| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Patten distinguishes clearly between those who have a generalised confidence in the police and those who have specific local confidence? Patten says that Catholics often have greater confidence in their local police than they do in the police taken as a whole. Patten has identified the components that the right hon. Gentleman is describing.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely my next sentence. One must draw a distinction between the generalised opinion given and opinions given on the basis of knowledge of people in the locality and direct personal experience with them, and compare like with like. The figures that I gave were comparing like with like. As the hon. Gentleman said, Patten reported that when people were asked about their local police, the police were given a higher approval rating. There is an even higher approval rating from Catholics who had direct personal contact with the police--69 per cent.--although the approval rating from Protestants was a little lower at 77 per cent. Perhaps people were moving away from making a generalised political statement to one based on experience, and what matters is experience.
It is also worth noting that the reporting of crimes in Catholic areas is at the same level as in Protestant areas. In terms of what people do as opposed to what they say, in an abstract way there is a clear message coming across that there is a high level of confidence. Anyone taking a sensible approach to these matters should have focused on that.
The conclusion to be drawn is that although there are problems, they are exaggerated and exacerbated by the political attitudes that are struck by some. The politics that needs to be taken out of policing is the politics of agitation and hostile propagandising against the police. I fear that far too many nationalist politicians have engaged in that. If nationalist politicians adopted a more
responsible attitude, that would achieve much more than everything in Patten. Without such a responsible attitude, Patten is a waste of time which has caused needless hurt to many and serious harm to policing.
I shall not go into detail on the proposed changes to the structure and size of the police, because I consider such discussion to be premature. However, the Secretary of State knows of our concerns about downsizing, the full-time reserve, the command structure, recruitment, special branch and local control of policing. On the latter point, I am dismayed at the ideas in the criminal justice review about so-called restorative justice and the so-called community, safety and policing partnership. Both will offer too many opportunities for paramilitaries to supplant the police and legal systems. No responsible person should countenance such dangerous suggestions.
There is a simple reason for my belief that discussion of structural matters is premature. The provisions on policing in the agreement were predicated on change. The relevant section begins by stating that the participants believe that
Much of Patten is not controversial. The uncontroversial aspects are largely drawn from the RUC's fundamental review of policing, started in 1994. It contemplated three security situations. In the first, there was a high level of terrorist activity, with bombings, shootings, intimidation and public disorder. The review stated that the response to that should be a high level of policing, supported by the Army.
The second scenario was one of intimidation, so-called punishment beatings and racketeering, with terrorist organisations remaining fully armed. In that case, the fundamental review envisaged a high level of policing, but with the Army withdrawn.
In the third scenario, terrorist organisations were dismantled and community relations had improved. In that case, a different form of high-quality, effective policing was needed. Only in that scenario would the fundamental review have introduced significant downsizing and a change in policing strategies.
With the ceasefires and the agreement, we moved from scenario one to scenario two. With the refusal of the paramilitaries to disarm and disband, we have obviously not moved to the third scenario. If anything, with the increased activity of dissident republicans, we are in danger of slipping backwards.
It is wrong to press on with security-sensitive changes. In his January statement, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that changes would be made in some cases only
when the security situation permitted. We must ask him to hold back those changes and, indeed, the controversial aspects of Patten, until after the disarmament and disbandment of terrorist organisations that was envisaged by the agreement and on which the fundamental review was predicated.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson):
I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
I welcome this opportunity to debate reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a whole--not simply of its name and its symbols, although I readily acknowledge their importance. The debate is not between those who are pro or anti the police, or between those who are for or against the RUC. All of us are for the most effective and representative police service that can be created in Northern Ireland.
During 30 years of conflict, the RUC has been both the bulwark against and one of the principal victims of a sustained and brutal terrorist campaign. That position has led--unfairly--to its being identified more with one side of the community than the other. That, of course, is exaggerated by some for political reasons--I readily acknowledge that--but it does not remove the essential truth that the RUC tends to be associated more with one side of the community.
Policing in Northern Ireland arouses great passions. I have heard--often at first hand--the resentment that some of the proposed changes to the RUC have sparked. I understand the pain that proposed changes to the name and symbols have caused--especially among the families, friends and colleagues of murdered RUC officers. The name, rightly, is a source of great pride to the RUC family. I respect that.
We all owe the RUC a deep debt of gratitude. We shall never forget the 302 officers who were killed and the thousands more who were injured. Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I whole-heartedly support the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty to the RUC. It is a richly deserved recognition of the courage and dedication of the RUC; I include regulars, reserves, full-time, part-time and, indeed, support staff. It is a fitting memorial to those who gave their lives.
In January, when I announced my decisions on reform of the RUC, I was mindful of that history and of the concerns that change provoked. Then, as today, I was clear on one point: the reforms are--emphatically--not an attack on the RUC. They are not about disbanding the RUC. Those who advocated that course lost the argument. The proposed changes do not result from the RUC's failure--quite the opposite.
The RUC has provided a first-class service to the people of Northern Ireland and it continues to do so. That has not changed. However, the world, and Northern Ireland, are changing dramatically, and for the better. We must prepare and equip the RUC to embrace that change for the future.
An opportunity has been offered to create an outstanding modern police service--to allow the police to develop in a way they themselves have wanted to do for years. They will be able to make the transition from an anti-terrorist security force--as they inevitably had to be--to a community-focused and community-based police service working in partnership with the whole community. The new peace in Northern Ireland gives us the opportunity to allow the RUC to do what they wanted and still want to do--I stress that point.
Indeed, many of the central planks of the Patten report--for example, on the size and structure of the police service, on police training, on civilianisation, on community partnership policing, on normalisation of policing, including the amalgamation of special branch and crime branch, the phasing out of the RUC reserve and other proposals that Patten has made--flow directly from the Chief Constable's own fundamental review conducted three years ago. As Les Rodgers, the chairman of the Police Federation, pointed out, Patten was
I have decided, for example, that the new police oath should not be taken by serving officers, who have already been attested as constables. That would suggest that, in some sense, the RUC, was being disbanded. It is not; that view has been rejected. I also decided that the district policing partnerships should initially be purely consultative bodies and that there should be safeguards to exclude anyone convicted at any time of a terrorist offence from being appointed as an independent member of a district policing partnership. In other matters too, I have gone to every length to ensure the operational independence of the Chief Constable and his officers from political interference.
I am determined to advance these and other changes in a sensitive and balanced way. However, we cannot allow emotions to blind us to the pressing need for change-- change that the RUC itself has already acknowledged is necessary and desirable.
the Agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing.
That phrase occurs in the Government's amendment. The participants to the agreement note that it offers
a unique opportunity to bring about a new dispensation.
The policing provisions in the report are predicated on that new dispensation. But has it arrived? At present, the answer is simply and clearly no. Should the changes be rushed through in advance of that new dispensation? Again, the answer is obviously no, especially as, because of the refusal of all the paramilitaries--particularly the republican movement--to respond even after everything that has been done for them, there is little confidence in the community that the new beginning, or the new dispensation, will ever happen.
'welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; notes that the award was made by Her Majesty in recognition of the service and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which must never be forgotten; reiterates its commitment to maintaining an effective police service in Northern Ireland capable of protecting the public and maintaining law and order; and reaffirms the objective in the Good Friday Agreement of creating a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.'.
I shall come to the name of the RUC and symbolic matters later in my remarks. In the meantime, I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on devolution. I look forward to the time when responsibility for policing and criminal justice matters is properly devolved, as we envisaged under the legislation. That will, of course, mean an early reactivation of the Executive and the institutions in Northern Ireland. I look forward to agreement being reached on that as quickly as possible.
the adoption in the main of the Fundamental Review.
Even so, when I was appointed to this job a month after Patten delivered his report, I decided to re-examine all the commission's recommendations and to reassess them on their merits. I subjected each to the same test: did it contribute to our aim of securing a modern, effective police service for Northern Ireland capable of attracting widespread community support? In a number of cases, I found it necessary to modify or alter the way in which a recommendation was to be implemented.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |