| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.45 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): Except for the reference to the award of the George Cross, I, as a humble Back Bencher, cannot accept the motion. I am pleased that we are holding the debate, however, although I regret that we do not have five or six hours in which to allow more hon. Members to participate.
As we approach the second anniversary of the Good Friday agreement--a few days hence--I should like to be told that the Government seek, in harmonious co-operation with the Irish Government, to do all in their power to implement all of the agreement. I am confident in the Government.
The Government's amendment rightly pays tribute to the courageous service and sacrifices of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, emphasising that that must never be forgotten. I pay my own tribute to those brave men and women.
The amendment also demonstrates, plainly and uncompromisingly--as the Secretary of State did in his speech--the Government's determination to press on with reform of policing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the early introduction of a Bill--the Police Reform (Northern Ireland) Bill would be my suggested title. I agree with the view voiced at the Ulster Unionist council meeting by Michael McGimpsey that change is not something to be frightened of as long as it is constructive change that enhances the ability of the police to carry out their duties. Mr. McGimpsey has said many other things, but I certainly support him in that.
I do not altogether agree with Mr. McGimpsey's criticism of the Patten report's "scant and fleeting" acknowledgement of the sacrifice made by RUC officers and their families. Some 302 officers have been killed, and almost 9,000 injured during the troubles. I hope that Mr. McGimpsey will not criticise me for my scant reference to the remarkable bravery and stoicism of those people, but I have only 10 minutes.
In Kosovo, recently I met constituents of some of the Northern Irish Members on the Opposition Benches. I met officers of the 60-strong Royal Ulster Constabulary contingent. They have no objection to my mentioning their names, and they are Superintendent John Middlemiss, Inspector Tim Hanley, Inspector John Adams and a remarkable young officer, Albert McWilliams of N division in Tyrone, who is based in a village that suffered a dreadful massacre. That village policeman is working with Canadian KFOR and doing a remarkable job.
I was so impressed by those officers that I wrote to their Chief Constable when I returned home, and I await his reply. I am happy to quote a letter of my own in the Chamber--I think that this is the first time that I have done so. I wrote:
Within 36 hours of my return home from Kosovo I visited the RUC station in Musgrave street which covers the markets area. A couple of hon. Gentlemen know about my visit. I met Sergeant Jones and his colleagues who are remarkably positively establishing community policing, such as has been referred to. I need hardly say that that is a Nationalist area. Rightly, they have won a community policing award.
In the few minutes left to me, I had better say something about the Patten report. I have read the UUP's response to the Patten report and I reject the criticism that it is riddled with deep flaws. However, I share the concerns over the creation of district police partnership boards and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State's emphatic assurance this afternoon. I would not want to see such boards introduced into Strathclyde police. There should be consultation between all groups at local level with local police officers. No one can object to that development in a new police force.
Many of the recommendations are utterly non-controversial. I am not very happy with recommendation 154 on page 121 under the heading "Culture, Ethos and Symbols". Patten and his colleagues recommend:
This morning, after the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) met the women from the Relatives for Justice group, they told me that they were not at all happy with the Patten report but they were willing to accept it. They accept what Monsignor Raymond Murray, their convener, said in a letter to all hon. Members:
Last night's editorial in the Belfast Telegraph began with the sentence:
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim):
I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to those who have given their lives in the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland--especially members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their constabulary reserve and members of the Army.
After 22 months, the Belfast agreement was suspended, but it seems to be a partial suspension, because we are talking about something that is part of the agreement--as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) emphasised. If the agreement is suspended, why are we talking about parts of it? [Interruption.] I listened to the Secretary of State and I do not think he knows whether he is suspended or it is suspended. There is no clear message about which parts we can or cannot talk about and legislate for.
The hon. Member for South Down made it clear that nationalists want complete implementation of the agreement before they can give their full support to the suggestions on the police. That will be clear when we read Hansard. That represents what the nationalists are saying. Of course, IRA-Sinn Fein is not in agreement with the Patten report, as we hear from its spokesmen. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is happy about Patten. Everything in the SDLP's document on policing has been accepted by Patten--so the hon. Gentleman should be extremely pleased.
When the Patten commission was set up, many tributes were paid to it--by Unionists and nationalists. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), said:
Mr. Patten himself does not keep silent on these issues. He said:
The Secretary of State is working and sweating to get IRA-Sinn Fein back into the Executive. That is his purpose; he tells us that it must get back in because the Executive must be all inclusive. If the board is all inclusive, it will not be consultative--it will be the top body. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that he would not want such a fixture in his country; we do not want it in our country, either.
It is all right saying that if a person has been convicted he cannot serve on a partnership, but what about those people against whom the charges have been put in abeyance because of the agreement? We do not know whether they are guilty or not guilty, but there are many unsolved cases of murder, maiming, wounding and bombing. I do not think that anyone who has any link with paramilitaries or with destructive elements should be on the board. We will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland--they cannot be solved--in the way that has been suggested.
Of course, there is real feeling about the name. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down does not realise that. I have heard strong discussions in the House about holding on to the names of regiments in the British Army, so such issues do not concern Northern Ireland only. People feel very strongly about them. They feel that their friends or families who have served in the regiments are slighted if the names are changed. How much more do people feel about the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
I was in the House when a spokesman told us that, if we could get rid of the Ulster Special Constabulary, all would be well. I remember standing on my own in the House to defend the Ulster Special Constabulary. They got rid of it, but did that make any difference? I pay my tribute to the Ulster Special Constabulary, which not for the money--its members were paid a mere pittance--kept the IRA at bay for years. The historian of the IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, acknowledges that in his book on the history of the IRA.
We discussed the duties they had to perform in that conflict-ridden province and I came away deeply impressed by their professionalism. More importantly, I was told by their chief,
6 Apr 2000 : Column 1236
whom I believe Ronnie Flanagan had met,
Incidentally, the chief of the United Nations international police force said, "Do your best, Norman, to get some more RUC officers over here." I would not volunteer.
that the sixty-strong RUC contingent was among his best group of international police officers.
Similar compliments were paid to your officers by senior UN officials, army officers and representatives of NGOs. The RUC can be justly proud of these fellow-officers.
The colour of the current police uniform should be retained.
I disagree. If we are to have comprehensive reform of all aspects of policing, why not, with the recommended design of a new, more practical uniform, substitute green for navy blue? As psychologists would say, the population stereotype and the colour we all recognise vis-a-vis police officers is navy blue. Let us switch colour.
The Patten Report on Policing is seen as absolutely the most essential element of addressing the need for change. The confidence of our membership in the Good Friday Agreement was won by the possibility that policing would be properly and thoroughly addressed.
I agree with those sentiments, but that is a most formidable challenge.
In the seemingly endless search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland, it is clearly essential to know what core attitudes in the two communities are to be reconciled.
The last sentence of the editorial reads:
There is no escaping the unwelcome conclusion that changing the name and symbols of the RUC, and producing a police force sufficiently supported by a large majority, will be a crucial issue.
6 Apr 2000 : Column 1237
I agree. This Government and this House of Commons with the people and police officers of Northern Ireland have to be equal to that immense challenge. It would be much, much better if these issues could be resolved in the Northern Ireland Assembly based on genuine consultation with all communities in the Province. I should love to see the early reinstitution of the Assembly.
However, if the House of Commons has to introduce that legislation, let us do so constructively--based on genuine consultations with the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. I support the Patten recommendations and look forward to early legislation implementing some if not all of them.
5.55 pm
The RUC have nothing to fear from the Patten inquiry.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said:
If we are going to have a sensible look at the RUC then I believe that Chris Patten's appointment is progress.
Some progress--as we see today. On 4 June 1998, the hon. Gentleman said that he was
very happy with the make up of the Patten commission. I think practically we could not have hoped for anything better.
When there was opposition in the Province, those who dared to say anything about the Patten commission were hammered down. However, when the report was issued, the Ulster Unionist council passed a resolution stating that it was
deeply flawed and objectionable to the greater number of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.
6 Apr 2000 : Column 1238
The resolution referred to the need to
The council felt that the Patten commission was supposed to do that, but had not done what it was asked to do.
bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements.
What on earth did these people think they were going to get when they signed up to the Belfast agreement?
The leader of the Unionist party said:
I don't say this provocatively, but it really does seem to me that we were given a very clear agenda, and I'm surprised that those who gave us that agenda did not understand what the consequences would be.
Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it.
I agree with him on that. He continued
but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.
I agree with that too. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has asked the Secretary of State:
Does he realise that despite his euphemistic language, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)--the leader of the Ulster Unionist party--is absolutely right to say that what has been announced today degrades, demeans and denigrates an honourable force . . . ?--[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 852.]
Today we see the consequences of the commission. It is a serious matter that runs right to the heart of the debate. Those on the Front Benches have argued whether terrorists can have influence in the new set-up. The argument should have been not about the partnerships but about the main police board that is proposed. That is because the main board will have 10 members who will be appointed by the d'Hondt principle from those who are in the Executive.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |