| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): I should like to raise six points in the 10 minutes available. First, I want to consider the question that was implicit in many speeches: is there a problem with the RUC as it stands? Many statistics have been cited, and we could continue for a long time. However, I shall cite only two.
Fewer than 5 per cent. of Catholics have a lot of confidence in the police force. The level of Protestant confidence is seven times higher. Only 19 per cent. of working class Catholics believe that equal treatment was shown to both communities. The figure for working class Protestants was four times higher.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the fact that in Northern Ireland it is common to speak about "our police". The Patten report notes that that form of expression was heard from Protestant but not Catholic contributors. A problem therefore exists, and we are sticking our heads in the sand if we do not acknowledge that.
Secondly, will the Patten changes help to build Catholic, nationalist confidence in the police? We need look no further than the statistic that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) cited. He said that 45 per cent. of the Catholic community claimed that the Patten changes would increase their confidence. I appreciate his point that a further 41 per cent. said that it would neither increase nor decrease their confidence. However, if the confidence of half the Catholic population is increased, that constitutes a substantial improvement.
Mr. Trimble:
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible that the 45 per cent. are contained in the 59 per cent. who in the same survey said that they found the police acceptable.
Dr. Palmer:
I accept that point. However, we are seeking ways to increase acceptance and, under my first point, some people who feel that certain aspects are acceptable still lack confidence in the force.
Thirdly, would the changes reduce support for the police among the Protestant community, as some speakers have implied? Speaking as politicians, we have to say that people will blame us for the change, not the police. They will not support the police force less because we have decided, in the national interest, to change its name. The net effect will be that the Catholic side of the community will strengthen its support, but the Protestant side will not lose confidence in their police.
Fourthly, are there major substantive objections? It has been noticeable throughout the debate that criticism has focused overwhelmingly on the symbolic issues. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has stressed the need to implement the whole Good Friday agreement and I believe that the overwhelming majority of Members here would agree with that. However, his position has to take account of the fact that recently his party has twice become a substantial obstacle to that fulfilment. Because of the importance of decommissioning, we can, with some difficulty, understand why the party imposed an interim deadline for commencement. It is comprehensible, if unfortunate in effect, that that ultimatum was given. Making participation in the Executive dependent on the name of the police force is a position that most people in Britain find totally incomprehensible. Frankly, no simpler
proof could be given that the RUC is seen not only by nationalists, but by Unionists, as a Unionist police force. That problem needs to be addressed.
Fifthly, hon. Members may ask, "Does mainland British opinion matter? Why should it? Surely this is purely an internal matter for people in Northern Ireland. It is their police force and their security." Okay, there may be a day when Ulster is separate from Britain as an independent Province or part of Ireland or part of some larger European unit--who knows? However, as long as Ulster is part of this country, the opinion of the rest of the country matters. To those who claim loyalty to the Union, I say that it will survive only on the basis of mutual consent. I suggest to hon. Members that the opinion of people on this side of the Irish sea will continue to matter.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down):
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is to be congratulated on the analytical and perceptive content of his contribution. My regret is that the same qualities were not brought to bear on the remit given to Mr. Patten and his colleagues when they set about the business of preparing the report. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the terms of reference of the Patten commission were to introduce a series of proposals designed to secure widespread support so that the police force it produced could be seen as an integral part of the community as a whole. The commission has signally failed to achieve that.
I do not believe that a single Member representing the pro-Union community endorses these reports. Indeed, a nationwide petition that is particularly relevant to the subject of today's debate--the name and insignia of the RUC--attracted 400,000 signatures, 300,000 from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine how, in such circumstances, the Government can conceivably say that these proposals are designed to bring about widespread support.
The vast majority of Unionists believe that the core of the Patten proposals are a number of political concessions and articles of appeasement to organised terror, wrapped up in technical and administrative reforms to which agreement is largely present, and which were the subject of the chief constable's on-going report from 1994. The changes in the name and insignia were clearly political, rather than policing, imperatives.
The reasons given for such changes have no real foundation in fact. Indeed, the opening paragraphs of the report, particularly those on page 13, suggest that the degree of overall support for the RUC was higher than the support afforded to any continental police force. Indeed, it was comparable with the support given in other parts of the United Kingdom, when we take into account the specific and peculiar difficulties faced by a police force in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann was, I think, right to emphasise the fact that the polls showed a much higher percentage of support among the Catholic community for local policing, in relation to the overall perception of the acceptability of the RUC in the Province. Therein, I believe, lies the real issue. The reality, as exhibited by the support for the local police, is that there was no real objection to the RUC. The perception was the product not of the reality but of enforced propaganda and intimidation--especially in urban areas--imposed by the control of the paramilitaries in ghetto areas in the urbanised regions of Northern Ireland.
Criticism of the RUC is largely directed at its role as an anti-terrorist or counter-terrorist organisation. I know of no great criticism of the RUC's discharge of its normal functions in dealing with rape, depravity involving children, theft, burglary and fraud: little valid criticism is made of the RUC in that context. The criticism relates to its direction of its activities towards the political terrorism of paramilitary organisations and their associated criminal gangsterism.
The same could be extrapolated in regard to criticism directed at the judiciary. Its discharge of its civil functions--from commerce to personal injury and domestic problems--attracts no criticism. Why, then, do its members suddenly become monsters of bias and discrimination when they exercise their judicial function in relation to terrorism?
I believe that the efforts of Government politically to appease and to placate terrorism have effectively increased lawlessness in Northern Ireland. They have broken down the moral infrastructure and civil obedience of a region of the United Kingdom that once had the best record in the UK for observation of the laws, and for lack of crime.
Let me perhaps put in context what it is to live in Northern Ireland under the policies of the Government. How can we expect ordinary people to respect law enforcement agencies or the judiciary, when a Government apply policies that enable, for example, the sniper gang in South Armagh, Carragher and McGinn, who were sentenced after due process to 490 years, to wave to relatives, including, incidentally, those of Lance Bombardier Restorick, and say, "We will be out in 15 months"? How can the murderers of the cross-community chums Allen and Trainor be given a life sentence, yet sneer and snigger at the mother of Damien Trainor because they will be out in a year?
I have personal experience of that because I received a letter bomb, as did Mr. Trimble and Mr. Donaldson--I should give their constituencies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should, indeed, give them.
Mr. McCartney:
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In haste, I perhaps overlooked custom, but I beg their pardon: the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I all received a bomb. Those responsible were apprehended. After due process, they were convicted and given five years. They were out in six weeks. One of them, Gerry McQuoid, was one of those apprehended a month ago with a 500 lb bomb.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |