| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Feb 2003 : Column 712—continued
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He speaks with great passion, but does he agree that the best way to move forward is not to attack the institutions, which I think are being established in the right way and with the right structures, even though there is much comment about them, but to insist that civic leaders of all political persuasions should rally behind them and encourage people to get involved and behave responsibly towards them?
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is a beautiful thing to say in the House of Commons, but we do not have democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. This House, in its wisdom, destroyed democracy. Votes do not count. The people on Shankill road do not get any counts. It is hard-working councillors such as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North and others who get the vote, but they are taken by the hand of the Government. What did the former Secretary of State say about Adair? She said that he was an unsung hero of the peace process. That is what we are up against.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I again ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his comments back to the Bill. I understand the background, but I think that we must now concentrate on the Bill itself.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Your colleague led me astray, Madam Deputy Speaker. He will have to be blamed for the sin that he has committed, but I understand your guidance. I am glad to continue, as I need to deal with some matters of utmost importance, but the principles must be established. The principles of good policing are that it is legal and morally correct, and can stand up and face scrutiny.
We have heard about the office of ombudsman. Of course, the ombudsman is currently a woman. When she was appointed, I stood on my feet in this House and called attention to her political relationship—her husband is an active member of the SDLP and I believe that he is to stand as a candidate for election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly at the next election. He is also a serving councillor on Ballymena council. If any Government had given to the wife of an official Unionist the office of ombudsman, Labour Members would have been shouting out and crying aloud about what a terrible thing had been done. If the Government had dreamed of giving the appointment to a Democratic Unionist, all hell would have been let loose on the Labour Benches. Of course, we are not on the quangos. They do not allow us to join any quangos. We are lepers. This Government keep us off everything, but the day will come when the people will have something to say. It is perhaps going to come more quickly than they think. All that I am saying is that the ombudsman's office needs to be made democratic.
I do not believe that policemen who have served and retired should have their past dug up by an ombudsman who has the power to investigate all back-cases. A line must drawn in the sand to say "So far and no further." If such investigation starts, what will happen? Every other policeman in the force will be demoralised. That is what is happening. There was supposed to be somebody to oversee the ombudsman's office, but where is that legislation? The Government are not rushing that through the House. Of course, the IRA would not give any concessions if they did so. I am saying that we should have an independent inquiry into the ombudsman's office. After all, the Policing Board wanted her to investigate certain things and she was reticent about doing so. It was only after the board met again that she was prepared to do those things. We know what happened at the debacle in Omagh. These people in Omagh are not DUP supporters; many of them are SDLP supporters.
Let me say to the House tonight that it needs to open its eyes to many things in the Bill. They have not all been discussed, and we could go on all night dealing with this matter. I trust that the House will come to the point at which it is prepared to grasp the nettle. On Wednesday, the two Prime Ministers will be in Belfast. One leader—me—will not be invited, not even to meet them outside the talks to put my case. That means that the majority of Unionists who think like me will not be heard. I say to the House and to the Government: "Ignore these people at your peril, because they are the heart, and out of the heartland came your police, your Army and the people who were faithful on the day when faithfulness cost." I say to the Government: "Have sense, make no more concessions, start doing the job of proper policing and people will rally to you. The Roman Catholic population will rally to you." Some of the Roman Catholic population live in desperate peril because they are under the threat of the gunman, but the police cannot help them. They cannot call a policeman because he cannot go to help them. The Roman Catholic population knows what I am saying, and feels the same way. Let us have proper policing; when we have it, we will not need to argue about some of the things that we have had to argue about tonight, because they will not even be thought of.
8.30 pm
Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): May I start by apologising for missing some of the debate? I had to go to see some constituents. Some hon. Members will know my background and that I grew up in Northern Ireland. One of my earliest memories as a very young child was pointing out that our neighbour was a police inspector. The lecture that I got from my father still resounds with me, because I had also pointed out that this police inspector was a Catholic. As a five-year-old, I did not know what I was saying, but I had said it in the wrong place. That was pre-troubles, but the lecture that I got still resounds in my memory. I therefore enter this debate with some trepidation.
I try not to speak on Northern Ireland matters, because I get quite angry listening to the selective arguments justifying past actions or inactions, rehashing old positions that do not relate to the debate,
fighting old battles or erecting new barriers to progress. I hear what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said—I have heard what he has said all my life—but some of the issues that he raised made me quite angry, so I shall not respond to them. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that I do not share his optimism; I do not think that he recognises certain aspects of the Ulster psyche. That is an issue to which we need to return in the Bill.Some of the things that have been said in previous debates about what is to happen to the Policing Board have not proved to be correct. We must also treat the siren voices with caution when approaching this Bill. They will not be proved correct, and we need to concentrate on that fact. We also need to address the fundamental question of how to bring people in from the cold. How do we persuade ex-terrorists to uphold the law? The way in which the Government are approaching that question is absolutely right.
It was stated earlier that the policing of Northern Ireland was political. Policing has always been political there, from the earliest days of the creation of the state. One of the things that worries me is that some people regard no change as acceptable. If such people are going to erect barriers, perhaps the time has come to hold a referendum on Northern Ireland in the mainland of the United Kingdom, to see whether the people here still want the obstructions from the Ulster Unionists, whether they think that the continued investment in Northern Ireland is right, and whether they want to hear the kind of comments that are being made.
Some of us have argued for a much more radical policy than the one that the Government are proposing, but I have long recognised that we cannot move faster than people are prepared to move. The Government's approach is about taking people with them—
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): What would you know about it?
Brian White: I actually grew up in Belfast. The hon. Gentleman may not appreciate that.
Mrs. Iris Robinson (Strangford): And you left.
Brian White: I left when I was 18, at the height of the troubles, but the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) must recognise that the kind of comments that members of his party make were one of the reasons why I left. There was no hope coming from that quarter. It is important, if we are to have hope for Northern Ireland, that we should move forward. I reject the siren voices that are coming from the Democratic Unionist party.
Much of the Bill is uncontroversial: the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has said as much. However, as others have said, we should move forward inch by inch—for example, on issues such as the Policing Board. This debate has reminded me of the arguments over whether the Metropolitan police should have a police authority. People said, "You can't have that," but when the authority was created, all the arguments disappeared. Many of the arguments that we have heard tonight have been hot air; they will be seen to have been unjustified when the changes arrive.
Earlier today, I thought that the Father of the House was going to be removed from the Chamber because he was talking about the middle east. He rightly emphasised what can happen, in that serious conflict, when dialogue breaks down. We have to remember what has happened in Northern Ireland when talking has stopped. There are other routes that can be taken, and we must be aware of that.
There is a provision in the Bill about which I am concerned. One of the suggested changes is that, instead of the board's objectives being consistent with the Secretary of State's objectives, it should have regard to them. If we consider other legislation—where, for example, independent regulators have to have regard to Government policy, as opposed to being consistent with Government policy—we find that Government policy is actually undermined. I am concerned that the suggested change will have that effect. I hope that the Minister can assure me that that will not happen.
There are those of us who support the Government and who feel that the way in which to make progress in Northern Ireland is through dialogue. We have to try to achieve consensus. We should not listen to siren voices that argue for backwardness and for not making any changes. If we listened to those voices, there would be no peace process.
The SDLP has taken a lot of stick in this debate. However, the party has been courageous in saying that Catholics ought to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It should be given credit for that. Unlike Sinn Fein, it has said that it wants the institutions to work. We should respond to that, and not vilify the SDLP as some have tried to do. Much of today's debate has not been about the Bill; it has been about rehashing old arguments.
We have to ensure that the tests on Sinn Fein are of the highest order so as to ensure that the party is committed to the process. If it is not—and it will soon become clear whether it is or not—the Government will have to say that they will not make the proposed changes. The Bill as it stands is the right way to go, developing consensus. This unstable world contains examples of what could happen if we get this wrong. The Bill is another step in the peace process and we ought to support it. We have to make the arguments for change and, if Northern Ireland is to have a future, we have to reject the kind of voices that I have heard all my life. One of the reasons why I do not often contribute to debates on Northern Ireland is that I get angry with some of the comments that are made, and I try not to get angry during debates.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that this Bill goes forward but also to ensure that any changes have the support of the majority in both communities. The SDLP is arguing strongly for people to join the police service and to make the institutions work. That ought to be supported.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |