---

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): One of the specious arguments in favour of changing the name is that people speak of the RUC as "our police force". Perhaps those who use that argument have forgotten that that is an Ulster form of expression. We speak about "our Government" in this place, although no one from either the Labour or the Conservative side stands for election there. Surely that expression acknowledges that the RUC is part of our society and that we are part of it.

Mr. MacKay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to refer to them as "our Government". On a more serious note, he and I agree, as does the Secretary of State, that the police force in Northern Ireland--the Royal Ulster Constabulary--is for everybody in Northern Ireland, with the possible exception of the men of violence in both communities who want to break up the process and are rightly scared of the RUC because of the success that it has had.

I want to discuss the security-sensitive measures. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State. He rightly identified most of them, but I put it to him that they should not be incorporated in the legislation at this

6 Apr 2000 : Column 1226

stage. Only when he, the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, believe that there is no longer a terrorist threat--in other words, when Belfast is the same as Bracknell--should they be considered by the House for implementation.

Mr. Mandelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should introduce two Bills? Is he suggesting that we should introduce a Bill to pave the way for half the changes, and a subsequent Bill that would be necessary for us to provide for the restructuring of the force and other matters--for instance, those relating to the Special Branch? Is he saying that none of those matters should be dealt with until the security situation changes, at which point we would introduce a further Bill? Is he really suggesting that?

Mr. MacKay: I am delighted that I have made myself so clear. I believe that, in the legislation that the Secretary of State will present to the House, we should implement only the Patten recommendations that are not security- sensitive. I would then leave the remaining recommendations until there is a lasting peace. The Secretary of State knows full well that, sadly, we are a long, long way from no longer facing a terrorist threat.

There is no doubt that there is still a terrorist threat. It would be extremely foolish for us to put on the statute book recommendations from Patten that are security- sensitive, would potentially harm the police force, and, more important, would lead to a loss of life here, in the Province and in the republic.

Mr. Mandelson: Let me put on record my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for changing the formulation of what he said in his earlier contribution, when he referred to delaying the implementation. Delaying the implementation is one thing; providing for changes in legislation is quite another. It is possible to provide for something in legislation without immediately implementing it. The implementation can wait for the security situation to permit it, and for the Chief Constable to give the appropriate advice, but I think that it would be very odd not to take the powers and not to make the provision at all.

Mr. MacKay: Obviously, we do not believe that there should be implementation until it is safe for that to happen. Equally, we do not want the recommendations to be implemented merely by affirmative order, by a nod and a wink from the Secretary of State, or by the imposition of political pressure on anyone else. They should be implemented in fresh legislation on the Floor of the House, with us, the Members of this House, making a final decision.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Is not the pity of this the fact that the Government have not learned the lesson of the folly of releasing large numbers of terrorists into the community, which everyone with any common sense knows was a dreadful mistake, and the fact that they now insist on going the whole hog on the Patten proposals when, although everyone acknowledges that much in Patten is extremely good and should be implemented immediately, the name change is a change too far?

Mr. MacKay: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I shall return to the subject of

6 Apr 2000 : Column 1227

decommissioning and terrorist prisoner releases shortly; first, however, I want to regain the Secretary of State's attention, because he is anxious for me to make absolutely clear where we stand on security-sensitive legislation.

What we object to most is the setting up of new district policing partnership boards, which will include locally elected representatives. That means that Sinn Fein councillors and so-called loyalist councillors, with their clear links to the paramilitaries, will be able to sit on the boards--and, under legislation from this House, the area police commander will be legally obliged to give them security-sensitive information. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that that would be entirely inappropriate, and would put lives at risk.

The idea that any of those elected councillors can sit on any police board at any time while their paramilitary associates--with whom, according to the Prime Minister, they are inextricably linked--have failed to decommission one gun or one ounce of Semtex is outrageous. We would not in any circumstances wish to support the setting up of such boards, even by means of an arrangement that could be implemented later if the peace lasted. We would want fresh legislation. We would want the House to look very carefully to satisfy itself that that has happened.

Mr. Mandelson: I have already made it clear that they are not being set up as executive boards. I have already decided that they will be set up as consultative forums.

As for the right hon. Gentleman's other point about people from Sinn Fein, notably, being part of the forums, he must realise that, by then, it must be assumed--I certainly hope that he assumes it--that Sinn Fein will be part of the government of Northern Ireland, let alone the district partnerships. He should know from his knowledge of Northern Ireland that many of those partnership boards exist already in relation to a host of other policies and activities throughout Northern Ireland, almost all of which include representatives of Sinn Fein sitting down with representatives of other political parties. There is nothing new in all this.

Mr. MacKay: There is something entirely new about recommendations under Patten--which we are still not clear whether the Secretary of State will implement--actually saying that the area police commander, under statute, must give security-sensitive information to the police board, when those people sitting on the police board are inextricably linked, so do we have an absolute guarantee that the board has been scrapped for good?

Mr. Mandelson: I repeat: I have already announced my decision not to accept that aspect of the Patten commission's recommendations. They are not being set up as district executive boards. The district commanders will not have the relationship that the right hon. Gentleman has described to the district partnerships, which will be consultative forums that will not deal with security-sensitive matters and material.

Mr. MacKay: I think that we have to pursue the Secretary of State just a little further, so that we are absolutely clear. He has said that the boards are not going to be set up. They are not going to be set up for good--

6 Apr 2000 : Column 1228

is that right? There is not going to be something in the legislation that says that the boards can be implemented once certain criteria have been reached. That is what we want to know. Police boards are forgotten now--is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that there are many questions to which the right hon. Gentleman wants an answer, but he must give the House a speech. We cannot have a situation where the Secretary of State keeps intervening because there are others who wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr. MacKay: With the greatest respect, let me say that the Secretary of State has been making certain suggestions, which need to be clarified. I would like to have those clarified now. I want a guarantee from him that there will be no police boards in the legislation. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of Sate say that he has said that. Okay. We have now accepted that there will be no police boards and no mention of police boards in the legislation. I am delighted. I hope that I am right.

Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): Is the Secretary of State sure about that?

Mr. MacKay: I share the view of my hon. Friend: I am doubtful.

I move to the other security-sensitive areas that I wish the Secretary of State to exclude from the legislation.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I will in one moment. It is important that I put this on the record.

We believe that there should be no changes to special branch until there is no longer a terrorist threat and that that should not be in the legislation. We believe that the cutting of the strength of the force should not be in the legislation, but, instead, should be left, as it always has been, to the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, after judging the terrorist threat. That seems right and proper. We believe that there should be no tampering with the full-time reserve until, again, there is a lasting peace and no longer a terrorist threat. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

---