| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.52 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): This has been an extraordinary debate, in which hon. Members from all parties have made striking speeches. The Bill is significant and important, but equally important is the climate in which it passes through the House.
I was struck by the speech of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), and by his wish that we could somehow move away from the politicisation of the RUC--but almost every other speech has made it clear just how political the issue is.
I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the Bill is rotten. I consider it to be a Bill of hope and optimism, and I believe that the changes that will flow from it will bring about lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It undoubtedly arouses passion, which is why I regret the fact that the Conservative party, although it says that it broadly supports the Bill, will nevertheless decline to give it a Second Reading.
The Bill's success depends on more than merely gaining sufficient votes to secure a Second Reading. For real success, it will require a climate in Northern Ireland in which success can prosper. That is why I hope that the Conservative party will at least reconsider whether it is right not to support Second Reading.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) began his speech with a substantial tribute to the RUC. No hon. Member would wish to dissent from a word of that tribute, as we all recognise the bravery, courage and enormous sacrifice of RUC members. The organisation rightfully deserves the George Cross that has been conferred on it. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that we will always remember.
Patten's role was to judge the competing evaluations of police reform. We must remember the importance of the exhaustive consultation process, which involved all communities in Northern Ireland. Patten produced a reasonable and fair assessment of the broad range of attitudes towards the RUC.
I regret that a Conservative party briefing note should state that the party considers there to be no justification for changing the name of the RUC, and that the Patten report can offer no evidence to support the proposal because none exists. I draw the attention of the House to that note because the Patten report consultations contained endless justification and evidence for the implementation of the proposed change. It would be irresponsible to ignore that evidence and that justification.
Beyond Patten, there is a great deal of survey data from Northern Ireland to show that there is strong support for the proposal among the Catholic and nationalist communities, and a widespread disenchantment with the RUC. That disenchantment may or may not be fair, but there is a widespread and deeply held perception among Catholics and nationalists that the RUC is biased towards Protestants.
It has been noted this afternoon that the intimidation of Catholics has prevented some from joining the RUC in the past. Many other factors are involved, but the intimidation of Catholics does not by itself constitute a sufficient reason to resist change. We must hope that we can change things in Northern Ireland. If we lose that hope and optimism, there will be no change and the status quo will persist. The deaths, maimings and bombings will continue, as will the tragic loss of life--among ordinary people and among future soldiers, policeman and RUC members. We have to hope that change can happen, and that it can be achieved.
I disagree with the Conservatives when they say that there is no justification for changing the name of the RUC. The communities in Northern Ireland have made it clear that they want change to come. Surveys show that Catholics feel that reform of the police service is essential to a lasting settlement. Substantial changes have to be made to achieve a lasting peace. The evidence is that many people feel that the RUC must be reformed, but not disbanded.
We in this House must be careful to avoid stereotypes. The changes are not desired only by nationalists, nor are Unionists their only authentic opponents. The Bill will create change that is fair to everyone, regardless of community or religious belief. It is fair in spirit and letter.
The Bill is about a commitment to change, but it in no way undermines the historic and courageous role of the RUC in the past, in the present and in the future.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley): Rubbish.
Mr. Woodward: To suggest otherwise is deliberately mischievous. The Bill recognises the need for change to build on the success of the past in order to deliver a lasting peace. That peace will be for those who serve and have served in the police forces but--crucially--it will also be for the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion, faith or community background.
I am 41 years old. I grew up watching the violence in Northern Ireland, and I know from friends and members of my family what living through that violence has been like. Many hon. Members have closer experience of that than I do, but that does not mean that we cannot make the situation better. The Bill offers hope and a chance for change.
Names are not carved in stone. A change of name will not take away pride in the RUC's achievements, nor will it detract from the heroism of RUC members. To suggest otherwise is, again, wholly misleading. The Tory motion proposes that the House decline to give the Bill a Second Reading because
- it fails to preserve the proud title and insignia
That is wholly disingenuous. It is not what the Secretary of State has said; it is not what the Bill says. It is a recognition that to bring those communities together for the future, for those young people, we need change. If that requires a change in the name, what are we really standing for? Are we standing for the past or for the future? Do we work for the young people in Northern Ireland, with their hopes and dreams, or do we simply say to them that,
because of the past, we are stuck and we cannot change? We listened, and we heard that change must come if we are to deliver that trust.That is what the Bill is about--trust. If Ronnie Flanagan can say that if the sacrifice of a change of name is required he will endure it, however painful, and if others supporting the police forces can say that if a change of name is necessary they will deliver on that, however painful, however long the consultation period and whether it is justified or not, are we right to politicise this matter by refusing to give the Bill a Second Reading even though the Opposition apparently agree with so much of it? Is it right not to assist in creating the climate for change? If we deliver, and if we create that climate, we will, through the Bill, have contributed in a real and positive way to ensuring a lasting peace.
8.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) will allow me to congratulate him on a speech that he concluded 10 minutes ago, and to say that I endorse every word that he said.
In theory, there is no organisation or institution that cannot from time to time benefit from reform. Efficiency and effectiveness can generally be improved, and in this respect, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is no exception. It has been pointed out that a number of the Patten proposals are non-controversial, and that several reflect the findings of the Chief Constable's fundamental review of five or six years ago. However, that is not the point tonight. The point is the wider political context in which the Bill has come into existence and of which it is part. That context, I argue, makes the Bill wholly unacceptable. Its implementation will be an affront to decency and democracy. It is the ultimate denigration of a magnificent police force.
We should have no illusions about the wider political context. The unconditional release of their prisoners, retaining their weapons until their political objectives have been achieved, and the abolition of the RUC, are among the key demands of the Provisionals, in return for scaling down their armed struggle. Their first two demands have been met, or partially met; all terrorist prisoners entitled to early release will have been released before long. They are back in the Executive without decommissioning, and they have no intention of decommissioning. With this Bill, their third demand is met--the RUC will soon be no more. It matters very little, if anything, whether the name remains on some title deeds, whatever those may be.
There are convincing pragmatic security arguments as to why the Bill should be rejected. The principal argument is, I maintain, overwhelming. On security grounds, it can and should be argued that the terrorist threat remains real. The terrorists' capability is undiminished. While that is the case, it is sheer madness to move towards or implement changes that endanger our ability to counter terrorism. I have in mind the broad thrust of the Patten proposals that the Bill facilitates--reductions in the strength and capability of the police force in Northern Ireland, the abolition of the RUC reserve, and changes to special branch, which would undermine its intelligence-gathering and intelligence- monitoring capability. In particular, it is wholly unacceptable that the political representatives of terrorist
organisations should sit on the policing board and on district policing partnerships while those organisations retain the capability to wage their armed struggle. It is unacceptable that those representatives could include people with a track record of personal involvement in terrorist violence.The Bill matters so much to the Government, the Provisionals and their fellow travellers in the pan- nationalist front because it is an integral part of the winding down of the British state in Ireland, as the Provisionals put it--British withdrawal, preceded by a progressive process of disengagement, as a Labour party paper put it. That is the understood agenda for the Provisionals, but not for others, not to renew their mainland campaign.
As for the context of the Bill, violence and the threat of violence have dictated every phase of this wretched process. Over the years, violence and the threat of violence have drawn concession after concession from successive British Governments. Most recently, it led to the Ulster Unionist council's capitulation on 27 May. It is the reason why we have this Bill, and why the RUC is, effectively, to be abolished.
One speculates that the Bill may prove not to be the British Government's final act of appeasement, but it is certainly one of the most sordid.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |