| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Following the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) makes me conscious of the need to observe self-restraint on a night such as this. I shall not speak tonight of the symbols or the emblems, which the Select Committee, whose report on the RUC was commended by the Minister of State in his wind-up speech on the second group of amendments, saw no reason to change. I spoke on the subject on Second Reading. Repetition by a bystander on such a night as this would be self-indulgent, and I stand by what I said then.
I rise in particular to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and his remarks about Lords amendment No. 93--but from a specialist perspective. I should declare an interest, as for the past four and a half years, I have been chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, a post in which I succeeded the noble Lord Barnett. The building societies ombudsman scheme was set up by statute and in that respect is unusual among financial services ombudsman schemes. The Government have chosen to amalgamate the schemes in a single scheme under the Financial Services Authority. I simply report as a matter of fact that all associated with the integration of the various schemes, representing all aspects of the debate, were united in keeping the practical, operational role of the new financial services ombudsman completely separate and distanced from the regulatory role of the Financial Services Authority.
Nothing that the Secretary of State has said tonight explains why the same principle should not apply in a policing context.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Symbols, whether cap badges or flags, are rarely important in a state or society where the substance that they represent is sure and certain. However, when the substance--in this case, Northern Ireland's part in the United Kingdom, and the British citizenship of the majority of its citizens--is questioned, symbols such as the badges, the crown and the Union Jack become significant. A threat to them is merely a reflection of the underlying erosion of the identity that they represent.
The Secretary of State said that the constitutional issue had been settled. I believe that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) also said that. However, it is far from being settled. It has been settled that the title deeds of Northern Ireland will not pass to the Republic, that the formal transfer of de jure sovereignty to the Republic will not occur until a majority consents to it. However, that does not prevent the Government from establishing institutions whose purpose is to create an actual, economically functional united Ireland, which will ultimately render the legal transfer of sovereignty unnecessary or inevitable. That is consistent with Government policy, as declared in their policy statements.
The basic suspicion of the majority that the substance of their constitutional future and their political and national identity is under threat makes them cling--perhaps rather pathetically in some cases--to the symbols that represent the substance that they wish to retain. When those in the mainland United Kingdom dismiss the Unionists and the majority in Northern Ireland as people who prattle on and have endless disputes about flags and symbols, they miss the point. The inhabitants of the mainland are so confident, assured and certain of their political and national identity and its permanence that they can afford to take a laid-back attitude to symbols. They have the substance; why bother about the symbols?
Equality of esteem is often discussed in the context of Northern Ireland. For a long time, I found it difficult to understand what was meant by equality of esteem. As a liberal democrat in the widest sense, I believe totally in equality of esteem: in equality of opportunity, of access to education and to the law--all the equalities in a modern democracy. Yet I found that my interpretation was wrong because when nationalist politicians talk about equality of esteem, they mean the equality of the minority with the majority in the right to determine the constitutional and national identity of the state. Debates about symbols are addressed to that basic argument.
When we talk about the crown as a symbol, people forget that the crown appears in the courts because the peace that is enforced throughout the United Kingdom is the Queen's peace. One of the fundamental rocks of the development of constitutional government in the United Kingdom--in England--was observance of the ruler: the King's or the Queen's peace, and hence the peace of the Crown. The 67 or 57 constabularies in the United Kingdom use the crown as a symbol because their fundamental function is enforcement of the Queen's peace.
7.45 pm
Since the glorious revolution, the monarchy, the House of Commons and, until recently, the House of Lords have become a constitutional trinity. However, when we talk about the Crown and its prerogatives, we mean the enforcement of the Queen's peace. Is Northern Ireland to be different? I do not believe that the Government think that the consent argument has been settled. However, if, for the purposes of argument, we accept the words of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that the consent argument has been settled and that Northern Ireland will not be excluded from the United Kingdom until a majority of our citizens say so, we are not only the subjects of the United Kingdom Government, but of the Queen and the Crown.
In those circumstances, why has the crown suddenly become anathema for nationalists? That does not apply to the majority of nationalists. Anyone who reads the opening paragraphs of the Patten report will realise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary enjoys a higher rate of public approval than the majority of police forces in other European states and other parts of the world. Why, therefore, is there such opposition to the symbols? It has nothing to do with the impartiality or the integrity of the RUC as a police force, but everything to do with its role in maintaining what is perceived to be a constitutional status quo. If consent exists, and the status quo is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom, why should the symbols of the United Kingdom be cast aside?
Between 1918 and 1921, the Royal Irish Constabulary had a Roman Catholic chief constable. Forty per cent. of its officers and 70 per cent. of its constables were Roman Catholic. There was no objection to the RIC's ordinary policing duties. Yet between 1918 and 1921, more than 400 members of that force--more than 70 per cent. of them Catholic--were slaughtered. The RIC was subjected to the same vilification and dangerous propaganda that is now employed against the RUC. It is a case of deja vu. However, on this occasion, a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland retain confidence in the RUC. I believe that that is felt not only in the Unionist community but by a majority of the nationalist community.
Mr. Mallon: I rise reluctantly to make two points, which have not been given the prominence that they should receive in the debate. When we speak about the report that Chris Patten compiled, we must bear in mind that it was not a nationalist, Catholic, Irish plot to destabilise Unionism. The Patten commission was chaired by an eminent member of the Conservative party, a former Cabinet Minister in a Conservative Government, now a European Commissioner, who spent untold hours trying to get to the heart of the issues with which he was dealing. It is sometimes forgotten that Chris Patten's recommendations were in effect garnered from his, and his commission's, experience of talking and listening to people in Northern Ireland. I accept that the situation there is unique. If it had not been, there would have been no Patten commission and no Bill.
I have a lot of sympathy with some of the points that Unionist representatives and the Unionist community make because the reality is that if Patten is to be adhered to, there is one choice to be made about flags and emblems. The Bill says that the Secretary of State will consult the Policing Board and that, if there is consensus, he will move forward on that basis. However, is it feasible that there will be consensus on the Policing Board on those two issues? I would love to think that there would be cross-community consensus, but, simply, I do not see it.
Although the Bill does not say as much, the reality is that, in effect, the Secretary of State will decide whether to implement Patten or not. His decisions could lift those issues on to a different plane or destroy it completely. That is why my party and I were keen for the Bill to contain at least a basic honesty about how those issues would ultimately be dealt with. That basic honesty might--I stress that word--have been able to short-circuit some of the heat that has been engendered. However, I repeat that, ultimately, those issues will be decided not through consensus on the Policing Board, by Parliament
or the people in the north of Ireland, but by the Secretary of State. I do not envy him his choice or the position that he will ultimately be in, but it would be much more honest to face up to the situation.Legislation should involve certainty and clarity--especially when it deals with controversial issues, those must be present--but I do not find them in the Bill. When my colleagues on the Unionist Benches and I leave the Chamber, we shall not have certainty or clarity on those issues; nor will my colleagues on these Benches. The same will be true for the people in the north of Ireland and the young people in the nationalist community, who might, for the first time, be thinking about a career in the police service. That is the ultimate strength of the neutral position that the Patten report recommended.
I can understand the affection that Unionists feel for the RUC--they would be less than human if they did not have such affection because they have regarded it for so many years as their police service. It is easy to understand that on a human level. I ask, once again, that people understand the position of, in particular, the young in a community that has been divided and has held certain opinions on those issues since the state was formed. Such people--indeed, all of us--are desperately seeking a means by which to introduce changes that will alter policing for ever and establish effective policing for the first time, because policing will be based on consent. That consent should mirror the consent in the Good Friday agreement and in the political process that we are operating.
If we and the Unionists had such clarity on those two issues, that would not make them any easier to deal with, but at least the Bill would contain honesty. We have been dealing with it for roughly a year and two months and we should be able to say, "Yes, I know what the Bill says; yes, its implications are clear; yes, it has the clarity that such legislation should contain."
I hope that all of us understand people's human and emotional attitudes. If we are to move on from debates such as this and into the future, we should, when we draw up legislation, at least be honest enough to say at the end of the process that it contains sufficient clarity and that we know what it means.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |