| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Mar 2003 : Column 520—continued
4.45 pm
We have heard various theories: the Trojan horse, the greens under the bed and the droves of nationalists being pushed into the police service by the back door. Although it is amusing to listen to them, we should disregard them and accept the new clause for what it is: a good provision that could bring substantial results.
David Burnside (South Antrim): Did the hon. Gentleman read the reports published in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times, which came straight from the Sinn Fein leadership, that one of Sinn Fein's next demands of the Government—who, of course, always give in to its demands—will be for special placements for republicans in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who should have special treatment so that they can represent the republican movement.
Mr. Mallon: I must be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not have the opportunity to read either of those worthy publications yesterday; they were not in any of the news outlets available to me. However, I am not one of those people who hang on every word said by republican leaders. I am not one of those who are obsessed by their propaganda. I am not one of those who would agree to give them a full day's debate on two issues, as others did. I do not make my political decisions or base my political thoughts, policies, decisions or activities on what is stated by people from that organisation.
It is curious that those who become obsessed with that organisation, hang on its every word and develop almost paranoia about an essential part of its propaganda actually facilitate it. I will not give it that satisfaction. I shall make up my mind according to my
views, those of my party and my beliefs, not on the comments of any gentleman whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not deny that yesterday he made it clear that he believed that the House's discussions constituted only the beginning of the debate. He said that it would discuss justice and the courts and that they, too, would be included in the same circle of argument. Unless I was sleeping or dreaming, he made that distinctly clear. I was impressed by his comments because I had already made them. I said that the provisions marked only the beginning and that the Government would advocate more of that way of thinking. The Conservative party is now advocating it, too.
Mr. Mallon: I said what the hon. Gentleman attributes to me; I have been saying it for years. I advocated the devolution of justice and policing powers long before any Government decided that they might do that. I supported it long before the organisation to which DUP Members referred became involved in the political process. My reasons remain the same and are especially pertinent to policing. I believe that devolution comes of age and becomes capable of sustaining itself when it makes hard decisions. Policing and justice require such difficult decisions.
Making decisions about justice will not be easy, just as those on policing have not been easy. I ask hon. Members not to view the matter as a response to a demand by the organisation to which they have referred. For years, I have advocated that we should act because that is the way to make devolution work. I make a plea to the hon. Members for South Antrim (David Burnside) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to consider that
- "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,"
Mr. Carmichael: We are considering an interesting string of amendments, which cover ground that was well worn in Committee and previously. The discussion is none the less useful. I am mindful of the pressures of time and I do not wish to detain hon. Members unnecessarily, but I cannot allow the pejorative remarks of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on political correctness to pass without comment. He appeared to equate the discrimination suffered by, for example, homosexuals, with the disadvantage of being left handed. His remarks will be heard beyond the Chamber, and many in the wider community will listen to them with disbelief. When one hears such comments from the Conservative Front Bench, it is hardly surprising that its own party chairman describes it as "the nasty party."
I am unapologetic about being politically correct. Any politician should want to be politically correct. There is not much point in being here if we are politically
wrong. However, the options available today are for the Liberal Democrats to be politically correct, for the Labour party to be politically successful, and for the Conservative party to be neither.The Conservative position with respect to new clause 4 is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman started from the perspective that he believed that the principle was wrong. He then made it clear that his party supported the Government's aims but that the Conservatives felt it necessary to introduce some further mechanism to dilute the principle. At one point, it felt as though we had fallen through the looking glass.
However, the hon. Gentleman said one very interesting thing that gave away the truth of his party's position. He said that he accepted that there was an intellectual and moral argument in favour of our position. That is why the Tories are prepared to support the Government—our position has intellectual and moral credibility, and so one would not expect the Tories to support it.
The amendments before the House form a sort of hierarchy. Government new clause 4, the Conservative's amendment (a) and new clause 20, and the Ulster Unionists' new clause 8 all aim to make a bad situation better in some way. I have no problem with them for that reason, and would support them all, but it reveals a certain paucity of ambition if all that the House can do is to make a bad situation slightly better. Surely hon. Members should be engaged in making a bad situation good? Is not that why we are all here? To that extent, I find myself making common cause with the Democratic Unionists today. Their new clause is a fairly blunt tool, but it represents the purest position.
Liberal Democrat Members will support the new clause if it is pressed to a vote. I accept that Government new clause 4 is a substantial improvement, and I accept that it allows them some flexibility.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Policing Board, the Chief Constable, all the senior officers to whom I have spoken and a very large number of policemen and women in the PSNI accept—albeit with the reservations that I have set out—the new 50:50 recruitment system as a temporary measure?
Mrs. Iris Robinson: They do not.
Mr. Davies: Will not the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) find himself in conflict with the Chief Constable over the needs of policing in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Carmichael: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be the first time that I have been in conflict with a chief constable. However, he will have heard the comment made from a sedentary position behind him. That shows that his is not a view held universally in Northern Ireland. I take the views of chief constables carefully into account, but Members of Parliament are elected to decide matters of principle. It is not for chief constables to make policy decisions. A strong distinction must be made between policy and operational matters. Policy matters are rightly the preserve of this House.
As I was saying, new clause 4 provides a lot of useful flexibility. I do not understand why the Government should insist on the veto provision, which would be removed by the Conservatives' amendment (a). The veto is very unhelpful. I believe as a general rule that one cannot have too much democracy. The bottom line is that vetoes are profoundly undemocratic. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.
Lady Hermon: The reality is that new clause 4 will drive a coach and horses through section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, because we are considering the recruitment of constables, and that is what the discriminatory recruitment procedure attaches itself to. That is why the board will have to be unanimous. There would inevitably be divisions within it, and it is not hard to guess where they would lie.
Mr. Carmichael: We are now well and truly into the can of worms. Once one moves away from the strict principle that there should not be discrimination, one gets compromise, which begets more compromise, and that is how one reaches such a convoluted position that one can operate only if there is unanimity. I accept the force of the hon. Lady's point. I still think that the imposition of the veto would be regrettable.
New clause 8 has a lot to recommend it. It is a novel approach to the same old fence. The possibility of suspension would give a degree of flexibility. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it would be preferable for there to be no suspension in the first place, but that being the case I have no difficulty in supporting her in that regard.
New clause 12, tabled by Democratic Unionist Members, is one with which we are broadly sympathetic.
Finally, I turn to new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. We can see the force that it would have as an operational measure. Indeed, I can see no reason why the Government are unable to accept it. Even if they will not accept it in its present form, there is no reason why the Minister cannot say that the Government will find another form of words that achieves the same mechanism before the Bill goes to another place. The new clause is the ultimate modest proposal, to use a Swiftian analogy. It is an operational measure that would not in any way affect the principle of 50:50 recruitment. It might go some way towards addressing the profound sense of grievance that exists in the Unionist community among those who feel that they have lost out on a career opportunity. If that situation lasts for the whole 10 years that is envisaged, closing the window in a young person's life for joining the police could effectively exclude a whole generation of people from serving their community in the police. Given the staunch support that the Minister has received from the so-called official Opposition, I do not understand why she is not prepared to make even that very small concession.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |