rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: As is well known, the purpose of the renewal order is to continue the temporary provisions—I emphasise that they are temporary—for the appointment of police officers and police support staff for a further three years with the aim of increasing Catholic composition in the Police Service of Northern Ireland to a level which is considered representative of that community. As many noble Lords are all too aware, the temporary provisions have been debated extensively both here and in another place on numerous occasions. Indeed, I anticipate an informed debate today following the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on this issue a year ago. The noble Lord is still laid up—I do not know the details—and is unable to be with us. I am certain that he would have wished to be here today; all he is able to do at present is send in lots of Questions for Written Answer. I look forward to seeing him back here as soon as he is well enough.

For those less familiar with this issue, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 gives effect to the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, commonly known as the Patten report. This report made a number of recommendations on policing in Northern Ireland, including the need to address the religious imbalance within the police service so that it is representative of the society that it polices. It recommended that all candidates, either as police officers or support staff, who wished to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland and who reached a specified standard of merit in the selection procedure should be placed in a pool from which one-half of those appointed would be Catholic and one-half non-Catholic. This arrangement became known as 50:50 recruitment and is in place today for all trainee police officer recruitment campaigns and directly recruited support staff where six or more similar posts are being filled.

The report also recommended that Catholic police officers from Northern Ireland serving in the police service elsewhere, particularly at more senior ranks, should be identified and encouraged to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police. This arrangement is commonly known as “lateral entry”.

The Government are committed to the need for this legislation and the opportunity it offers in giving the Northern Ireland community a normal police service which is acceptable to all. We are firmly of the belief that these temporary provisions—I again emphasise temporary—are one of the most significant reasons why public confidence in policing is increasing across the community. However, we are also committed to removing the legislation once the religious imbalance is addressed. As clearly set out in the St Andrews agreement, the Government’s target is to increase Catholic composition in the Police Service of Northern Ireland to 30 per cent by March 2011.

Under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the temporary provisions may be renewed by the Secretary of State, for up to and not exceeding three years, following consultation with the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The provisions were first renewed for a three-year period in March 2004 by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2004. This renewal order seeks to keep the provisions in force for a further three years until March 2010. That is a year before the target date.

As recommended by the Patten report, the temporary provisions are an,

“exceptional measure to try to provide a more representative police service within a reasonable timescale”.

I fully understand that many people remain opposed to the measures. However, the benefits that these provisions have had on increasing Catholic composition, as well as the positive impact on increasing community confidence in policing in general, justify the order in order to address this historical imbalance in the composition of the police in Northern Ireland. The order has also, as I shall go on to address in a moment, had the side effect of increasing the female composition of the police.

Since the Patten report’s recommendations and the implementation of the temporary provisions, the Catholic composition of police officers has almost trebled. From a mere 8.23 per cent in November 2001, the Catholic composition has increased to 21.43 per cent as of mid-February 2007. This progress is exceptional and reflects the support and faith in the process, including among the 73,000 applicants who applied to join as police officers during this period. Since 2001, 73,000 people have applied to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a police service with a total composition of fewer than 8,000 officers. This change has been made possible due to the example set by the courageous and dedicated men and women who have served the community as police officers over the years. But it has not been an easy task: 302 lost their lives serving their fellow citizens during the Troubles.

Patten highlighted the imbalance between the number of Catholics and Protestants in the composition of the police as “the most striking problem” and it is this that the temporary provisions are aimed at addressing. However, I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of gender and ethnicity in the police service. In the Second Reading debate on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, articulated her concerns about the effect that the temporary provisions may be having on ethnic minority applications However, one effect of the 50:50 process in increasing community confidence about applying is that representation of female officers within the Police Service of Northern Ireland has increased from about 12 per cent in November 2001 to more than 21 per cent as of the middle of February 2007.

With regard to ethnic minorities, while Patten recommended that every effort should be made to recruit them, given the very small population involved he did not set a target. However, the police have undertaken a number of positive outreach measures aimed at recruiting people from ethnic minorities. The current PSNI ethnic minority composition is 0.3 per cent, which compares favourably with the overall level of the working-age ethnic minority population in Northern Ireland of 0.46 per cent. The translation of advertisements has seen a significant rise in applications from the Chinese community as well as from foreign nationals such as those in the Polish community. For example, in the most recent campaign there were 968 applications from Polish applicants half of whom, I should point out, were still living in Poland. However, I want to take this opportunity to put on the record any concerns that these applications are automatically disadvantaged by being placed in the non-Catholic category.

All applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland are required to complete an equality monitoring form in accordance with the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998 and the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, irrespective of their country of origin. The information given by applicants on this form is used in making these appointments under the 50:50 policy. Since Poland is a predominantly Catholic country, Polish applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland are generally treated as Roman Catholic. However, each and every one is assessed in terms of the religion they declare on the monitoring form.

When the temporary provisions issue was previously debated, it was done in a climate where elements of Northern Ireland’s community remained uncommitted, unsupportive and unco-operative with their police officers. Crimes, regardless of how violent, remained unsolved all because of a lack of assistance given to the local police. I have said it many times: if you are not for the police, you are for the rapists, the muggers and the robbers. It is as simple as that in my terms. Today, in this critical period, the climate is notably different and continues to change for the better. I have come armed with statistics to show that this is the case, given the number of people applying for posts, where they come from and so on. Recently, Sinn Fein’s decision to support policing, however much that might be criticised, shows that the word has gone over. Progress made by the Northern Ireland political parties in achieving a political settlement, which we hope will be a final and long-lasting one, provides an historic opportunity to support inclusive policing. With the aid of this order we fully anticipate that the Catholic composition of the Police Service of Northern Ireland will reach the Government’s target of 30 per cent by March 2011. It is at this point that we believe the temporary provisions will have achieved their aim in providing a representative and inclusive police service, and these provisions will no longer be necessary. They are temporary until the target of 30 per cent is achieved. Our estimate, and it can be fairly precise with the recruitment processes taking place, will be achieved by March 2011. At that point, this legislation will lapse. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007.—(Lord Rooker.)

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the legislation before us. My party has opposed 50:50 since day one. We never agreed with it and believed that there had to be a better way of tackling the problem of the overbalance of Protestant members of the RUC as it was then, and the PSNI as it is now. To put that into context, we have to remember the reasons why we reached that imbalance. It was because members of the nationalist/republican community were under threat of death if they were so courageous as to join the Northern Ireland police forces. Under those circumstances, it was probably understandable that not very many did so, except for those living in what might be called safe areas. Nevertheless, a number did and a number were killed. If the Government are determined to continue with this order, they are once again at risk of institutionalising sectarianism and religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, something that they, we and others have been trying to get away from for a very long time.

Yet again, I find myself on a hiding to nothing when dealing with Northern Ireland orders. I thank the Minister for introducing the order. We recognise that since the provisions were introduced in 2001, there has been a significant increase in the number of Catholics applying for the police. The Chief Constable’s annual report for 2005-06 states that on average, since the provisions were introduced, 36 per cent of applications come from Catholics, compared with a high of 22 per cent before Patten.

I am particularly pleased that 37 per cent of applicants are women. As the Minister has said, the number of those who go on to become officers has increased from 12 per cent in 2001 to over 21 per cent now. That is excellent progress.

We have heard anecdotal evidence in the past of ethnic minority groups feeling that the 50:50 quotas had discouraged them from applying for the police. Because of the way the legislation is worded, candidates from ethnic minorities are considered in the non-Catholic pool of applicants, which is still larger in number than the Catholic pool. Some of those from ethnic minority backgrounds are reluctant to report hate crimes. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that the officer dealing with them may not fully understand or empathise with their situation and would feel more comfortable talking to an officer from a similar background to themselves.

Returning to the provisions of the order, which deals specifically with the recruitment of Catholic officers, we were pleased to see from the Chief Constable’s report that the police service is on target to increase the representation of officers from a Catholic background in the regular service to 30 per cent by 2011. As of 1 April 2006, 19.59 per cent of the regular force is from a Catholic background, compared with 8.28 per cent in November 2001. That is significant in any measure. Given the recent declaration of support for the police in Northern Ireland by Sinn Fein at the Ard Fheis, we hope to see the number of applications and recruits from those of a Catholic background increase even further in the three-year period that this order covers.

As we have heard, the Patten report envisaged that these special measures should be exactly what they are called in the legislation and in this order: temporary. The report envisaged a 10-year model to increase Catholic representation in the police to 30 per cent. This must be the last time we expect to renew these provisions for a three-year period. We firmly believe that as the time frame established in the order comes to an end, the Government must seriously investigate whether it is necessary to renew the provisions or whether the goal of a police service that is representative of the community should continue to develop naturally. We are putting this as a clear marker for the Government: if, in three years’ time, they propose to renew these provisions for yet another three years, we will not accept it. We accept the renewal of these provisions only up to the 10 years envisaged in the Patten report.

I have one further question. In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned lateral entry. Does he know if any Catholic police officers from Northern Ireland, especially any senior officers, have applied to return to Northern Ireland to become officers in the PSNI? If he is not able to answer that today, I will obviously accept a letter from him. Even though we accept a great deal of the concern that has been expressed about the 50:50 recruitment process, we will support this order today.

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.

The trouble with any regulations or legislation of this nature is that when you speak from within Northern Ireland you will immediately be interpreted as extending sectarianism. When you voice any opinion on something such as what is known colloquially as the “50:50 disposition” you can be open to the interpretation that “everything is right and you are going against what is wrong”.

This afternoon, I suggest two things to the Minister in this context. First, in the light of what has already been said by previous speakers, the time has come to reconsider whether this provision should even be renewed for three more years. The situation in Northern Ireland has changed vastly since the initiating of this thinking, and certainly since Patten. I feel that it would be of tremendous encouragement to the whole of our community if it could be seen that that change is recognised in a tangible way, such as I am suggesting.

Secondly, it gives me no pleasure to be critical at this stage of the legislation and the rules, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is presenting this to us. I have always admired his contribution as a Minister during his time in the Northern Ireland office. He took endless trouble to become acquainted with the various briefs given to him about the conditions in Northern Ireland. However, in my professional live, involved as I was in the community of Northern Ireland for 43 years, I have had numerous representations made to me by parents and unsuccessful candidates, victims of the 50:50 legislation who did not just meet the preliminary requirements for membership but far exceeded them. It was acknowledged in explanations given to me in Northern Ireland that many of these candidates would have excelled in any police service in western Europe, but because of their religion they were not allowed even to enter training.

I speak as one who has devoted his life to opposing sectarianism in all its forms. Therefore, I do not want any of the Members of this Committee to interpret what I am saying as anything other than a feeling of frustration if the 50:50 position is not reconsidered, which would be tangible evidence of how far our society has moved in such a short time.

As the previous speaker said, it is not a case of 50 per cent Catholic, 50 per cent Protestant; it is a case of 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent others, made up of various ethnic groupings. Indeed, I say to my noble friend Lord Kilclooney that 40 per cent is quite large in terms of the Protestant population representation. I am certain that there is insufficient recognition in Government that in Northern Ireland this will be interpreted as saying one thing and doing another. They are saying that the situation has improved, yet they are putting on the table for three more years something which is perceived as a contradiction of the progress that we have made.

Finally, I do not believe that this is a party political issue; I do not believe that it is a question of party views. I accept that it was a genuine approach, as a result of the Patten recommendations, to allow a representation in the Police Service of Northern Ireland which was not possible in a voluntary way. But the time has come for serious reconsideration of whether it is correct to have this on the statute book once more, even for three years.

I pay tribute, from my personal knowledge, to the tremendous courage of Catholic families whose members joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, later, the PSNI at great personal risk. When the history of these times comes to be written, I hope that adequate tribute will be paid to that courage, for I have buried too many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, too many members of my community, not to know what the Catholic community has gone through in the losses inflicted on it and its members who served in the police service.

As I said, it is very easy to interpret any criticism of the order as sectarian. I beg the Minister, to whom I have already paid tribute, to treat what I am saying in terms of reality rather than anything of that nature.

As has already been said about the 50:50 rule, I can remember when fair employment was introduced in Northern Ireland, back in the 1970s. I was a shop steward within the trade union movement, and it was a very difficult time. None the less, it was worked out, and today employers in Northern Ireland have a rule they live by.

I have never quite understood why the police force had to be sectarianised in this way. I had two friends from a Roman Catholic family who joined the police, and both were murdered by the IRA. Why did religion have to be the thing? All my life I have fought for people getting jobs on merit. I am a great believer in equality, so I cannot get my head round why we are looking at having this law in place for another three years when we are told on all sides that Northern Ireland is entering a new world and everything is different, with the PSNI going forward with legislation, and women and people from ethnic minorities joining the force.

I cannot understand why we still have to do this because back in Northern Ireland this is looked on simply as a sectarian issue. Many previous speakers mentioned that they had been approached by young people. As many Members of the Committee know, I live along a peace line and a number of Roman Catholic families have told me that their kids cannot join the force because of the 50:50 rule. They fitted all the criteria but they could not join the force. So it works both ways. In the light of what Sinn Fein has done and what the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, said, and if it has all been accepted, I do not really see why we are pursuing this measure for another three years. I find this very difficult. I have never understood why there are only two derogations on Northern Ireland in European law, one concerns the police and the other education—two major pillars in building a new Northern Ireland and yet they are the two areas in which we can discriminate.

We would all do well to reflect on the two speeches that have just been made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. It was welcome that they couched the issue in terms that departed from the narrow political and sectarian approach. There is much to commend in what they said. I understand the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about whether the republicans have gone all the way that they should to support policing in Northern Ireland. But for the purposes of my remarks I shall assume that if they have not yet gone the whole way in their language, they will, in short order, go the whole way in their conduct. On that basis I very much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the changed circumstances. We are now in a different situation.

Part of the reason that was adduced to explain these measures was that of the need to give Catholic applicants a helping hand as it was feared that there would be insufficient numbers coming forward as a result of republican hostility to policing. But we are in a different situation now in that respect. Republicans are clearly moving towards supporting policing even if they have not gone the whole way. We have heard statements by the leadership of the republican movement calling on members of the Catholic nationalist and republican community to join the police. The Minister might find that he will become the victim of the law of unintended consequences. Nationalists and republicans have now moved to support policing—nationalists in the shape of the SDLP have clearly done that; Sinn Fein is clearly moving in that direction—and they are encouraging young nationalists and young republicans to join the police. Given that situation, is it not likely that we will now see a significant number of young republicans, who up until now have held back from involving themselves in policing, becoming involved in it and that there will be a surge in recruits, or applications to the police, from that quarter?

If that is the case—and there is good reason to expect that it will be the case within a short period if it is not now—the order that the Minister is bringing forward tonight will start to disadvantage Catholic applicants. Young republicans and young nationalists might have held back in the past because the republican movement was hostile to policing. As was mentioned, at the moment we are still getting more applications to the police from people of a Protestant background than from people of a Catholic background. It is quite possible that within a matter of months or a year or so that will switch and we shall find more Catholic than Protestant applicants coming forward. The Minister should bear in mind that as regards the relevant age group—young men aged 18 to 25—there is a rough equality in numbers in terms of the demographics, so what I have described is quite likely to occur. So we could see a situation where more applications are coming forward from a Catholic background but this legislation limits recruitment to 50 per cent. You will find it working against Catholic applicants. I understand that the Minister said that he can calculate that with the recruitment that is taking place, the 30 per cent target will be achieved by 2011 without the order. It is perfectly possible that that target could be achieved earlier than 2011. I do not know whether anyone has bothered to think this out.

I will do my best to answer the questions I have been asked, as well as addressing some of the myths and unfortunate—how shall I put it?—foresuppositions based on the figures. I genuinely mean that I will try to address every point. It is 20 March. The deadline is 26 March, and the one thing I will not do is change that. I cannot be certain what hour of the day the deadline is—I presume it is the whole 24 hours from midnight, when the clock starts ticking. I do not intend to comment on or allude to anything here today that could be used in one way or another, and I do not think I would be expected to. Therefore, I will not be able to comment on who said what, who feels what or whatever. We are in a very sensitive period. We all understand that.

There are a lot of figures, I accept that. I do not accept that discrimination is necessarily a bad thing, if there is a policy purpose at the end of it which one seeks to drive to. Twelve competitions have been launched since the new Patten provisions were introduced. Each competition recruits 440 police officers. The lowest number of applications received in a competition—not the number of those who got through the system, but of applications—was 4,410, while the highest was 7,861. The grand total is 70,000-odd. Each time there are only 440 entrants. As can be seen, the lowest figure was 4,410; that was for competition number four. The highest was for competition number 11. Competition number 12 in September 2006 gave the highest percentage so far of applicants from a Catholic background: 41 per cent.

I was very conscious of what I was saying earlier when I talked about Catholic and non-Catholic. I realise that I am not talking about 50:50 Catholic and Protestant, but about Catholics and others—which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, includes ethnic minorities. I fully accept that, at 440 a go, with 70,000-odd applications in the past few years, there will by definition be an awful lot—thousands—of disappointed people. Some of them will have got through the threshold of being eligible for recruitment, and they will still have been disappointed. The police force itself is somewhere under 8,000 strong; I think it is 7,557, although I do not know if that is the figure for today or for the date when this note was written for me. The scale of numbers of people wanting to join the police force is so great that there will inevitably be disappointment for people, whether they are male, female, Catholic, Protestant or from an ethnic minority. Starting from that premise, there will be huge numbers of people who do not get in, for whatever reason. I suspect that that may be the case. There will be a limit on the numbers of police in Northern Ireland for a career structure.

We have not hidden at all the fact that this arrangement is discriminatory. Everyone understands that; I am not arguing otherwise. But there is a policy objective to be achieved at the end of it. It was thought in the Patten report that the scheme’s single most striking feature—and I was quoting from the report at the time when I spoke on that—was the issue of the numbers of Catholic and non-Catholic police officers.

The arrangement has received the support of the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, but we do not deny that it is discriminatory. I will answer all his other points, but at one point I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, referred to discrimination by my political party. I was not sure what the discrimination was. If it was the fact that we do not fight elections, that is tough, but there is no discrimination on membership anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Just to correct the Minister on that, the Labour Party stopped discriminating on membership only within the past year or two as a result of legal action taken by a shop steward from Northern Ireland, who is also now bringing a discrimination action over the attitude to fighting elections. Don’t say “tough” to 1.7 million people whom you are discriminating against in terms of their civil rights. That is not the attitude to adopt.

No—political parties are voluntary groups. We have a policy of not fighting against parties that are members of the Socialist International. It is as simple as that. That has always been the case. We make no bones about that; that is our policy; that has always been our policy. That is the policy in England, Scotland and Wales; it is the policy in Northern Ireland. There happens to be a party that is a member of the Socialist International there. I have not come here to debate this; I do not even know why this got raised. Nevertheless, I had to respond because I was not clear about the point being raised.

On the issue of people expected to score higher—it will take me a while to go through this—the fact is that the selection procedure of all applicants prior to reaching the pool, because there is a more than one-stage process, as Patten underlined, is based on merit. There is no requirement for members of one community background to score higher or lower than another as part of the process to get into the pool. The 50:50 provisions only apply once people are in the pool. There is no secret about that. Of course, by the time people are in the pool, they have met the United Kingdom requirements to be a member of the police force.

The other point was that it would happen naturally. I had to have this explained to me at some length, but that is not the case. If we consider the total numbers of the police force and its current composition, we know that there is a recruitment competition of only 440, so knowing what the endgame of the number of police will be with retirements and other movements, the best estimate is that it will be March 2011 before the 30 per cent target is reached. It is possible to make that calculation because the entry is fixed at 440 and the total number is fixed and we know the composition that we start with today. It cannot be done any quicker.

The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is absolutely right—two seconds before he raised the point, I satisfied myself on the answer—that if the proportion of applicants is 41 per cent, the highest it has been, and rising, it will not be long before it is more than 50 per cent. I will then make the same speech to members of the other community supporting the 50:50 in order to achieve the policy objective as I must make today. The same situation will apply; there cannot be any difference. That will not mean that we achieve the objective faster.

I much regret that, looking at the demographics, if we approach March 2011 and the situation is still the same—I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about devolution—someone else will have to come to seek a temporary provision order for one year, because the target will be that close. I much regret that this is not a four-year order, but the legislation requires it to be for three years, because then it could be put to bed. That is the end date on these calculations with these entry numbers by which the policy objective of 30 per cent will be achieved. I will also cover the point about why the figure is 30 per cent rather than another one. A noble Lord has asked about that.

At the present time—the post-Patten period—over 93 per cent of all Catholic applications have been unsuccessful. Let me make that absolutely clear. Only those who meet the UK standards have been appointed, and even then we have had to turn away a significant number of those who have met the standard because the demand is so high. I go back to the original point: there have been 440 entries on applications running at an average number in the competitions of 5,000, 6,000 or 7000, with the lowest competition at 4,400. We are looking to address the imbalance of the community background so that the police service is more representative of the community that it polices. That is what Patten said; it was accepted at the time and it serves no useful purpose for me to go over the history. Patten said that it was the most striking issue relating to the police and that it ought to be addressed.

In respect of lateral entry which I referred to in my opening remarks, the wider degree of lateral entry as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum is based on the opportunity of opening lateral entry from other forces, not just the Garda Siochana. Entry is not narrowed to that one, it extends to other forces. I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that I have looked at the new oath. It is similar to the oath for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it is certainly human rights compliant. If there is a point about it that the noble Lord objects to or if he feels that it fails in some way, I shall be happy to try to respond to that. Further, the oath can be converted to an affirmation so that the words “Before God” do not have to be used. I do not know whether that was the issue here, but I can confirm that it is human rights compliant and very similar to the PSNI oath.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he indicate whether any senior officers—

I am coming to that. First I should say that no one has been recruited under the lateral entry process. There have been no entrants. In answer to the noble Baroness, within this system I understand that there have been two promotions from entry as constables, both of them male.

On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about support for policing, I shall get into trouble if I start quoting who said what and giving weight to the statements that have been made by various members of the political parties. The noble Lord himself referred to the fact that within the next few days, political leaders in Northern Ireland are going to have to make up their mind about whether they have the confidence in each other and in the system to go into devolved government on a power-sharing basis. They have to do that by midnight next Monday. I do not think my quoting one leader as opposed to another or referring to one type of crime as opposed to another would take the matter forward. That is not for me as a UK Minister, it is for the political leaders in Northern Ireland. I wish them well in their decisions.

I accept that it is not easy for any of the parties involved because it is not an easy situation. But the prize here is the government of Northern Ireland by Northern Ireland people rather than having to keep coming here to Grand Committee to listen to Westminster Ministers—commuting Ministers administering direct rule who cannot be full-time on the job. We cannot serve the people of Northern Ireland and we are less than second best. The best has to be local people in Northern Ireland; that is their prize. It is their choice, and it is six days away.

I was asked about discrimination on the other side. In the first 10 competitions, 4,507 suitably qualified non-Catholic candidates were not approved, but it is not true that they were rejected because of the 50:50 rule. We estimate that 708 of that number were affected by the temporary provisions. In other words, 4,500 suitably qualified candidates, fit enough to be UK police officers, have got through to the pool on merit and have not been appointed, but 708 of those were affected by the 50:50 rule. There will be a lot of disappointed people because the demand for places is so high.

The Minister has just confirmed what I was saying earlier; he has conceded that 780 people would have been appointed but for this. In other words, had the appointments been made purely on merit, those 780 would have been appointed. That, therefore, means a huge imbalance in terms of ability within the cohort that has been recruited.

I said no such thing. They were in the pool. Getting into the pool gets you qualified under the UK standard. I cannot say where in the pool the 708—it is 708, by the way, not 780—were. It is not possible to say that they would have been appointed because they were all suitably qualified above the threshold to get into the pool. However, I can say that they were not appointed because of the 50:50 rule, but that does not mean to say that if it were not in place they would have been appointed. It does not necessarily follow.

The ill feeling that results from these temporary provisions is due to people thinking that they have lost out and so-and-so down the road has got the job because of their religion. That is not true with the vast majority of people; it cannot be true on the figures I have quoted. It is simply because of supply and demand: the supply is so great and the demand so small. Thousands will be disappointed and it will be nothing to do with the 50:50 recruitment process.

I am a bit confused. I understand what the Minister is saying. He says that 708 got into the pool. The perception in Northern Ireland is that you are turned down because of your religion. Would it not be more honest to do away with this legislation and let people take their chances under normal recruitment practice? Or does the Minister think it fair that you get right through the process and then get a letter saying sorry, you fit the criteria but you are the wrong religion. That is what people are being told.

I understand the discomfort that has been caused in the past by the drafting of the letters that have been sent out. I do not have such a letter in front of me but I understand that, as of the most recent competition or the one before that, the nature of the letter gives people a more accurate explanation of why they have not been appointed. In some cases, it is not because of the 50:50 rule. That is the point.

Let me give the example of the 11th competition, held in March 2006. There was a merit pool of 504 suitably qualified candidates. There were only 220 posts available—in other words, half the annual total. Five hundred and four suitably qualified candidates had gone through to the pool and there were only 220 posts. Therefore, a significant number of both Catholic and non-Catholic candidates were rejected, but not because they were not suitable and had not qualified. They were qualified; they were in the pool. The fact is that there were more of them than there were jobs available. It is as simple as that. There is no way round that while the numbers of the police service are fixed. We have no plans, as far as I know, for vastly increasing the police force. It is not justified.

The Minister is in danger of confusing himself, or maybe he is trying to confuse other people. As I said in my original comments, the term “merit” has a funny interpretation here. Five hundred people get into the pool, having met the minimum standards. What then should have happened is that the 200 odd places that were going to be filled should have been filled on merit by choosing the best 200 odd of those 500. It is at that point that the 50:50 rule comes in and causes discrimination. On the Minister’s own figures, the cumulative number of persons who have suffered that discrimination is 700. Take that as a proportion of those actually recruited over that time and you begin to see the enormity of it.

Seven hundred people were positively discriminated against, but the rest, which was thousands, were rejected because the demand for places is so high.

What about the 700?

That is a minor number compared to—

It is only 700; it doesn’t matter.

That is a minor number compared to the thousands. The noble Lord homes in on discrimination for that number. I freely admit that that is the inevitable consequence of demand for places being so high. You cannot alter the figures. I cannot manufacture extra police posts when they are not available. There are 440—220 for each competition. Each place has 10 times the number of applicants. It is inevitable that qualified people will be discriminated against because they have got through to the pool, and the operation is trying to get a police service that is broadly representative—I do not think anybody is looking for the last decimal point—of the society it serves.

The totality of our estimate within the 50:50 provisions means that less than 1.7 per cent of all non-Catholic applications will have been rejected as a direct result of the 50:50 process. The others will have been rejected because the demand for jobs is so great and the supply of jobs is so small. So we are talking about a very small number who are affected by 50:50 compared to the vast thousands of qualified Protestants and qualified Catholics who cannot get a job because the jobs are not there.

Let us make a mountain out of this if we like, but let us be realistic about it: tens of thousands will not have got in from both communities and it is nothing to do with 50:50. That is the reality. A few qualified people will not have got in because of 50:50, and the 50:50 is the mechanism to achieve the policy objective of getting a police service that is broadly representative of the society it serves. That is not under the lateral arrangements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about ethnic minority applications. Those are broadly in line with the population. The ethnic minority population in Northern Ireland is less than 1 per cent. When you are dealing with tiny numbers it can be difficult to get any targets. There have been, as I have said, positive decisions to translate advertisements. I made the point that some applicants for the Northern Ireland Police Service did not live in Northern Ireland—35 Latvians applied; eight of whom were not living in Northern Ireland, but in Latvia, and half the Poles were still living in Poland. The point I wanted to make is that not all ethnic minority applicants are automatically classified as non-Catholics. That will come down to the monitoring forms they are required to fill in.

It helps to clarify my question but it confirms that the 50:50 question does not automatically move to Stormont even if there is devolution and a transfer of policing powers. Apparently, the Assembly has to make a specific request that the 50:50 question be included. That is very interesting indeed.

That is precisely the answer that I thought I had given. I am glad that I need qualify it no further as I do not want to dig any holes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify aspects of the policy. I hope that I have given more updated figures. The policy is very unpopular in certain quarters but the Government believe that it is wholly justified by the circumstances.

On Question, Motion agreed to.