| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.37 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I entirely agree that the Bill cries out for a Committee stage, which must be constructive because we have to get it right, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us forcefully. A cry went out, "Get it right for whom?", and I humbly suggest that we have to get it right for Northern Ireland.
From the beginning of the process, the Secretary of State's clear attitude has been that he will approach the debate with an open mind. That augurs well for the Committee stage, but the Bill will need fine-tuning. Indeed, on an important point about safeguards in inquiries, my right hon. Friend indicated that he might have gone too far. I hope that he will not be overcome with generosity because we need safeguards.
I welcomed much of what the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said. I do not agree with the amendment in his name, but I entirely respect it, his right to table it and his party's right to vote on it. I hope that, subject to the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in which I have every confidence, members of my former party will abstain in the main vote. I would be relieved if they did so and I would commend them for it. We can and should have a vigorous Committee stage. Bearing in mind that there is such a basis of agreement on Patten and on the Bill, we can also have a decent Report stage and Third Reading when we can express reservations.
I know that I am not the ideal person to suggest to members of my former party how they might vote--
Mr. Temple-Morris: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's remark. I suggest with all humility that, if Conservative Members support the Bill, they will make a major contribution to delivering peace to Northern Ireland.
I want to quote from a paper that I do not read very much these days; I thought that no one could doubt me if I did so. The Daily Telegraph of 9 September 1999 expressed reactions--admittedly they were mixed--from RUC officers to the Patten report. One quote says it all in my view:
- A sergeant based in the south of the province said: "Did anyone ever expect Patten to come back and say, Keep it up, you're doing a great job? Of course the name change will offend some people,
- but at the end of the day, his plans would just turn us into a normal British force. Change is not a problem for us, we only hope that the Catholic community responds and that we are allowed to change without the threat of terrorism hanging over us."
I wanted to quote the views of an RUC sergeant for obvious reasons. The Bill is about change. It is about normalisation: it is about a normal British force. It is about a change of culture--about a change from policing the troubles to policing with and for the people. It is about each community responding. It is also, of course, about the withdrawal of the constant threat of terrorism. It is part of a wider peace process. I ask everyone to take a constructive approach, not least in Committee. I believe that if we fail with the Bill, and if we fail with the implementation of the Patten recommendations, the peace process will go into a decline that none of us wants. We must therefore get it right.
The question of the Patten report and the institutions is pivotal: it is a cornerstone of peace. It is regrettable that the Bill and the Patten report have come into the front line; the reform would have been much easier if the institutions were up and running and decommissioning was under way. That, however, is not an option. There can be no going back, and no slackening of the pace. In no way is the past an option.
One of my main worries relates to the RUC, and to its concerns. At the heart of those concerns is the feeling that a police change should not run ahead of progress towards peace--that demilitarisation should not include changes in the size of the police service while the terrorist threat remains. We all appreciate the dangers, but we are dealing with changes and normalisation that will take years. Even after 10 years, if Patten's recommendation is followed, there will be a substantial force of 7,500. I am confident that, if there is a threat, the Government--this Government, or the Government of the day--will meet that threat. They might be much better able to meet it if there were a force that was more acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland. The RUC is not just policing the change; it is an integral part of the change.
Let me turn to specifics, and to cultural issues. Whatever we call the force--the Police Force of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Police, or whatever--the name must change. Patten is clear about that, for the right reasons. I think that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to recruit young Catholics without changing the name first, although there are many other aspects of the problem.
We do, of course, salute the RUC for its role in the front line against terrorism. I especially remember the "Ulsterisation" policy of the mid to late 1970s. I am sure that a number of British soldiers owe their lives to the sacrifice that was made by RUC officers. Nevertheless, in terms of historical associations across the communities of Northern Ireland, I think it goes without challenge that the past of the RUC--and that of the Royal Irish Constabulary before it--while it has been commendable in recent years, has not always been clothed in glory. It is regarded very differently by the two communities, for obvious historical reasons.
We need a fresh start, but the fresh start will not work unless the RUC, through its experience and tradition, forms the basis for its successor--of which it will be very much part: indeed, the successor force will not work without it.
Let me say something about the badge. We have talked about a crown and a harp--about the emblems of the two countries. I was the founding co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body; I believe that the right hon. Member for Bracknell was on the steering committee with me. At that time, we tried to create an emblem, or logo, for the body. Having considered the crown over the harp, the harp over the crown, the crown around the harp and the harp around the crown, we eventually threw up our hands and said that we could proceed no further. I therefore sympathise with Patten's view that perhaps no association with the emblems of the British or the Irish states would be advisable, and that we need a new badge and a new flag. I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Assembly has made progress in that direction.
Let me say a little about accountability, reports and inquiries. I mentioned safeguards at the outset. I believe that the present position will be challenged in Committee--the provision, that is, that a minimum of 12 members of the policing board should vote in favour, which means that seven would be voting against.
The minority is just as important as the majority in the context of establishing a permanent peace in Northern Ireland. Whoever constitutes the majority and whoever constitutes the minority, that must surely be the case. The arrangement cannot work if one overrides the other. I do not think that, if the board demanded an inquiry into a public-order incident at Drumcree, for instance, it would get off to a good start with a majority of 10 to nine. For the moment, I defend the Bill, and the Secretary of State's reserve powers. He is the democratic bottom line during a continuing transfer of authority.
The same applies to codes of practice. The Patten report recommends that control be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible, but for the moment it rests with the House of Commons and the Secretary of State, who has responsibilities--not least for security matters. Codes of practice are therefore necessary.
6.47 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): I apologise for the fact that, owing to a late flight, I could not be present for the Secretary of State's speech.
I am no admirer of the Patten report, nor does my party admire it. It is not that we have made a predetermined judgment; like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), we recognise that Patten is a man of huge ability. Often, the difficulty with people of huge ability is that they know of that huge ability, which makes them arrogant and conceited. Patten felt that he could override the basic tenet of the Belfast agreement--that, for as long as the people of Northern Ireland so determined, Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom.
Some people think that that goes too far; but what does it mean? How does one remain part of the United Kingdom? It means that one shares things that are common within the kingdom--the flag and other insignia--but not in an aggressive or offensive way. Flags have become aggressive symbols only in so far as they are used by one small section of society to intimidate another, and vice versa. That was not what was intended by those who conceived the Belfast agreement, but Patten cast aside all regard to the agreement.
Sadly, I can imagine Patten's having the support of Sinn Fein-IRA, which has much to learn about democratic politics. It has not convinced some of us--and if
hon. Members had been where I was on Saturday night, they would have been even less convinced--that some of its members have become reconstructed. But it is much more saddening to find that not only Sinn Fein but the SDLP and the Irish Government, while paying lip service to the practical aspects of the agreement, do not give proper recognition to the spirit of it. That is one of the difficulties deriving from the debate.It is no good the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) reading us all a lesson on how we should move the process forward if there is no clear recognition of the rights of the people of both traditions in Northern Ireland. It should be a question not of pandering again and again to one tradition, but of whether we can have mutual respect.
Patten also showed no awareness of the needs of, or the sacrifice made by, the RUC. I think of a late friend of mine, a Roman Catholic RUC sergeant, who was murdered by the IRA, in November 1975. His widow--Patten and his commission would have known this--was awarded £4,000, and £3,500 was awarded for each of her children. I think of another police widow who was awarded zero--nothing--but who, on appeal, was awarded £6,000. Those events occurred back in 1975 and 1976.
It would have been reassuring if Patten had recognised that the sacrifice of the RUC goes wider and deeper than the men and women who died: it affects families and children. I have been associated with an organisation that is dealing with the trauma affecting police men and their families. Even today, one sees eight-year-old children requiring treatment because of the stresses and strains placed on RUC members and on their family life. Patten disregards that.
When we consider a Bill, we cannot afford to disregard such matters. I hope that there is something to be done for those women--wives of RUC officers who were killed 25 years ago--who are living in poverty. However, that is another issue.
I recognise, too, that Patten took a huge amount of the content of his recommendations from Ronnie Flanagan's fundamental review. I also recognise that the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, with which I have had some association, wholeheartedly and without reservation accepted--it would not have been my recommendation--a fundamental review. Regardless of whether Flanagan or the federation was right or wrong, each made proposals based on three criteria. As those criteria have already been rehearsed in the debate, I shall not waste my time rehearsing them again. However, the criteria are based on the level of violence and on change in response to society's needs.
I should like to touch very briefly on the needs of society, because no hon. Member has yet talked about policing in terms of delivering something that society cannot do without. Currently, in Northern Ireland, we have a mafia sub-culture. It might have developed inevitably, because of the age that we live in, but I think that it has developed because we live in the wake of 30 years of hideous terrorism.
The sub-culture is corrupting our young people. The extent to which drugs are being used in Northern Ireland is frightening. There is some success, but not enough of it, and the drug dealers are winning the battle with the police. We need to keep a level of policing that can deal with that.
There is worse. There is a multi-million pound business in smuggling fuel--diesel fuel, heating fuel, motor fuel--not only into Northern Ireland, but into Great Britain. The tentacles of that organisation stretch far and wide. The business is depriving the Exchequer of nearly £1 billion annually. The Government admit to a £100-million figure for the trade, but that figure is rubbish. It is certainly more than £500 million, and information that I have recently received suggests that it is approaching £1 billion.
Almost nothing is being done about the business. There are no special arrangements to deal with it, and there is no co-ordinated approach to tackling it between Customs and Excise, police, health and safety agencies, other planning bodies and everyone who could play a part. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is nodding. The business is a scandal, but the Government have not attempted to do anything substantial about it.
I leave the House with the reality of the policing situation. I wanted to touch on other issues in my speech, but I do not have time. If I am fortunate enough to be selected to serve in Committee, I shall touch on many of them.
I should mention one matter now. The Bill mentions codes of ethics, codes of practice, codes of this and codes of that--but when will we see them? We have to see them now. Quite bluntly, I do not trust those who are tasked with producing those codes not to pervert what we are attempting to do here today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |