Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007

I was interested in the comment of the noble Baroness that in three years’ time her party will be opposing this 50:50 arrangement. That assumes, of course, that there will not be devolution in Northern Ireland, and that policing matters will not by that time have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is my first question to the Minister. If devolution proceeds in Northern Ireland as planned, and if, eventually, there is a devolution of policing matters to Stormont, will the Government or the Executive, or whatever authority will be named, have the power to end that 50:50 arrangement prior to the date provided in this legislation? The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly outlined the reasons why we had a low Roman Catholic membership of the policing institutions—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and subsequently the PSNI—and I shall not go over those issues; I know them in detail. There was tremendous intimidation of Roman Catholics; some of my friends who were Roman Catholic members of the RUC were assassinated by the Provisional IRA. Such people were even a priority target, compared with other members of the RUC. Roman Catholics were the number one target for assassination. That was one of the main reasons why we had a low Roman Catholic participation in the policing structures in Northern Ireland. As a Member of this House, I am delighted to see the progress in increasing the number of Roman Catholic members of the PSNI. That is what we really want to see in Northern Ireland—full participation in our policing system of people from all traditions. However, the Minister must recognise that the 50:50 rule has caused great offence to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. Young men who are Protestants and who are better qualified are being discriminated against because they happen to be Protestants; they cannot get a position in the PSNI, and that causes a lot of sectarian feelings within the community. This is sectarian legislation and it is causing offence. Therefore, the sooner it is removed from Northern Ireland, the better. However, on the background, the Minister said that Sinn Fein had now accepted the PSNI. I find it difficult to accept that statement and I will be interested to see if other parties accept it by 26 March. The English press says that Sinn Fein supports the PSNI, without examining that in detail. My understanding is that if you look at the issue in detail, Sinn Fein accepts the PSNI in relation to ordinary day-to-day civilian problems—such as traffic issues and rape which happen in civil society—but did not make it clear that it would support the PSNI when terrorism was involved. That needs to be clarified in Northern Ireland. It was not sufficiently clear to satisfy someone such as me. It may have satisfied Dr Paisley, but I will be watching this matter closely before 26 March to see whether Sinn Fein is clear in its support for the PSNI and all policing matters in Northern Ireland—civilian and terrorist. There is one other problem in Northern Ireland and we must not run away from it. We still have the Real IRA, which, in my opinion, is an increasing threat in Northern Ireland society. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister thinks that the Real IRA is in decline or whether it is increasing its presence and potential for terrorism in Northern Ireland. The PSNI has to operate in that context of modern policing, which, sadly, might mean that Roman Catholic members of the PSNI will still be intimidated by breakaway groups from the Provisional IRA. Mention has been made of the Garda Siochana. Paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum goes further, saying that there will be, "““a wider degree of lateral entry””," from the Garda Siochana—not just the existing arrangements, but a ““wider degree””. Can the Minister explain what that wider degree of entry from the Garda Siochana will be? I repeat the question I asked the Minister last time: has he read the oath of allegiance that members of the Garda Siochana take? At the time he replied that he had not. I hope that he has now read it because I suspect that it would not be acceptable to the vast majority in parts of Northern Ireland. I am glad to hear the clarification that Polish applicants will be accepted in accordance with whatever religion they state on their application forms. That means that in most cases, if they are telling the truth, they are Roman Catholics, although there is quite a strong evangelical Protestant Church in some parts of Poland. I hope that they will not be discriminated against because they happen to be Polish rather than being born in Northern Ireland and that as European Union citizens they will get the same consideration as local applicants. On 50:50 recruitment, it must be remembered that it is not 50 per cent Protestant and 50 per cent Roman Catholic, but 50 per cent Roman Catholic and probably something towards 40 per cent Protestant. That is because the other 50 per cent is not just made up of Protestants but of people of no religion or of other religions. For that reason it is a further means of discrimination against the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions the St Andrews agreement and the agreement to try and achieve a 30 per cent Roman Catholic composition by 2010-11. Was that agreed by all the parties at St Andrews, by just the two Governments, or did both Sinn Fein and the DUP agree to this target of 30 per cent? That needs to be clarified. Will the Minister explain whether the target of 30 per cent by 2010 is consistent with the Patten target, or was that target something different? The memorandum does not make it clear whether they are the same thing. I shall leave it at that and I look forward to the answers from the Minister, especially those on the Garda Siochana and the Patten target.