| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Taylor: What about part-timers?
Mr. Mandelson: On the specific question of the part-time reservists, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the centrality of human rights to the reform of the police. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to find that funny. It is a radical move that should be extended.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) referred earlier, found that one of the major impediments to the retention of police from the Catholic community was the wider canteen culture that remains prevalent within the RUC? Will there be measures, alongside the new quotas that are proposed, to ensure that recruits from the Catholic community--who will increase from the current figure of 8 per cent.--will be retained and trained appropriately?
Mr. Mandelson:
I readily accept my hon. Friend's point. RUC training is the best and the most rigorous of any police service in the world, and those standards will continue when the new police service is created.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
I spent about a year working closely with the RUC, and I patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland with Catholic and Protestant officers. I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State in his desire to get more Catholics into the police force. Everybody does.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the evidence of his own Department from April 1988, which said that the main reason given by Catholics for not joining the RUC is that they
Mr. Mandelson:
If I were meeting the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA, I would be disbanding the RUC, because that is what they want and have demanded. They have made a string of demands that are completely unacceptable--they were unacceptable to the Patten commission and remain unacceptable to the Government. I readily acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's experience and knowledge, but I repeat that the use of words or symbols perceived to associate the police with one side of the constitutional argument has an effect. Their use is an inhibiting factor that discourages people from joining the police, over and above any form or degree of intimidation. We have to recognise that. In an effort to overcome it, we support the changes that I have described this afternoon.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down):
I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement, which gives a precis of the way forward for policing. I am sure that he agrees that today is an important day for Northern Ireland. The changes will enable us to have a police force that commands the respect of all the community--I say "all" advisedly. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, to underpin the peace that we have, it is absolutely essential that both the actuality and the symbolism of the new police service is readily acceptable to both communities.
I should like to place it on record that the Social Democratic and Labour party, which represents the vast majority of nationalists in Northern Ireland, expresses our deep regret over the deaths of RUC members who have been murdered, and our sympathy with their families, who continue to grieve, and with those families who have suffered maimings or killings. We have put that on record many times before, even in our written response to Patten.
Having said that, I find it sad that those sacrifices are being used almost as a political weapon to prevent progress. That is most regrettable. I am sure that, in his travels around Northern Ireland and conversations with members of the RUC, the right hon. Gentleman has, like me, found that they welcome change--the vast majority of them want it. They want to be acceptable and to walk in safety in our communities. The only way to achieve that is through the Patten proposals, accepted by the Secretary of State, which will create a force that is acceptable to both sides.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the best interpreters of the will and attitudes of the nationalist community are its representatives. Much of the blame for
the bipartisan situation surrounding the RUC lies with Opposition Members from Northern Ireland referring to that force as their police force, their men--theirs, not the communities'. There are many instances of that being true: we all remember Bombay street and Hooker street, and the RUC B-specials burning down one street after another. That remains in our folk memory. We must have impartial symbols and attitudes if we are to underpin a new service and the peace, and thereby prevent--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must have heard my earlier comment, so will he please now bring his question to a quick conclusion?
Mr. McGrady:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely essential that the symbolism, as well as the actuality, of reform is carried through, so that the full support of both communities can be gained?
Mr. Mandelson:
Obviously, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is notable that he and other leaders of the SDLP have readily and generously associated themselves with tributes to the sacrifices made by the RUC during the past 30 years. I am grateful to him for repeating that this afternoon.
It is unfortunate that certain individual--probably maverick--Unionist spokesmen have in the past 24 hours referred to the RUC in a way that suggests that the police service literally belongs to Unionists in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that no Member of the House has done that, but other Unionist spokesmen have. It is as if they are saying, "You can do anything you like in Northern Ireland as long as you keep your hands off our police force." It is precisely that sort of attitude and statement that confirms people's worst suspicions. I am glad to say that it is thoroughly unrepresentative of mainstream Unionist opinion and of the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's support will be forthcoming for the changes that I have announced, and will be followed by an encouragement of his supporters
and those from his community to join the new Northern Ireland police service. I cannot predict better than the Chief Constable himself, when he said:
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the immense contribution made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland and in fighting terrorism throughout the United Kingdom?
Given what the right hon. Gentleman has said about district policing partnership boards, will he give an undertaking to the House that any legislation that he brings forward will not contain powers that would enable those boards to employ terrorists, as recommendation 32 of the Patten report would make possible?
Mr. Mandelson:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman either was not here or did not hear what I said in my opening statement. Possibly he was here, in which case I apologise to him. I said that I was not at this stage going to proceed with those aspects of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to community policing and the expenditure of moneys for those projects to which he has referred. That remains the position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I appreciate that this is a very important matter. However, it is one to which the House will be returning in due course. We have spent a long time on the statement and, to preserve the rest of the business, we must move on.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a procedural matter relating to the proposal to deal with the Disqualifications Bill next Monday and Tuesday. I know that that has not yet been confirmed by the Leader of the House, but I seek your advice, given that the proposal is, as I understand it, that there will be Second Reading on Monday followed by all remaining stages the following day. That appears to present consider difficulty to hon. Members in the tabling of amendments. Will you advise me and the rest of the House on how we can go about tabling amendments to a highly controversial Bill? Is there a way in which you or Madam Speaker can help hon. Members in the tabling of amendments, given the extraordinarily and, in my view, unacceptably short time that is being proposed between Second Reading of a controversial Bill and the remaining stages, which will be dealt with the very next day? I would appreciate your help and guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
"fear intimidation or attack on themselves or their relatives"?
Why instead--this question has been asked before--has he given way to the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA and as a result is allowing the very people who have attacked and intimidated police officers to have their way? He is giving way to those who have sustained the terror campaign of which he spoke earlier.
"If these recommendations"--
referring to the Patten report--
"bring about a new beginning for policing, the pain that my colleagues and friends are being asked to endure becomes a pain that they have to endure for the greater gain".
That "greater gain" is a representative police service in Northern Ireland, one that has cross-community support and that nationalists finally join. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be encouraging them in that direction.
4.53 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |