed the Government's commitment to and view of positive discrimination. We said, and we have always recognised, that these are exceptional measures. Patten recognised that, as did the Equality Commission. We are dealing with a situation that everyone recognises is wrong, no matter how it arose.

We can all analyse the background, but only 8 per cent. of the RUC's strength comes from the Catholic community, and something needed to be done. We set out to examine the way forward in a practical and mechanistic way, as the Patten report proposed. Certain weaknesses in that approach were raised by Ulster Unionists and by Liberal Democrats, and we took that into account. We modified our position, but did not move away from the central thrust of what Patten was asking us to do, and which we accepted had to be done.

We have never hidden from the fact that positive discrimination is involved—we accept that, but we also point out that the situation is exceptional. I inform the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I, too, can become passionate about the matter. Why is there such a disproportionate imbalance in the police service in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Robert McCartney

The IRA.

Mr. Ingram

I accept that there is a lot of evidence to show that there is harassment, victimisation and violence against Catholic serving members of the police service. Of that there is no doubt. That may give greater comfort, not to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is not guilty of that, but to others in his community who have a chill factor in this context, which makes it difficult for people from that Catholic community to join the RUC. Our proposal will give comfort to that part of the community. We are serious about, and committed to, changing the complexion of the police service in Northern Ireland to secure that proper religious or community balance for the future. If we do not do so, it will not be acceptable in many parts of Northern Ireland.

People constantly ask me how many police officers live in south Armagh, how many live in west Belfast, how many live in the Creggan and how many live in other parts of Deny. The answer is probably none, and that must change. If a police service is to serve the whole community, its officers should be able to live in that community,

These are big issues. Big changes must take place. We are not at the end of the road, but our proposed measures will help us to achieve what we want to achieve. We must continually review the situation, because we must ensure the efficacy of the system. Is it working? Is it achieving its objective? If not, we must look at it again; if so, we have achieved a major success. That is why the amendments are essential.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 60 agreed to.

Forward to