| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not recognise those remarks but they sound like comments that I may have made yesterday. I do not know that I referred to the Liberal Democrats. I did not refer to the Liberal Democrats as Nazis. I was making the very simple point that if you start looking at community human rights as opposed to individual human rights, you are starting down the road that Hitler went down. What
Hitler did was get rid of the flotsam and jetsam of society. That was deeply regrettable. I refer to the old business about the liberals in Germany. They did not complain; they were pragmatic at the start. Towards the end of the process of infringing human rights, they could not complain because they were either dead or in concentration camps. I do not make any comparison; I am just saying that that is the most extreme example. If you start down a road, it is always very useful to know where you are going. If I have offended anyone, I shall certainly and gladly withdraw those remarks.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for withdrawing those remarks. He certainly offended me by using them. I accept that he has withdrawn them. It is not my mission to argue on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—they can argue very well on their own behalf. However, we ought to engage in this debate in a sensible and balanced way. Of course there are arguments against 50:50; I understand that. No one—noble Lords or anyone else—has the right to argue that that is not the case. However, the language that we use is important because it could lead to misunderstanding.
I draw my remarks to a close. On two occasions I have seen police training in Belfast. I have chatted with police recruits from both communities. I have been enormously impressed by the high calibre of the individuals, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, who have joined the police. I have been impressed by their dedication and commitment to a task that is still more difficult in Northern Ireland than it is in Britain. I hope that that will not be the case for much longer but it is at the present time. I have been impressed by their dedication, the skill shown in the training and the fact that there are such excellent people committed to serving their communities. If there are so many excellent people in Northern Ireland that some good people are not selected for the police force, that is a good thing in terms of the police service; namely, that more good people want to join than there are places for. I am sorry that some people cannot fulfil their ambitions to serve in the police force, if that is what they want, but in any walk of life where there is competition, some people do not succeed. We have probably all failed at some point in our lives in achieving what we want.
I repeat the tribute that I consider should be paid to the quality of the people in the police force. It augurs well for the future of policing in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the result will be better policing and greater consent by ordinary people for that.
Finally, I am still totally enthusiastic about the Patten report. It marked an important change for Northern Ireland. I believe that when the history of these difficult times comes to be written the Patten report will be seen as a landmark on the way to a peaceful and just Northern Ireland.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I wish to preface my remarks on this order by referring to something that happened yesterday evening when the
noble Lord, Lord Joffe—I have mentioned this to him and I make my comments now without any rancour whatever—said:
- "I should mention that, at the same time, a decision was taken that the Bill as it stands specifically excludes reference to Northern Ireland. I am sure that that would interest the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis".—[Official Report, 10/3/04; col. 1324].
It is not so much what is enshrined in legislation—although that again and again discriminates against the people of Northern Ireland as compared with what the people in the rest of the United Kingdom have come to expect—but rather the knock-on effect of legislation. I shall illustrate that at a later stage. The knock-on effect of legislation that is flawed in so far as it disregards certain principles and practices is serious and significant.
Before I go any further I should indicate that I have been associated with policing in Northern Ireland since 1958—I think that is 46 years ago—when I joined the Ulster Special Constabulary. Later I was associated with policing as a parliamentarian and as an adviser to the RUC Federation. I am associated with the police right up to the present day. As an officer in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, I worked hand-in-glove with the police for 12 years during the recent terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.
At the time of the Patten commission, I discussed with Chris Patten, who I know well, the imbalance in the RUC. About 88 per cent of its membership comes from the Protestant tradition with only about 8 per cent from the Roman Catholic tradition. That had to be addressed. My party and those with whom I would work most closely had no objection to the issue being addressed. But what they said again and again was that if they conceded the suggested 50:50 proposal, it would become a continuous process. At the same time there was a proposal from a Dublin source suggesting that there should be an initial one, or perhaps two, exclusively Roman Catholic intakes of 800, to achieve an immediate boost in order to overcome the confidence problem and the imbalance in the religious make-up of the RUC.
At that time I argued that creating such a stratum—or two—from that single tradition would only succeed in creating a different legacy of imbalance for the following 30 years and would have an undue impact at every level of promotion down the years. I said that it would institutionalise a divided force. I argued publicly, both with my own colleagues, and in evidence to the Patten commission, that the one-off process would be disastrous and that we would be better off with a strict three-year 50:50 policy—although my party, the Ulster Unionists, did not approve. I argued further that it presented difficulties and could not be
extended ad infinitum. It would require an immediate response from the Roman Catholic tradition and should be seen only as an initial confidence booster to that tradition and nothing more. I argued that it might just be tolerated as an acceptable gesture of good will, but that we could not, and should not, do anything that would institutionalise sectarianism in the RUC.For the past four years I have lived to regret my generosity in trying to resolve a problem that faced us, because not only do we now find an institutionalised sectarianism, but that the sectarianism is extending to other areas of the administration—pertaining to the RUC and beyond. Institutionalised sectarianism in the RUC is now a day-to-day rule of thumb. Why does it take utter, total and complete precedence over issues of gender, age, meritocracy and, indeed, geographical considerations?
I shall give the Minister an example that strikes close to home for me. All my public life, and before that, I have sought to reconcile the two traditions in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are those of us who, if we have the courage to put our heads above the parapet, are able to carry the community forward on a fair and equal basis. In my public life I have found those people in the SDLP and among independent members of the nationalist community. I found that to be the case particularly during my time as a councillor in Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council, where we had an agreeable arrangement of responsibility sharing before there was ever any imposition of the d'Hondt system.
We have been overtaken by d'Hondt. When it came to appointing a district police partnership, we sought to follow instructions and tried to implement d'Hondt but found that Sinn Fein was not prepared to play its part. The outcome is having to re-run d'Hondt—I hope that the Minister will listen to the terms in which I state my case—and one then achieves a political imbalance. Our borough council does not look at whether it is a Protestant or a Catholic who sits on the council; we have abandoned and eschewed sectarian approaches to the problems that we face as councillors.
As a result of our political imbalance, when we came to select the eight independent members we found ourselves—although I contradict myself by using sectarian terms—with 38 applicants, three of whom were from the Roman Catholic tradition. They were good people and we sought a shortlist down to about 25—one more than required—and interviewed them. Before the interviews we received an instruction from the Police Board and its agents, PricewaterhouseCoopers, that we should inject another name, a late applicant. I refused. I was told that the instruction came from the Police Board. I have taken legal advice on that issue and I shall read it to noble Lords. It says:
- "The injection of an additional name into the selection process on the 18th December 2002. This would not normally be considered appropriate in fair employment terms but it does not seem to be contrary to the particular process set out herein under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 and the Code of Practice".
My problem with the DPP has reached a dreadful stage because I have refused to proceed with an extended process that is being imposed upon me. One of my nationalist friends on the council has written to the chairman of the policing board and said, "Look, we are very sorry. We didn't get 4:4"—four nationalists and four unionists—"but we have not done badly because we have the potential for 3:5". He received a condescending letter in reply from Professor Ray, who said, "Dear Councillor, you misunderstand. We require you to appoint seven Roman Catholics out of the eight in order to create balance within your DPP".
In other words, because Sinn Fein refused to participate, members of our community who attend the Roman Catholic church on a Sunday morning are equated with Sinn Fein. I do not believe that they appreciate that and we certainly do not. Therein is the problem. I do not want to detain the House for ever, but I could give examples of existing inequities that would take us through until tomorrow.
I shall move on. Recruitment to date has been encouraging in the RUC. I have the statistics and I notice that in Competition 5, there were 62 per cent Protestant and 36 per cent Catholic. In Competition 6, there were 63 per cent Protestant and 35 per cent Catholic. No one has mentioned gender balance or geographical recruitment across Northern Ireland, urban and rural, east and west. If after three years there has been the morale booster which we all sought, the Government should suggest to this House a one-year extension—certainly not a three-year extension which institutionalises sectarianism.
The outcome of events does not resolve any of the problems in Northern Ireland. Statistics may suggest otherwise and the Minister will rely on them. We all know the old saying, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics", and we are suffering from that in Northern Ireland. Does anyone believe that if we transfer the grievances, perceived and real, of one tradition in Northern Ireland to the other tradition, we are resolving anything?
In conclusion, I shall illustrate that by drawing attention to what is happening to the electoral process. For years, the two major parties in Northern Ireland were the centre parties, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. They brought us to a point where we had, warts and all, the Belfast agreement of 1998, which I supported unequivocally. It gave us an opportunity to extend what society was willing to tolerate, accommodate and implement. That was replaced by governmental machinations which were less than worthy of what we had then sought to achieve.
The outcome is that my party is not a popular party in Northern Ireland. It is seen as having been unable to deliver its objectives. The same applies to the SDLP. We are now driving society to the two extremes where
there is no compromise and only tragedy and a slowing down of the coming together that some of us have spent a life-time achieving.If the Minister and the Government want to move us forward in Northern Ireland, they must stop seeking the easy way forward; the numerical and statistical way forward. They must look at what is honest, principled and will appeal across our traditional divides to all sections of the community. Only that can be a way forward.
I apologise: I have indulged myself in something I feel very strongly about. Your Lordships have been patient and I am grateful. I hope that the Government will understand the sincerity with which I tried to put the case not for one religious or another religious community; not for one political or another political community, but for the people—the 1.7 million people—who live, work and try progressively to get on in Northern Ireland.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, we have been patient as we have listened to his words. But, as he also said, he wanted to emphasise his sincerity on the subject of policing. He has given many years of his life to that in order to help to bring into Northern Ireland a balanced police service for all the people of the Province. That is what those of us who are level-headed want to see. We want to see not only people who are Protestant and Roman Catholic but those who represent the ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland.
When I entered the Chamber, I was disturbed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, support discrimination on religious grounds. That is a sectarian approach and I resent it. He said that in job applications it was normal that some well qualified people would not be appointed. But they are appointed or not on grounds of merit. We are talking about discrimination on the grounds of religion and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should not support sectarianism or discrimination on grounds of religion.
I hope that the Government never again try to renew this order, which perpetuates discrimination on religious grounds. A Labour Government, of all governments, should be ashamed and hold their head low when they support such a policy.
As regards South Tyrone borough council, I declare myself a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. It has created 25 district policing partnerships. Only one council has failed to come up with the requirement under the legislation and that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I hope that the problem between Dungannon and the Northern Ireland Policing Board can be corrected, because, if not, we know what the legislation states—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can go over the head of the local district council and appoint a district partnership himself.
I want to raise a question relating to ethnic groups. It appears to me that discrimination in the police service takes place not only against Protestants in
favour of Roman Catholics but also against ethnic members. Apparently, ethnic applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland are treated as being non-Roman Catholic and are therefore lumped in with Protestants to be discriminated against. Can the Minister explain to the House the position of black Protestants when they apply to join the police service? Are they discriminated against because they are Protestants or because they are black?Better still, what is the position of a black Catholic who applies? Does discrimination then take place in favour of that person because his religion is Catholic or does it still go against him because he happens to be a member of a black ethnic group in Northern Ireland? Those issues need to be clarified because the number of ethnic members in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland is very small indeed and, likewise, they feel that discrimination is occurring against them.
I turn to the overall position in Northern Ireland. As one of the three Ulster Unionist negotiators of the Belfast agreement, I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that that agreement is now over. It is finished. First, I fail to see how it can survive in a situation where Sinn Fein/IRA refuse to decommission. That has brought about a complete collapse of support for the Belfast agreement among unionist people.
Secondly, I fail to see how the agreement can survive because, time and again over the years, the Government have rubbed salt into the wounds of the unionist majority. Measures have been taken such as the removal of the Union flag from government buildings. The Belfast agreement stated that Northern Ireland was British and part of the United Kingdom and that that could not be changed without the principle of consent. What did the Labour Government do? Within a year, they removed the Union flag from most government buildings in Northern Ireland. They continued to insult the majority community in Northern Ireland.
However, one of the greatest sores—even now, the Government do not seem to appreciate this—has been the obvious discrimination against Protestant applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Nothing has done more to undermine unionist consent for the Belfast agreement. I implore the Government to recognise the mistakes that they have made and to recognise that religious discrimination should not be part of government policy because it undermines the future prospects of success of the Belfast agreement.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page