| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mandelson: Among some individuals there is indeed hostility to the changes that are being made. However, it is equally true that there is a ready recognition in the RUC that change must come. Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the police in Northern Ireland have acted as a security force. The force now has to change into a normal police service that polices Northern Ireland according to normal, peacetime terms.
Officers understand why change must come about, and readily accept and acknowledge that the extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the police in Northern Ireland is simply unsustainable. A normal, peacetime society cannot be policed by a force that is so extremely unrepresentative of the society that it serves. Therefore, although all RUC officers may not agree about the means that we are employing to overcome that imbalance, they certainly share our objectives. When they reflect on what we are proposing--and on the paucity of alternatives--many officers will come to accept that, painful and hurtful as they are, this change and these reforms are necessary.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is full support for the statement that he has made today among those on the Labour Benches? He has made a number of courageous and difficult decisions, and he deserves our party's support. However, is he also aware that large sections of the community in parts of Northern Ireland do not share the admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary expressed by many hon. Members today? Officers in the RUC who uphold the law impartially always deserve our support, but some officers have fallen short of that high ideal on many occasions. It should be recognised that that is one of the reasons for the changes announced today.
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House about the role of the new oversight commissioner? When can we expect the name of that person to be announced? Will the
appointment require legislation, and what steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that whoever is appointed has the full support of both communities and of the new Northern Ireland police service?
Mr. Mandelson:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his strong support of, and welcome for, what I have announced. His words will find an echo in crucial parts of Northern Ireland, and notably in the nationalist community.
In response to his specific question about the oversight commissioner, I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that it will be necessary to wait for legislation to make appointment to the post. The search for that personality has already begun, and I believe that it will be possible to appoint someone who commands cross- community support. However, I want to stress that the responsibility of the oversight commissioner is to implement decisions taken by the Government. It will not be the commissioner's job to cut across the responsibilities of the Chief Constable, the Policing Board or the Secretary of State.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire):
I declare an interest. Like others hon. Members, I may owe my life to the professionalism and bravery of RUC officers.
While it is beyond argument that Northern Ireland needs a more broadly based police service, does the Secretary of State understand that many will object in principle to his decision to change the name? Many more will strongly object because they will suspect that he is doing it only to try to buy an element of peace from terrorists. To thwart that perception, will the Secretary of State agree to make the name change--if he is determined to go ahead with it--conditional on the acceptance of all the main aspects of the Good Friday agreement?
Mr. Mandelson:
That linkage between the Patten recommendations and the Good Friday agreement would not be very welcome to all members of the Ulster Unionist party, for obvious reasons. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the objectives that I have set out a broad acceptance. There is no question of my having judged these issues on anything other than their strict merits--not for what they might or might not buy in return. I am simply not trading the future of the police in Northern Ireland in some sort of political marketplace. People may disagree with certain conclusions, and they may take issue with some of the details of what I have been saying, but I hope that they appreciate the sincerity of our objectives.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the excellent work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? Under the superb chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), it produced a report in July 1998 that was a useful signpost for the Patten commission.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the all-party group saw the need for significant reform of the RUC to make it more representative of the communities that it seeks to serve? Does he recognise that that principle was underpinned and endorsed by the people of Northern
Ireland in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement? Does he recognise that the members of the Select Committee dealt with such controversial issues as the need to address the incompatibility of membership of sectarian organisations like the Orange Order and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Finally, does my right hon. Friend regret that there is not more mature consideration across the Chamber of his response to the excellent work of the Patten commission?
Mr. Mandelson:
When people consider the careful and sensitive way in which I am implementing a number of Chris Patten's recommendations over time, I think that they will focus more on what they welcome in my comments than on those things to which they object.
Of course I acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Its report was a significant milestone in considering these matters. I believe that the Patten commission extensively took into account the Select Committee's report, and quite right too.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down):
Is the Secretary of State aware that the remit of the Patten commission was to produce proposals that would find broad acceptance and support throughout the entire community? Bearing in mind the fact that the pro-Union community produced a petition with more than 400,000 signatures--300,000 from Northern Ireland--and given the reaction of the elected representatives of that community, can it be said that the Patten proposals and the Government's decision to act on them can possibly be in accordance with the principle of widespread community support?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, have repeatedly said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked? They cannot be severed. However, under the d'Hondt principle, these proposals would place on the supervising advisory board at least two members of a political party that is inextricably linked with one of the most ferocious--if not the most ferocious--terrorist organisations in western Europe. That is the board to which the Chief Constable will be accountable.
In relation to the comments that have been made on the award of the George Cross and the difficulties that will arise, is the Secretary of State aware that many members of the RUC believe that that award was made for political purposes? As one senior officer said, it was tantamount to a soldier being given the Victoria Cross on the first day of the Somme, and shot for dereliction of duty on the 10th day.
Mr. Mandelson:
I shall leave it to the House to judge the final remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not support the Good Friday agreement; he does not support the Executive; he does not support devolution; he does not support local decisions being taken by local people with local accents in Northern Ireland. He has made no contribution at all. No pain and no gain are experienced, given or received by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The key point about the contribution made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is that, whenever he speaks against the Good Friday agreement and against local
devolved responsibility in Northern Ireland, he never offers any alternative. He never suggests how we might achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. He has been on form this afternoon, as usual.
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney):
The background to the Patten report was based on one of the most extensive consultation and listening exercises undertaken in Northern Ireland. When Chris Patten reported, he said that the report must be considered as a package and not cherry-picked. He acknowledged that the changing of symbols would undoubtedly be controversial--crucially, some of the symbols that were about tradition and the past had to change. However, the report was not about disbanding the RUC, but transforming it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to maintain and build trust and confidence in both communities, the most fitting and most lasting memorial that we can offer to the 302 officers who died and to the thousands who were injured is for all hon. Members of the House to play their part in ensuring that the reforms succeed?
Mr. Mandelson:
I welcome my hon. Friend and his contribution in every sense of the term. He is right. The greatest disservice to the RUC would be for people to argue that there is no need for any change by that body, or for them to try to manipulate the emotions of the RUC family. That would only make the pain of the change all the worse. I hope that those who appear to be grandstanding--more for political effect than to give support to the members of the RUC family--will bear that very much in mind.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |