The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Peter
Atkinson
†
Anderson,
Mr. David
(Blaydon)
(Lab)
†
Bailey,
Mr. Adrian
(West Bromwich, West)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Battle,
John
(Leeds, West)
(Lab)
†
Campbell,
Mr. Gregory
(East Londonderry)
(DUP)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Cooper,
Rosie
(West Lancashire)
(Lab)
Creagh,
Mary
(Wakefield)
(Lab)
Davies,
Mr. Quentin
(Grantham and Stamford)
(Lab)
†
Devine,
Mr. Jim
(Livingston)
(Lab)
Dodds,
Mr. Nigel
(Belfast, North)
(DUP)
†
Donaldson,
Mr. Jeffrey M.
(Lagan Valley)
(DUP)
†
Durkan,
Mark
(Foyle)
(SDLP)
Harris,
Mr. Tom
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)
†
Hepburn,
Mr. Stephen
(Jarrow)
(Lab)
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
†
Joyce,
Mr. Eric
(Falkirk)
(Lab)
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Lidington,
Mr. David
(Aylesbury)
(Con)
McCrea,
Dr. William
(South Antrim)
(DUP)
†
McDonnell,
Dr. Alasdair
(Belfast, South)
(SDLP)
McGrady,
Mr. Eddie
(South Down)
(SDLP)
Mackay,
Mr. Andrew
(Bracknell)
(Con)
†
Marris,
Rob
(Wolverhampton, South-West)
(Lab)
Mulholland,
Greg
(Leeds, North-West)
(LD)
Norris,
Dan
(Wansdyke)
(Lab)
†
Paisley,
Rev. Ian
(North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Pound,
Stephen
(Ealing, North)
(Lab)
†
Reid,
Mr. Alan
(Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
†
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
Robinson,
Mrs. Iris
(Strangford)
(DUP)
Robinson,
Mr. Peter
(Belfast, East)
(DUP)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
†
Ruane,
Chris
(Vale of Clwyd)
(Lab)
†
Simpson,
David
(Upper Bann)
(DUP)
Wallace,
Mr. Ben
(Lancaster and Wyre)
(Con)
Walter,
Mr. Robert
(North Dorset)
(Con)
†
Watson,
Mr. Tom
(West Bromwich, East)
(Lab)
†
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
Alan
Sandall, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
109(4):
Goggins,
Paul
(Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office)
Northern
Ireland Grand
Committee
Tuesday 24
July
2007
[Mr.
Peter Atkinson
in the
Chair]
4.30
pm
The
Chairman:
If Members wish to remove their jackets, they
may do so. Members will know the form for this Committee: we have half
an hour of questions and then two and a half hours of debate on the
motion, followed by an Adjournment debate.
Oral Answers to
Questions
The
Secretary of State was
asked—
Police
Numbers
4.31
pm
1.
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP):
Whether he plans to increase the number of police
officers in Northern Ireland.
[151711]
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
Prior to answering my hon. Friend’s question, I would like to
say that ordinarily my assiduous shadow, the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury, would be in his place for questions and the debate this
afternoon, but given that he represents Tewkesbury, I am sure that hon.
Members understand why he needs to be in the Chamber for the statement
on flooding. We extend our sympathies to him and his constituents. I am
sure that he will join us as soon as
possible.
The
Chairman:
I thank the Minister for
that.
Paul
Goggins:
There are no plans to increase the number of
police officers in Northern
Ireland.
Dr.
McDonnell:
I put it to the Minister that crime is fairly
widespread, particularly in the part of Belfast that I represent, and
especially on Friday and Saturday nights. The police are stretched to
their limits and there is an urgent need to increase the number of
officers. May I urge him to ensure that funds are provided to do
so?
Paul
Goggins:
My hon. Friend is of course right to point out
that many people in Northern Ireland, and indeed elsewhere in the
United Kingdom, are concerned about and fear crime in their
communities, although sometimes the level of fear goes beyond the
reality and statistics on recorded crime. We must take this issue
seriously, but it is more about how police officers are deployed in the
community than about their total numbers. In my view, at 7,500, the
Police Service of Northern Ireland has an adequate number of officers,
but how they are deployed is critical. I think
that the Chief Constable’s commitment to enhance neighbourhood
and community policing is very
important.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I take the points that the
Minister has made about the number of full-time officers in Northern
Ireland and the Chief Constable’s determination to introduce
community police officers, but does the Minister have any plans to
introduce special constables, such as those in this part of the United
Kingdom, so that volunteers who wish to contribute to policing in their
community have the opportunity to do
so?
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point.
Historically, those who make up the part-time reserve in Northern
Ireland have made a commitment that is broadly comparable to that of
special constables in England and Wales. Also, of course—this is
a very important commitment for the future—police community
support officers will be part of the future Police Service of Northern
Ireland. We have plans to introduce over a four-year period some 400
police CSOs, who can enhance the work of regular officers by being the
eyes and ears of the police service. They will not be tied up with
bureaucracy, but on the streets and in the communities helping to
detect crime and to reassure the
community.
Reserve Police
Officers
2.
Mr.
Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP):
If he will examine the case for making pension provisions
for part-time reserve police officers in Northern
Ireland.
[151712]
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
The Government recognise the service and sacrifices made by part-time
reserve officers in Northern Ireland. A stakeholder pension scheme has
been available to them since
2001.
Mr.
Donaldson:
I thank the Minister for his response, but the
difficulty with the stakeholder pension provision is that it is
self-funded. It is not acceptable in this day and age that part-time
workers such as part-time police officers are not given pension
provision. A European directive provides for pension provision for
part-time workers. It is important that the Government recognise the
excellent contribution made by part-time reservists in Northern
Ireland, which the Minister just mentioned. A number of reservists died
or suffered serious injury during the troubles. Will the Government now
recognise that and introduce properly-funded pension provision for
part-time
reservists?
Paul
Goggins:
May I say at the outset that I fully endorse the
right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the role played by
part-time reserve officers? I understand that 53 of them were murdered
during the troubles and nine were murdered after they had retired and
ended their service. The whole Committee will acknowledge their
contribution.
Many
part-time reserve officers also have other occupations—they may,
for example, be civil servants—and may have other occupational
pensions
in connection with that employment. A complexity is involved therein
because one cannot belong to two occupational pension schemes at the
same time. The issue of cost also arises. What is important is that the
stakeholder pension now available means that any part-time reserve
officer can avail themselves of a pension through that employment, if
they feel that that is appropriate to them.
Mark
Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): May I join the right hon. Member
for Lagan Valley in encouraging the Minister to think further and to
think positively on this issue? He says that the Government recognise
the service and sacrifice of the part-time reserve, but given the sense
of duty shown by part-time members of the police reserve, they are not
being credited in the pension arrangements provided by Government with
the debt that is owed to them. Although nominally part-time reserves,
many of those people have served long hours—almost the
equivalent of a full-time capacity—and faced an absolutely
full-time risk and threat, because the threat was faced not only in the
line of duty, but off duty, when so many of them were viciously
murdered and attacked. In all circumstances and in all conditions, as
we move on and try to reflect positively, I encourage the Government to
be more generous and more practical in dealing with this group of
people, who carried an enormous burden.
Paul
Goggins:
I acknowledge the strength of feeling in this
Committee, which was reflected in a recent debate in the Assembly in
which Members from all parties spoke powerfully. Members of the
Assembly acknowledge, as we do here, the tremendous role that the
part-time reserve officers have played. I say again to the Committee
that it is now possible for every part-time reserve officer to have a
pension, either through the occupation that they had in addition to
being a part-time officer or through the stakeholder pension that is
now available. I am pleased about that because it is important for us
all, whatever our walk of life, to be able to save for retirement, so
that we are not faced with poverty then, but have a reasonable income.
Rev.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): But surely the Minister
must agree that there seems, on the outside, to be a real manner of not
caring for these people. After all, if they go for a pension, what they
earned as part-time officers will not be taken into that consideration.
That means that they have done a term risking their lives every moment
of the day—the leader of the SDLP reminded us of that—yet
they will get nothing as far as a pension is
concerned.
Paul
Goggins:
May I begin my answer to the right hon. Gentleman
by congratulating him on his recent award as Opposition politician of
the year? He was voted as such by hon. Members from all parties. It is
a unique achievement to be Opposition politician of the year and First
Minister at the same time. I am sure that the Committee will want to
congratulate him.
The right hon. Gentleman again
speaks with great passion and force about the value of the part-time
reserve officers, their commitment, the role that they have played and
the sacrifices that they have made—
not least those who have given their lives. It is not that Ministers do
not care about them: we deeply care about what they have
done.
As I have
explained to the Committee, the stakeholder pension is now available
for part-time reserve officers. Others will benefit from other
pensions. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on an important
point. Because the payment received by some of these officers, who may
not have worked that many hours in each week, might have been small, it
might have cost them more to belong to an occupational scheme, because
of the contributions that they would have to make, than they would have
got out of it. We have gone into this in great detail. The fact that we
are not prepared to accede to the questions and pressure that we are
being put under is the result not of Ministers not caring, but of the
practical problems are difficult, if not impossible, to
resolve.
Prison
Costs
3.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP):
What his most
recent estimate is of the cost of keeping a prisoner in Northern
Ireland.
[151713]
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
The overall cost per prisoner place in Northern Ireland in 2006-07 was
£90,298. The target for 2007-08 is £82,500, and
appropriate steps are being taken to achieve that, including the
implementation of a three-year pay and efficiency
package.
Sammy
Wilson:
I thank the Minister for that answer. The
Committee will be aware of the huge discrepancy between the cost of
keeping prisoners in Northern Ireland and the cost in other parts of
the UK. A recent Human Rights Commission report recommended that money
should be spent on providing a new, stand-alone prison for women in
Northern Ireland, with separate training, health and education
facilities and the capacity to separate long-term, short-term and
remand prisoners—all for 47 prisoners. Will the Minister assure
us that undue weight will not be given to the report to the detriment
of the essential investment needed in the main prison estate, where 50
per cent. of prisoners are sharing
cells?
Paul
Goggins:
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close
interest in prisons. Just yesterday, I visited Hydebank Wood and saw
for myself the improved facilities in Ash house, which now has in-cell
sanitation for all the women there and which seemed to have a good and
constructive atmosphere. Hon. Members will welcome that.
We need to consider developing
an overarching policy for the accommodation of women prisoners, because
we can work in better and more constructive ways with the smallish
number of women in the prison system. I am deeply conscious of my
responsibilities to the whole prison population and the prison officers
and staff who look after them, all of whom deserve and need decent
accommodation. I take that responsibility seriously, as I do the need
for efficiencies, so that we can drive down the cost per prisoner
place,
because £90,000 per prisoner place, which is the figure for last
year, is unaffordable in the long-term. We have to find those
efficiencies.
Mr.
Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): The Minister
will be aware that a review of the prison estate is under way. If he
knew about a prison such as Magilligan, where staff morale is high,
there is evident support for an on-site rebuild and there could be
significant cost savings if staff did not have to avail themselves of
transport expenses from the Prison Service for a relocation, would he
take those significant factors into account when considering the
review?
Paul
Goggins:
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a strong
advocate of there continuing to be a prison at Magilligan, for the
reasons that he has outlined. From my visits to that prison, I am well
aware of the professionalism and dedication of the staff there. I am
also aware that the accommodation there is far below what is acceptable
for the prisoners or the staff, and I am determined to do something
about that. He will know that I have asked officials to prepare a range
of options for me to consider about how we replace the current,
unacceptable accommodation at Magilligan. One such option will be to
replace the accommodation at the current site, but there will be
others. I promise to keep the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members
informed about my thinking as it develops. I hope to see all those
options after the summer recess, and I hope to make a decision before
the end of the year.
Sentencing Policy
4.
David
Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP):
What recent
discussions he has had with the judiciary on sentences handed down by
the courts in Northern Ireland for serious crime.
[151714]
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
No such discussions have taken place, Mr. Ainsworth.
Sentencing in individual cases is entirely a matter for the independent
judiciary. Cases are dealt with on their individual merits, with
sentences
based on the specific events and circumstances and on the aggravating
and mitigating factors that come into
play.
David
Simpson:
A recent series of written parliamentary answers
to questions that I tabled revealed that the average sentence handed
down in Northern Ireland courts in the past year for rape was 105
months, the average sentence for attempted rape was 87 months, and only
19 per cent. of cases brought before the courts resulted in a
conviction. Does the Minister really think that those figures are
acceptable, and what kind of message do they send to women who have
been subject to such
attacks?
Paul
Goggins:
First, Mr. Atkinson, I apologise for
having called you Mr. Ainsworth. I hope that the
Hansard
writer will bear that in
mind.
It is evident
from the debates that the hon. Member for Upper Bann has initiated and
from the parliamentary questions that he has asked, not least in the
past few days and weeks, that he wishes to see justice done for the
victims of serious sexual crime and rape, as do I. I pay tribute to the
passion with which he has followed that issue, and I feel sure that he
will continue to do so.
The maximum penalty for the
crime of rape is a life sentence. That penalty is available to the
courts, but it is for the courts to determine what is appropriate in
particular circumstances. I intend to introduce very specific proposals
to change the legislation in Northern Ireland. At the other side of the
summer, I shall publish draft legislation that will end automatic 50
per cent. remission and introduce extended and indeterminate sentences
for public protection, so that those who are violent and dangerous and
who commit such dreadful crimes can be sent to prison for
longer.
The
Chairman:
There are no more questions, so we move on to
the main debate. I remind the Committee that the debate may continue
for up to two and a half hours. I have no power to impose time limits
on any speeches, but I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that a
number of hon. Members will want to take part in the debate and to
tailor their contributions
suitably.
Policing
Reform
4.47
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
I beg to move,
That
the Committee has considered the matter of policing reform in Northern
Ireland (progress to
date).
The
Committee will be well aware of the very significant changes in
policing that have taken place in Northern Ireland during recent years.
Given the recent publication of the final report of the policing
oversight commissioner, this is perhaps a particularly appropriate
moment at which to take stock and to consider the subject of policing
reform. Now is also the right time to think about the challenges that
policing will face in the future, and about what further changes might
be necessary.
It
might help if I begin by briefly summarising the key elements of
policing reform, which began in September 1999 with the Patten report
and its 175 recommendations. The best guide to the progress that has
been made so far is the oversight commissioner’s final report,
which was published in May this year. It marks progress against the 13
broad categories that Lord Patten identified, a few of which I would
like to examine in a little more
detail.
As noted by
Al Hutchinson in his report, considerable efforts have been made during
the past few years to make the protection of human rights a key
priority in policing. That has been a basic principle of the reform
programme. As the Patten report
said:
“Policing
means protecting human
rights.”
The core
purpose of the police is to serve the public and protect the rights of
citizens. Patten recommended a number of improvements in that area, and
progress in delivering them has been very positive. A human rights plan
and a subsequent programme of action have been published—most
recently in December 2006, the police oath has been institutionalised,
and a code of ethics is in operation. Similarly, human rights training
is now a standard part of the training curriculum. The Policing Board,
in its monitoring role, has appointed two eminent human rights advisers
and produces an annual report on this area of
work.
Another
area in which there has been significant progress is in policing with
the community, which is now a core function of the police service. The
leadership of the police service—in particular the district
command units—have embraced the opportunity to build closer ties
with the local community. Despite the obvious difficulties that are
created by security alerts, public order incidents, and other pressures
on resources, the oversight commissioner was able to praise what he
described as the “solid progress” that has been made in
this field since
1999.
The reality of
policing in the community is that often the simple things are the most
effective—for example, ensuring that more police officers are
out on the beat on foot patrol, making use of the high-visibility
jackets that they now have to emphasise their presence. As Members will
know from experience in their constituencies, communities everywhere
want more visible policing. In Northern Ireland, an emphasis on
community policing underlines and reinforces the fact that policing now
has the support of the entire community.
The oversight commissioner has
also noted the progress made toward greater police accountability, with
all but three of the 36 recommendations on that having been fully
implemented. Perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the reality
of a police service accountable to the public is being achieved in
Northern Ireland through the Policing Board and the development of
district policing partnerships. I look forward to adding to that sense
of strong local accountability when the time comes to hand over my
responsibilities for policing to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Other
areas of policing in which particular progress has been noted include
public order policing, where all nine of the Patten recommendations
have been met; management and personnel, where only two of 18 remain
outstanding; and culture, ethos and symbols, where all recommendations
have been met.
As I
mentioned, the accountability architecture supporting policing in
Northern Ireland has been strengthened considerably since 1999. The
establishment of a Policing Board in November 2001 followed one of the
Patten report’s key recommendations. The board has recently been
reconstituted and now includes representatives from Sinn Fein. Every
major political party now fields members, and the first two public
meetings of the newly reconstituted board have left little doubt that
it will vigorously discharge its duty to hold the Chief Constable and
the police service publicly to account. Meanwhile, district policing
partnerships, established in 2003, are also being reconstituted in
accordance with legislation passed in the House only a few days ago.
After reconstitution, which will be completed in the coming months,
DPPs will also be fully representative of the Northern Ireland
community.
Another
important element of the accountability structure is the police
ombudsman, whose remit is to investigate complaints and examine police
service practices and policies. That important role has been undertaken
with great spirit and determination for the past seven years by Nuala
O’Loan. In November, when her term of office ends, the work will
be continued by her recently appointed successor, Al Hutchinson. To
date, the ombudsman has carried out investigations into just over
19,000 complaints, many of which have helped to reinforce the fact that
modern policing in Northern Ireland is managed, led and carried out to
the highest
standards.
It might
be helpful in the context of our debate if I take the opportunity to
correct a story that recently appeared in the media. Hon. Members might
have seen an article in The Guardian last Friday implying that
the Government had invited the police ombudsman to reopen the inquiry
led by John Stalker into whether the Northern Ireland police had
operated a shoot-to-kill policy. That is not the case. The PSNI
historical inquiries team is re-examining all murders between 1968 and
1998. Where any information suggests that a police officer was involved
in any way, cases are referred to the police ombudsman. All the cases
considered by Stalker are therefore open to consideration. How the
ombudsman will take that work forward is a matter for
her.
I should say a
more general word about the past. The historical inquiries team and the
public inquiries were set up for clear and particular reasons, but we
must ask whether such continued reinvestigation of the past,
case by case and without fuller recognition of the wider context, can
achieve reconciliation in the long term. We must consider a fresh
approach to the past that does more to promote genuine healing for
victims and society as a whole. Government alone cannot answer that
question; it is for all the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we
have established a consultative group, chaired by Lord Eames and Denis
Bradley, to consult widely, to take account of all the work already
being done, and to make
recommendations.
It
is a tribute to the work not only of the police ombudsman, but of the
Policing Board, the DPPs and police officers, that the latest available
figures for the Northern Ireland crime survey show that 79 per cent. of
people believe that the police provide an effective day-to-day
service.
Rev.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): There was a report of
Council of Europe pressure for the reopening of the case. Does the
Minister know anything about
that?
Paul
Goggins:
I saw that report in the media, and I
take it that it refers to the Government’s
article 2 obligations to ensure that proper investigations are carried
out when deaths occur. We discharge those responsibilities concerning
unresolved deaths during the troubles through the historical inquiries
team and its work. I took it to be a reference to the European
convention on human rights and article 2 considerations. That was my
understanding.
On
public confidence, 79 per cent. of people believe that the police
provide an effective day-to-day service while 61 per cent. believe that
they do a good job overall. Overall confidence in the police and
policing arrangements has risen from 73 per cent. in 2003-04 to 75 per
cent. in March this year. There has been steady and sustained
improvement.
I should
also like to draw the Committee’s attention to the police
service’s continued and impressive work on assets recovery,
which is a vital tool in the fight against crime, because every penny
taken from a criminal’s pocket is proof that crime does not pay.
It is therefore right that asset recovery is being fully integrated
into law enforcement activity at both local and national level. Just
last week, the Chief Constable announced 60 new financial investigators
for Northern Ireland. That sends a clear signal to all those involved
in criminality that if they persist, they will be caught and brought to
justice, and will have their flash cars, fancy villas and lavish
lifestyle taken away from them. The cash and assets that are removed
from criminals will be ploughed back into front-line policing and other
initiatives to benefit the wider community.
The Assets Recovery Agency is
building on its good work in Northern Ireland. In the first quarter of
the current financial year, it took almost £900,000 out of
the hands of criminals—double the entire
amount recovered last year—and it is well on the way to meeting
its target for the current year. I believe that the planned merger of
the Assets Recovery Agency with the Serious Organised Crime Agency will
only help to strengthen the fight against organised crime in Northern
Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
I freely admit to the Committee
that initially some concerns were voiced about the merger. I believe
that that was due to the high esteem in which the Assets Recovery
Agency is held in Northern Ireland because of its work. I have sought
and received assurances from the Home Secretary that the fight against
organised crime will not in any way be diminished or compromised by the
merger. On the contrary, the merger will combine the expertise and
experience of both agencies to take the fight to organised criminals. I
am happy to reaffirm the Home Secretary’s assurance that we will
maintain at least the current level of resources provided for assets
recovery in Northern
Ireland.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): My hon. Friend paints a most
attractive picture, but some of us were slightly disturbed at the
bringing together of the two agencies, particularly in the area of
cross-border co-operation. Is my hon. Friend absolutely convinced that
the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland will continue to have the same
very positive, very good, very productive and very close relationship
with the merged Assets Recovery Agency and SOCA that these bodies have
enjoyed in the past? Overall, the news is good, and even Lupin the
werewolf would tread in fear with the high level of policing, but I am
concerned about the cross-border
element.
Paul
Goggins:
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned because,
as he knows from his experience of and long commitment to the work of
the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the land border
between north and south is used by organised criminal gangs to make
profits from crime. It is important that the Guarda Siochana and the
PSNI work closely together, and that the ARA and SOCA work closely with
the CAB. I assure him that that will remain the case. In fact, even in
the recent past—at my instigation and in discussion with
colleagues in the Home Office—we have further strengthened the
law so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be able to
pass information from its records to the CAB in Dublin to ensure that
civil powers can be used to take back assets from individuals who are
known to the CAB and who have action taken against them by the CAB. We
are constantly looking for ways in which to toughen up the law and to
ensure that we strengthen that co-operation and
partnership.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Many people welcome the
amalgamation of the ARA and SOCA, especially since a lot of republican
money laundering now crosses over into England, Scotland and Wales. Not
only should the resources be kept within Northern Ireland, but the
policy should not change. In other words, there should not be a policy
now of going after the Mr. Bigs while ignoring many of the
middle and lower-ranking money launderers and racketeers. Will the
Minister assure us that attention will still be paid to people who are
involved in criminal activity at that level, whose assets should be
taken from them?
Paul
Goggins:
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman, who also
follows these issues very closely, the assurances that he seeks. In
Northern Ireland, we will still set our local priorities and the
thresholds that apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom will not
automatically apply in Northern Ireland. We are interested in the
Mr. Smalls, who can none the less bring about a lot of
instability, hardship and damage within communities, as well as the
Mr. Bigs. We are going after anyone who will bring harm to
our society. I hope that it reassures the hon. Gentleman to know that
local priorities will be set in Northern Ireland and will be
pursued.
It is clear in a host of ways
that the institutions associated with policing now deliver a police
force that is as accountable as it is modern, policing all parts of the
community without fear or favour. Over the years, policing reform has
occasionally been mistakenly characterised as in some way a
“corrective” programme that applies to the police and
only to the police, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Although the police have undergone substantial and often very public
change, it must be seen in the context of the colossal changes that
have taken place across Northern Ireland as a whole. Those changes have
seen a society mired in conflict transformed into one governed by law
and order. The PSNI has changed not for appearance’s sake or for
the sake of change, but to reflect the more normal conditions that now
prevail.
Mr.
Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): The Minister
has just referred to “normal conditions”. Does he accept
that in normal circumstances people of every religion would expect
their application to join the police to be considered purely on merit
and not with undue influence and reference given to the religious
persuasion of one section of the community, as is the case in Northern
Ireland?
Paul
Goggins:
I understand the concerns that
the hon. Gentleman voices and I know that they are shared by many in
his party and beyond. However, one of the most profound discoveries
made by Patten and his fellow commissioners was that only 8 per cent.
of the police service in Northern Ireland was from the Catholic
community. He saw that one of the most important things that needed to
be done was to transform that and to make the police more
representative. That is why we initiated what I acknowledge are an
unusual set of arrangements—the 50:50 arrangements, as they are
called—to increase rapidly Catholic representation. Although it
stood at 8 per cent. at the end of the 1990s, Catholic representation
is now at 21 per cent. and we believe that it will be 30 per cent. in
the year 2010-11. I acknowledge that the price of that for some
individuals is that, although they finished higher in the merit order
than others who were appointed, they were not appointed. I acknowledge
that and I have acknowledged it many times in debates, but the overall
aim and ambition to make the police service more representative of the
community that it serves is crucial to the confidence of the community
in the police service and to its effectiveness. I believe, therefore,
that the measure is necessary. I emphasise that it is a temporary
measure and that we hope not have to renew the powers again. Once we
have got to 30 per cent., we will have a representative police service
and then the normal recruitment provisions will
apply.
Rev.
Ian Paisley:
The position with the 50:50 scheme is that it
is not 50 per cent. for Protestants; it is 50 per cent. for Protestants
and others—all others. Would it
not be a good step to take it to 50 per cent. for Protestants, rather
than what is currently being done? A person from another religion
altogether is linked into that 50 per cent. and added to
it.
Paul
Goggins:
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s point
of view on this issue, but I think that it is very important that the
50 per cent. Catholic representation is the figure on which we should
focus. If we sustain our current strategy, we will get to the 30 per
cent. representation by 2010-11 and then we can disapply the special
arrangements and allow the recruitment process to proceed absolutely
unhindered by any special arrangements. We have made our calculations
and we are confident that on the current trend we will get to
30 per cent. by 2010-11. That will give us a police service
that is both fully representative and has the confidence of the wider
community, and will add enormously to the sense of safety and security
in Northern Ireland as a
whole.
The ultimate
test of policing reform is, of course, whether the changes made help to
cut crime. Again, the evidence is encouraging. Last
year—2006-07—Northern Ireland’s recorded crime
level fell by 1.7 per cent., which means that there were more than
2,000 fewer crimes than in the year before. There has been a fall of 15
per cent., equating to more than 21,000 fewer crimes, since 2002-03.
More than half the decrease in recorded crime since 2002-03 can be
attributed to reductions in domestic burglary and vehicle-related
theft, which were identified as priorities by the Policing Board. In
those areas, the targets set were surpassed by 10 and 43 percentage
points respectively. Those figures show that the PSNI has become more
effective and efficient in tackling the type of problems that plague
every community.
The
PSNI is committed to doing even more. As the Chief Constable noted in
his latest annual report, its aim
remains
“to achieve
reductions in the number of burglaries, thefts, fraud, vehicle crime
and robbery throughout all
areas.”
Chris
Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): I am very pleased about those
neighbourhood policing figures for Northern Ireland. In fact, I have
before me the figures for Wales, so I can let hon. Members know that
performance in Northern Ireland is as good as that virtually anywhere
in the whole of Wales. In my own county of Denbighshire, there has been
a drop in crime of 34 per cent. The second best has been a drop of 24
per cent. Therefore, the Northern Ireland average is as good as what is
happening anywhere in
Wales.
Paul
Goggins:
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
That comparison shows Northern Ireland in an extremely positive light,
but what is achieved does not happen by accident. It happens because
the Chief Constable makes it a priority, because the Policing Board
holds him to account and because people work together to that good
effect. I am sure that the whole Committee is deeply grateful to my
hon. Friend for his
observations.
Despite
the enormous progress that has been made, it would not be right to
claim that policing reform has been a success without difficulty or
blemish. The
oversight commissioner noted a number of areas that, in his view, still
require further action, including the renovation of police premises,
some of which remain in a dilapidated condition and retain, both inside
and outside, a forbidding appearance to members of the public; nor has
the programme of civilianisation been fully implemented. The Policing
Board, my Department and the PSNI are working together to ensure that
more substantial progress is made. Other matters, such as the need for
stronger links between the police and the world of education, need to
be followed through with further action. Schools and universities alike
fully appreciate
that.
Amid all the
debate about policing, one thing is certain: none of the changes to
which I have referred would have been possible if it were not for the
willingness of the officers on the street to adapt to a new era of
policing. They have taken on that task with a great deal of skill and
commitment, which has been clearly demonstrated at three recent events.
The first event was the “Policing the Future” conference,
which was held in February. An international audience came to Belfast
to take part in the conference, which highlighted the progress that has
been made on policing in Northern Ireland. Chief officers of police
from north America and other parts of the world paid tribute to the
progress that has been made.
The second event was the
policing with the community awards, which was recently held in Belfast
city hall, where rewards were given to the officers who have made a
real commitment to the communities that they serve. It was evident to
me and all others who were present at that event that the officers
concerned take a real pride in the work that they
do.
Finally,
Queen’s university recently hosted an event to recognise
publicly the work of Lord Patten and to allow him to give his final
assessment of the work that has been done since the publication of his
report. In his speech, he reminded the audience of the
commission’s determination to offer a totally fresh approach to
policing and of the difficulty of balancing continuity and change,
which he thinks is key to directing the commission’s work. Each
of those events underlined the positive changes to policing that have
taken place since the Good Friday agreement.
The reform of policing in
Northern Ireland has been inextricably linked to the political
settlement that resulted in devolution on 8 May. Sinn Fein’s
commitment to policing and the rule of law enabled power sharing to
take place and also means that no part of Northern Ireland should now
be closed off from policing. Indeed, quite reverse to being closed off,
there has recently been engagement between the police and local
communities in west Belfast and south Armagh. As the settlement
matures, so too should our optimism about the prospect for the
devolution of policing and justice. The pressure and challenges will,
of course, not disappear. The need to ensure that we get value for
money from policing is vital and the threats posed by dissidents and
international terrorists still need to be faced and dealt with. As has
been pointed out, tackling organised crime must remain a priority.
Dealing with antisocial behaviour, hate crime, sex crime and domestic
violence must also be a priority.
The PSNI has the scope and the
skill to deal with the threat from outside and the pressures within
local communities. Some costs should be reduced as a result of policing
a more normal and settled society, including, for example, the costs of
policing the past and the expense involved in policing parades. New
challenges and approaches will emerge, including the introduction of
police community support officers. My strong belief is that the
accountability and oversight arrangements that are now in place,
together with the leadership, expertise and commitment in the police
service, will mean that the PSNI is capable of sustaining public
confidence across Northern Ireland and of dealing with crime as
effectively as any force anywhere in the
world.
5.13
pm
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): Thank you,
Mr. Atkinson, and may I welcome you to the Committee? I
apologise for being late and for the fact that I will have to leave
early. Everybody will be aware of the circumstances in Tewksbury. I
have to leave in a few minutes to meet the Secretary of State for the
Environment so I will not detain the Committee. I thank the Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland for personally telephoning me to express
his sympathies. Indeed, the Minister of State has also been very
helpful today. The situation in Tewksbury has, I am afraid, become
tragic as there has been loss of life and I am sure that the Committee
sends its sympathies to my constituents. I also apologise for the
absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire
(Mr. Paterson), who is the shadow Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland. There was a breakdown in the normal channels and he
was unfortunately not put on the Committee in time, but he sends his
apologies.
The
Minister raised a number of issues in relation to historical inquiries.
We are concerned about striking the right balance on that issue, as he
said himself. We also share concerns about the devolution of policing
and justice and the continuing policy of 50:50 recruitment, which I
know that members of the Democratic Unionist party are also concerned
about. I am also concerned, having analysed the figures, about the
decline in the numbers of police and reservists. Also, there are some
areas, particularly south Armagh—the Minister touched upon this
at the end of his speech—where I am not convinced that policing
is absolutely normal yet, and that is a continuing concern to
me.
I know that the
Committee will not consider it a discourtesy if do not speak for any
longer. I wanted to give my apologies and thanks, but, seeing as I have
to leave, I shall not detain the Committee
further.
5.15
pm
Mark
Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): It is a pleasure to be in the
Committee today under your chairmanship, Mr.
Atkinson.
The
Minister rightly reflected on the many positive developments in
policing, on the delivery of the Patten reforms and on the wider
political context as the peace process has stumbled into further
progress. We have now seen the restoration of the institutions of the
Good Friday agreement. It must be remembered that,
over the past years, when the main political institutions of the
agreement were suspended, we had a situation that no one would have
predicted. The one institution that had spun out of the Good Friday
agreement that was in place and working, confounding all expectations
by doing so, was the Policing Board and the policing arrangements. As
we reflect on the progress that has been achieved, it is important that
we reflect on both the role of the board to date and its important role
in the future.
When
appointments were made to the Policing Board in late 2001, my party
took the decision to join it and fully commit to our part in delivering
the new policing arrangements. At the time we faced demands from others
that we should not do so. In particular, Sinn Fein insisted that,
because we did not have the total implementation of Patten report, we
should not join the Policing Board. That seemed to us about as logical
as saying that the institutions of the Good Friday agreement should not
be operated until we had full implementation of the Good Friday
agreement. According to our reading of the Patten report, the Policing
Board would have a key role in helping to deliver, oversee and drive
the implementation of the report. For that reason, we went on the
board.
It was not
just three political parties that took their places on the Policing
Board. So too did a range of independent members. The hybrid nature of
the board needs to be remembered. The key aspect of Patten was
providing not just for inclusion at a political level, modelled on the
formula for the inclusive political Executive, but for non-political
inclusion as well. The presence, contribution, personal professionalism
and professional experience of many independent members of the Policing
Board has been a key element in its
success.
The board
faced challenges in its early days. People did not believe that it
would be able to agree readily on such things as uniforms, badges and
all the rest of it, but it did. It also faced difficult issues arising
from the report by the police ombudsman into the Omagh investigation
and the reactions to it. While there were all sorts of emotions and
pressures and many different opinions on the board, it was to the
board’s credit that it produced a 19-point response that served
not just to secure the further delivery of Patten but to deliver
Patten-plus on some of the issues about special branch and the role of
intelligence policing and how it relates to other aspect of
policing.
Of
course, the Policing Board also delivered very good
appointments. I have always said that Hugh Orde as Chief Constable was
a good appointment by a good Policing Board—people should
remember that—as have been those of all the other senior
officers appointed by the board. Most of them have a long record of
policing service in Northern Ireland in the Royal Ulster Constabulary
and were able to come forward and be part of the new policing
dispensation and deliver in the professional and vocational way that
has always motivated them. In that sense, we need to reflect on
policing reform as, in many ways, helping to emancipate the
professionalism and vocational effort of so many people involved in
policing in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, because of our history,
divisions and difficulties, many people did not see or appreciate the
professional integrity of many people involved in policing.
One of the benefits of policing
reform and of creating the new beginning to policing is that it allows
those who have been involved in policing to both perform and be
perceived in the best, proper professional light, without suffering all
the hang-ups and hangovers that have been projected on to policing
because of our difficult
history.
Of course,
reform was needed, and for many years my party was struggling with the
difficulty that we faced. There were parties on one side of us that
said that change was not needed, and a party on the other side of us
that said change was not happening. The fact is that change was needed
and was happening, and I think that we all now see the benefits of
that.
The Minister
rightly took us through some of the main observations of the oversight
commissioner’s final report. Of course, the Office of the
Oversight Commissioner has played a very important role in being able
to monitor, proof and, indeed, prove the delivery of change. It needed
to be proofed so that people could believe all the claims that were
being made, and proved because people were claiming that change was not
happening and were trying to deny that change was being delivered. It
was for that reason that my party lobbied not only to ensure that the
Office of the Oversight Commissioner was properly created as
recommended by Patten, but that its period was extended so that it
could continue to play that positive role.
I shall not rehearse all the
areas that the Minister has gone over with regard to marking the
progress against the 13 broad categories defined by Patten. However,
the fact is that we are seeing, only halfway through the 10-year period
of the Patten reform plan, total delivery in some of those categories
and a high rate of delivery in others. In overall terms, we are heading
for 90 per cent. delivery or substantial delivery of Patten’s
175 broad recommendations. That is progress that we should all welcome
and can all benefit from.
With regard to management and
personnel, I think that we have seen a particularly important
contribution made by the Policing Board. Obviously, there are serious
issues and challenges still under way, and, of course, there will be
budgetary issues in all that as well. I do not think that we can really
have a debate on marking policing reform to date and further progress
without some consideration of the resource requirements, because fully
delivering Patten and seizing the benefits of the new peaceful
environment and the opportunities of normality will require proper
investment in recovering and improving the police estate and in new
information technology and, of course, a redistribution or reprofiling
of resources in personnel.
The Minister rightly
emphasised the importance of the civilianisation effort to ensure that
more police officers are available on the ground and on the beat in
community-facing and criminal-confronting activity. That is what we
want to see, but if that is to be delivered, the issue of resources is
highly relevant. In the context of the comprehensive spending review, I
understand that the Policing Board has concerns about the adequacy of
the allocation that will be available, and that it will mean that there
would have to be some curbs on the planned roll-out in relation to the
police estate, information technology and, indeed, personnel.
I urge the Minister to be much more assiduous in that area, too, because
although we can celebrate success, we cannot say that the job is done.
Patten has been broadly delivered, but the real fulfilment of the
Patten vision means continuing to recruit and invest more, and to
reinvest when assets are released through normalisation and fewer sites
are needed.
The Minister mentioned the
people delivering policing change, and I have already paid tribute to
the Chief Constable and to senior officers. That tribute applies not
only to the broad leadership at the central level in the Police Service
of Northern Ireland, but to the district command level. Officers have
managed change professionally, and they have engaged with community
interests, with other key public services and positively and
proactively with people in the third sector. That has been marked in
several crime areas by innovative developments that have improved both
the quality of the policing service and the engagement between the
police and other service providers.
The issue is
about changing or improving the performance not only of the police, but
of those other service providers, so that they can better understand
what the police can do, what they need, and the way in which, together,
they can best serve those members of the public who are in need of
lawful support and assistance. That is particularly important in
matters such as hate crime, violence against women and domestic
violence. The contribution of many people at the district command level
needs to be recognised as well as that of those in the central
leadership of the
PSNI.
The Minister
referred to policing the past and policing the future. We must
recognise that the way in which the past is dealt with is a fundamental
and important issue with many sensitivities. It is serious. Elsewhere,
I have cited the Russian proverb that to dwell on the past is to lose
one eye, to forget the past is to lose both eyes. We must bear that in
mind. People cite the high cost of a certain public inquiry, saying
that the cost applies to everything to do with the past or to all
public inquiries, but it does not, it should not and it need
not.
We must
recognise also that the nature of our past, and the issues that
confront many people, which they still carry through no choice of their
own, cannot be neatly buried or locked away. We cannot simply take a
political decision to bury the past, because some issues are so
radioactive that we cannot contain them in that way. If we bury them,
we do not know where their roots will run, so we need a considered and
proper way of dealing with issues from the past. Because those issues
must be dealt with, the right and proper decision was taken to create a
dedicated facility to address them. That is why the historical
inquiries team was set up, and why a budget was promised to it. We must
remember that, for six years, about £34 million was allocated to
it. However, some people give the impression that the money spent on
the team is at the absolute expense of every aspect of day-to-day
policing. If we consider the money in the context of an overall
policing budget, it simply is not.
Sammy
Wilson:
Although the hon. Gentleman is correct that
£34 million has been allocated to the historical inquiries team,
does he recognise also that to service it
and to provide the information that it seeks from the police, the Chief
Constable said that up to 60 per cent. of the resources of the
PSNI’s serious crime squad could be taken up dealing with and
digging into files? That is the big problem with the way in which
historical inquiries are dealt with; they take up resources that should
be used to deal with current
crime.
Mark
Durkan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for
his point. The consequential demands on the police service raise
questions about how it should manage those demands and, indeed, about
how far, in fact, it does manage them and how much falls to the
historical inquiries team. I am not sure whether the team’s work
leads to the degree, or possible degree, of demand that the hon.
Gentleman says the Chief Constable is talking about. Although the
latter has stated particular concerns resulting from public inquiries
and recommendations, I am not sure that the figure cited by the hon.
Gentleman concerns the historical inquiries team alone. Indeed, I have
heard different figures cited: 70 per cent. 40 per cent. and 60 per
cent., so we will probably need an idea of what is
required.
If
police officers need to be that careful and assiduous in dealing with
such issues, it actually shows that those issues must be serious and
sensitive. The answer is not to forget the past, but to deal with it
realistically; and neither must we raise false expectations of what can
be achieved. However, an effort needs to be made. We cannot take a
shortcut approach to the past; we cannot say, “For our
convenience and expedience, no longer will we pursue issues of the
past”, because they will turn to confront future generations.
They cannot be controlled or turned off; the past will confront us in
inadvertent and unplanned ways. If our generation makes a choice based
on convenience and expediency, people in the future will not think that
we made a decent or proper choice. We have ways of going
forward.
The success
of implementing policing change and policing reform has shown that how
we deal with the past need not be at the expense of policing the
present. We should have much more confidence about how we will police
the future; indeed, we have experience of dealing with awkward issues
from the past. The past has not bedevilled us and dragged us down in
the way that others have suggested. We should not have an aversion, as
some people have, to dealing with the past in a positive and proper
way.
On making
progress on such issues, obviously the historical inquiries team is in
place and working, and I think that it would be a travesty if families
that have met and dealt with it were to be told suddenly that, for
budgetary reasons, or for other considerations about which many people
will be very suspicious, we are no longer mandating such work and
efforts. Those efforts must continue.
Similarly, the work of the
police ombudsman on past issues has been positive and helped to mark
and seal the difference between policing in the past and policing in
the present. It has been positive in highlighting the need for
standards. So far, her work has been fair in appreciating the pressures
and circumstances under which people were operating and in reflecting
properly the due expectations of families and victims. We must consider
also the ombudsman’s work on current activity, in which the
public have a high level of public
confidence. There is a high rate of confidence among police officers who
have engaged with the ombudsman as
well.
Sammy
Wilson:
The hon. Gentleman is touching on a sensitive
point. The big difficulty seen in Northern Ireland is that although the
historical inquiries team has dealt with historical inquiries at a low
level—they have sometimes simply opened files to people or taken
them to the crime spot where their loved one was killed, and they have
not pulled in players from the past because to do so would be
politically too sensitive—the Police Ombudsman for Northern
Ireland has pursued the cases referred to her with vigour. Policemen
have been pulled in during dawn raids and they have been held,
sometimes without medication being given, and a high profile has been
given to those arrests because the media have been informed.
One of the difficulties in the
approach to historical inquiries is that, for victims of IRA and
loyalist terrorists, there has been little redress, whereas there has
been a vigorous pursuit of policemen who have been named or who are
alleged to have been involved in misdemeanours in the past. Does the
hon. Gentleman accept that that is what has caused great anger in
Northern Ireland, especially among ex-police
officers?
Mark
Durkan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for
that point. He has somewhat melodramatically misrepresented the conduct
of the police ombudsman and her office in a number of these cases. If
he is saying that the way in which the police ombudsman has pursued
issues of the past should equally apply to other aspects of the past, I
would agree with him. The police ombudsman’s serious pursuit of
these issues sets a proper standard, and I do not believe that ulterior
considerations should be used to close off legitimate inquiries in
respect of people who are victims of unresolved crimes at the hands of
various paramilitaries. The names to which such trails might lead are
not reasons why we should not properly pursue those issues of the
past.
I firmly
believe that all victims have the right to truth. That right applies
not only to victims of the state or people who can say that they are
victims of complicity on the part of the state, but to all victims. One
of the issues that concerns some of us about superficial compromises in
relation to the past is that an awful lot of rewriting of history is
going on in Northern Ireland. Some people would now have us believe
that the troubles were just an inevitable, unnecessary prerequisite of
a peace process and that we could not have what we have now were it not
for the vicious violence and the horrible suffering that people went
through. That is not the case.
Some people are also saying
that we all have blood on our hands. That is a terrible insult not only
to many of us who absolutely made the choice that we would never
support violence and would never compromise from the proper standards
of the rule of law in any terms, but to many victims who have suffered.
There is a suggestion that we are all really victims, that we all made
each other victims and that we all carry the guilt in that sort of
way.
That is why so
many victims in Northern Ireland are suffocating with
frustration—they see history being
rewritten in those terms. They think that the truth in respect of some
victims will be told long into the future, with films being made and
books written, but the truth of their loved ones—how they became
victims, and what they sacrificed and how they served—will be
airbrushed and forgotten. I know that this goes much wider than the
policing issue and touches on the work of Lord Eames, Denis Bradley and
others, but that is why we need an approach to the past that is also
about how we lift that burden of remembrance off the shoulders of so
many of the victims. That is so important.
There are other issues to be
considered—for example the Assets Recovery Agency. The Minister
touched on that, but I do not have time to dwell on it now. I would be
in broad sympathy with even what the Members opposite would say. The
Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland has performed remarkably
well and the SDLP is concerned about the proposals just to merge it
into SOCA. We are concerned that its distinctive bite and profile, and
its strong regional accent in going after the local Mr. Bigs
that might not figure on SOCA’s priority screen, might be lost.
I know that the Minister and others have been trying to respond to
those concerns and to reflect them. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Ealing, North indicated, we also need to ensure that the
strong relationship between the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern
Ireland and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the south is not lost or
compromised in that.
We want to
take this opportunity to reflect on positive delivery of policing
reform. In the context of work with the Policing Board, I pay tribute
to our party members Alex Attwood, my hon. Friend the Member for South
Down and Joe Byrne, who all served on the first Policing Board, for
working well with their Assembly colleagues on the board as well as
with independent members. They, along with the leadership of the
policing service, helped deliver the Patten vision in ways that Chris
Patten himself has spoken so positively about. I do not think that he
believed that only five-plus years into the Patten plan, he would see
the rate of progress that has been delivered.
We must remember that that
progress on policing was delivered even in the absence of parallel
progress on politics. People did not expect that, so it should give us
even greater confidence in the integrity and stability of policing for
the future. As we now reflect on positive political developments, we
can look forward to the consummation of policing and political change
when we achieve the devolution of policing and justice. Doing so will
make the statement that we have delivered policing change and that the
new beginning for policing is an absolute given, and it will confirm
that we have political stability and
agreement.
Mr.
Campbell:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept what some of us
suggested about the devolution of policing and justice—that it
should take place when there is community confidence in it and in the
persons to whom the policing and justice portfolio will be
devolved?
Mark
Durkan:
I believe that there is broad confidence. People
have good reason to be confident about how things are working and could
work, and there is every ground for confidence about the political
institutions. What we have for the first time is not just the delivery
of the Patten vision, power sharing or peace. We have had all those
things for a number of years. The difference now is that they are
accepted by all parties, and they are growing more broadly accepted by
the public.
On the
basis of the confidence in politics and policing, the argument becomes
all the more compelling for those developments to be consummated by the
delivery of devolution of justice and policing so that the
Assembly’s devolved responsibilities are at their full
complement. In the context of that devolution, the hon. Member for East
Londonderry has asked who will take the justice and policing portfolio.
Whoever it falls to, in whatever party, by whatever
arrangement—the Government have produced all sorts of vacuous
models for devolution; they are producing more vacuous models than a
reality TV show—we must ensure that devolution of justice and
policing makes no difference whatever to the Policing Board’s
standing and role under the Patten recommendations.
My concern is not so much who
or of what party the Minister might be as that the Minister’s
role does not change. One thing that history in Northern Ireland tells
us is that policing and justice should not be seen to be the property
of any one party. It should not be seen as an accessory of any partisan
interest. Once it is seen or suspected to be so, we will have serious
problems; front-line police officers in particular will have serious
problems. We must ensure that the Minister’s role, which is
currently more about getting the budget than setting the budget for
policing and providing the necessary criminal justice legislation,
stays defined as such, and that the argument is not used on devolution
that “If we have a Minister in the Assembly, we don’t
need a Policing Board of Assembly Members and all these
independents.” My concern is not so much the party colour of who
might be a Minister, but that devolution would undo the finely tuned
balance that exists as a result of the Patten recommendations. We
absolutely need to protect the integrity and independence of the
Policing
Board.
5.45
pm
Rev.
Ian Paisley:
Dealing with organised crime is a key
policing challenge in Northern Ireland today. The recent announcement
that 60 extra specialist investigators will specifically target
criminals locally is very welcome. It is encouraging to see the sums
that have been recovered from criminals over the past few years being
ploughed back into the fight against crime—all right-thinking
people applaud that.
I welcome many of the
Minister’s remarks. There is no doubt that many of the issues
that are before us, and have to be before us, will kindle controversy.
We need to face that. There is a hard climb before us and there are
hard decisions to be taken. The decades of terrorism in Northern
Ireland have allowed a very efficient and clever criminal industry to
develop. During the early years of the political process, both Labour
and Conservative Governments turned a blind eye, to some degree, to the
illegal activities of paramilitaries who were engaging in such
practices and feathering their
own nests. The discipline structures allowed those men and women to
spawn lucrative criminal empires. Those in influential positions in
paramilitary organisations became multi-millionaires, and they used
their gains to get other illegal gains and to hold both the Government
and people to ransom.
Now that the level of
paramilitary activity has decreased—it has not
ceased—there must be a strong focus on those who are lining
their pockets with the proceeds of previous crime. The Independent
Monitoring Commission recognised organised crime to be a major
continuing legacy of terrorism, with 60 per cent. of all the organised
crime gangs in Northern Ireland, and two thirds of the most serious
gangs involved in international activities, having had strong
paramilitary links. It points out that those paramilitary associations
brought to organised crime a ruthlessness, expertise and infrastructure
that was new to Northern Ireland or any other part of this United
Kingdom. Tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland proves
particularly difficult on account of the sophistication of those
criminals. They are clever men and women who know what they are doing.
There is evidence of highly developed methods of marketing,
distribution and selling. The criminals are flexible and resilient, and
some operations involve vast sums of money and the services of skilled
lawyers and accountants. Violent crimes such as cash-in-transit
robberies have increased, as have so-called tiger kidnappings, which
have a huge psychological impact on victims and their
families.
Chris
Ruane:
What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made
of criminality in the south, especially in the Dublin area? Are there
lessons to be learned from the actions that the Irish Government have
taken against the super-criminals there that could be applied to the
north?
Rev.
Ian Paisley:
That is a strange question for the hon.
Gentleman to ask me. I would not dare go across the border and dictate
to them. I would go and see the Boyne water flowing, but I would not
dare to dictate to them what they should do. There is massive
crime—very serious crime—in Dublin. I visit Dublin
occasionally, and the police look after me. I have conversations with
them at times. I was amazed to know that, in parts of the south of
Ireland, there are areas that are almost—I use this term
deliberately—no-go areas, where people who are aliens are
settling in the south and building areas in which they seem to be in
control. I can say nothing further about that, but it is happening. It
is a serious matter, because if we got rid of all our troubles in
Northern Ireland and the south had an outbreak of trouble, we would be
back to buts again, repeating what has already been repeated many times
in our history.
I
say to the Government—it was the first thing that I said to the
new Secretary of State and I want to say it today and put it on the
record—that I do not think that they should be pushing anyone,
especially the Unionist community, to rush into devolution of the
powers of the police, the courts and the security forces. That would be
a very dangerous thing. We are walking on serious territory and we have
to take great care to continue to strengthen the very brittle bridge
that we have reached at present. I do not think that the
Government should push. They will have to recognise that the law leaves
the onus on the First Minister to propose devolution of powers in the
Stormont Chamber.
I
could not at the moment even think about that, nor could the vast
majority of Unionists and others. I use the word “others”
intentionally, because delegations of people who used to spit at my
very name now come to tell me their troubles. They have told me,
“You know, we don’t want things rushed into. Things are
going quietly. The police are coming in and we can call them and talk
to them. We do not want to be pushed so that we go back and lose all
that we have gained.”
I stress to the Government
that our position is crystal clear. We want to see powers devolved. We
have consistently urged that the transfer of any powers relating to
policing cannot occur until there is the necessary confidence and
support in the whole community. That support is not there at the
moment. It will come only when we continue on the path that we have
been following and rebuild confidence with care, which is a hard and
difficult task. The majority of Unionists and others would not vote
willy-nilly for a complete turnaround on the matter.
I want to repeat what I have
said to Sinn Fein’s face: it must have done with its army
council. We cannot have a political party that is still allied to an
army council. That must cease, and I am determined, as are we all, to
see that it will. I trust that that message will get through. In
politics in Ireland, if you tell a man that he must not do something,
he will do it. If you tell him not to do it, he might then do what you
want. We have to take care, because that is what happens. It might
happen among politicians over here, too—I do not know and I
would not pass
judgment.
We must
face up to the fact that we are in a serious position. We want to keep
the harvest that we reap. We do not want it to be squandered, and the
Government must work with special
care.
I feel sore
about the Patten arrangement because it is not a fair arrangement. I
have mentioned the 50 per cent. issue, and this is irksome on Northern
Ireland’s people. I have been visited by young men who have
passed through the process to join the police, and have a letter saying
that although they have passed the exam and could be accepted, they
cannot be accepted because they are Protestants. When the Minister
replied to a question that I asked in the House, he made clear that a
large number of Protestants had done everything necessary and were
available to join the police, but could not do so because of their
religion.
I do not
accept the nice picture that has been painted by the leader of the
SDLP, because there are serious considerations about Patten that must
be faced with a strength of purpose. I do not want to prevent anyone
from getting a job because of their religion, but all parties must
adhere to the principle that appointments should be made not because of
someone’s religion, but because of their ability. We must come
to that point.
I do
not want to prevent my colleagues from speaking, but I want to mention
one other matter. A recent report by the Chief Constable raises
questions about how troubles-related cases should be progressed. It is
indicated that approximately £14 million will be spent in 2007
and that 288 staff will be dedicated to
investigating murders from the troubles. As a result of the troubles,
there have been more than 2,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland.
The families of those victims deserve justice, and it is important that
the police are enabled fully to investigate those
crimes.
Unfortunately,
there has not been a level playing field for victims. While a few
murders have been investigated through costly inquiries, hundreds of
other murders have not received the same attention. That has created a
hierarchy of victims that is not acceptable in the community. It is
important to have a clear framework for inquiries in Northern Ireland.
They must not become politically motivated exercises costing millions
of pounds. The Londonderry inquiry has already cost £107 million
and has taken us nowhere. I hear people on both sides saying,
“We don’t care what the answer is; we don’t not
accept it.”
I
was a victim of having to go to that inquiry and sit for a day,
although I was not even in the country when the events took place. It
had not one line of anything that I had ever said. I was out of the
country and had said nothing, but I was kept there for a day. A young
barrister told me that that it had been a good day’s work and
that he was going home with a full
wallet.
That it is
not the way to do the job. The matters are serious, and we all have a
responsibility. We must be careful what we say and what we do, but
there is an opportunity at the moment for the people of Northern
Ireland to join together to see this through to an honourable finish
that will bring real peace to a war-torn
community.
5.59
pm
Mr.
David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): In the debate on Northern
Ireland, a word that is used more and more is
“normality”. The situation will soon be as normal in
Northern Ireland as it is in Wales, and we have been hoping that that
will happen.
We
should all welcome what is happening in Northern Ireland, which is
positive, after all the years that we have gone through. However, we
must be realistic. I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for
North Antrim that we need to see real progress on the ground and things
really moving. There is a plethora of organisations in the justice
system in Northern Ireland. We have mentioned before the human rights
bodies over there, and its penal system is different from over here.
The whole nature of the police service is
different.
What we in
the House need is real confidence in what is happening on the ground,
especially if we are to transfer real power from the House to the
people over there so that they can do business with the police and the
justice system on our behalf. I wish to ask the Minister two specific
questions that will help me to see whether we are making the real
progress that we all
want.
In
the past year, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced a report
on the use of community restorative justice programmes. Has there been
any real progress on the ground with those programmes, and their people
and structures, linking in with the police and working with them in the
positive way that we advised and the Government supported? If so, that
is a step in the right
direction. What support are our Government, and, hopefully, the
Government in Northern Ireland, giving to that
work?
This might be a
more difficult question to answer: what is the situation on so-called
exiles being able to come back and live in Northern Ireland without
fear of violence or threat? We want real normality, but if people
cannot come back to their homes and there is a fear of vigilantism,
that is out of order and clearly needs to be addressed. That question
might be about a longer-term issue than my first, but if we want to be
sure that things are normal, we need answers to such
questions.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chairman:
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Argyll
and Bute, I remind the Committee that the debate must end at 7.16 pm,
and perhaps hon. Members would like to hear the Minister’s
winding-up speech. If hon. Members bear that in mind, they will all get
to speak. I call Alan
Reid.
6.2
pm
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr.
Atkinson.
Policing in
Northern Ireland has changed significantly since the signing of the
Belfast agreement in 1998. In his most recent report, the oversight
commissioner, Al Hutchinson, said that the rest of the world could
learn from the changes made through the reforms recommended by the
Patten commission. It is appropriate at this time to pay tribute once
again to the hard work and huge sacrifices of police officers and their
families during the 30 years of the troubles. Without the courage and
dedication of many of those officers, the terrorism in Northern Ireland
and the rest of the United Kingdom would have been far worse than was
experienced.
At that
time, however, the police did not have the support of about half the
community in Northern Ireland. Liberal Democrats therefore very much
supported the Belfast agreement in its call for a police service for
Northern Ireland that would be effective, efficient, fair, impartial,
and free from partisan political control. We wanted a police service in
Northern Ireland that had the support of all sections of the
community.
We are now
a long way down that road. A recent omnibus survey published at the
beginning of July shows that there is increased confidence in the
PSNI’s ability to provide an ordinary day-to-day policing
service for all the people of Northern Ireland. On 31 May, Al
Hutchinson published his last report on the progress of policing
reforms in Northern Ireland. His report lays out clearly the changes
that have been made to policing in Northern Ireland, taking us through
the enormous strides that have been made in implementing the 175
recommendations that the Patten commission
made.
We are
particularly pleased to see that of the Patten report’s seven
recommendations on human rights, six have been completely implemented
and substantial progress has been made on the seventh—human
rights
training within the police. A strong emphasis was rightly placed on
human rights in the Patten report, essentially underpinning the whole
report. The protection of individuals’ human rights is essential
to the well-being of a democratic society. The police themselves must
therefore be seen to follow and uphold the high standards of
international human rights. However, I note that the oversight
commissioner expressed some concern about human rights training;
substantial progress has been made but the work is not yet deemed to be
complete. The commissioner stated
that
“the Police Service
needs to demonstrate that human rights are being delivered as planned
in all training; to increase the knowledge of recruited trainers in
human rights; to systematically observe teaching activity by teams from
inside and outside the police to confirm and ensure that human rights
content is delivered as planned; and to evaluate the impact of human
rights training on subsequent
behaviour.”
Will the
Minister tell the Committee how progress on that will be
monitored?
Huge
strides have been made, too, in ensuring that the police are held
accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. The Policing Board is
now well established in its role of holding the Chief Constable to
account. Earlier this year, we welcomed the decision by Sinn Fein to
support the policing structures in Northern Ireland and to take its
seats on the Policing Board. Of course, we would have preferred to see
Sinn Fein make that decision much sooner than it did and we hope that
it will continue to play a constructive role in furthering community
relations with the police.
The Patten commission
recognised the importance of policing with the community to the
functioning and acceptance of the police service. We were pleased to
see the progress that has been made towards a more community-based
approach to policing in Northern Ireland. It is important that the
police are accessible to the community and are seen to work
constructively with ordinary people to solve local problems. That is a
significant way in which to gain the trust and respect of people, and I
note from the oversight commissioner’s report that work on five
of the eight recommendations for policing with the community has been
completed, with substantial progress having been made on the remaining
three.
I hope that
when police and justice matters are devolved to the Assembly, it will
help to ensure the accountability of the police and the confidence of
the community in the police. The Government hope that policing and
justice matters can be devolved by May next year. I hope that that can
be achieved, too. It is important that the timing be governed by
community confidence. The devolution of policing and criminal justice
powers to the Assembly must be handled with great sensitivity. It goes
straight to the heart of people’s sense of security and, more
than any other aspect of current or potential devolved
responsibilities, the conduct and control of policing is at the heart
of the political disputes and conflicts that have afflicted Northern
Ireland. Although we accept the target of May 2008, we believe that the
timing of the devolution of policing and criminal justice powers should
primarily be determined by the conditions within society. Will the
Minister tell the Committee what discussions have taken place between
the political
parties and the Government on that? What work will be done between now
and next May to ensure that the conditions are right for
devolution?
One of
the most fundamental tests will be whether the Assembly believes that
it is ready for the devolution of police and justice matters. Northern
Ireland has had devolved power restored to the Assembly for two months
now. However, we firmly believe that for policing and justice to be
devolved, the Assembly must feel confident, stable and secure in its
future and there must be support throughout the community. That is
something that the political parties in Northern Ireland and the
Government must work together to achieve.
6.9
pm
Mr.
Campbell:
Whenever considering reform, one normally starts
by examining the organisation of which reform is required. The police
in Northern Ireland have, from the foundation of the state,
periodically come under attack. That attack was manifested in various
ways, but members of the wider community outside will be aware that the
sustained campaign waged by terrorists over 35 years had an awful
impact on the police, their relatives and members of their close
family. I shall not go into the underlying rationale for the necessity
of reform, because the policing service as it was was a body of fine
upstanding police officers who faced a relentless and brutal onslaught
for three-and-a-half decades. The reform has taken place, however, and
the Minister, in introducing today’s debate, painted what might
be described as a rosy picture of policing.
There is much to report about
the improvements to policing. However, there are thousands of young
people in Northern Ireland whose context for analysing whether policing
reform is working is not whether there is a reduction in crime or
whether they think the police service personnel widely reflect the
community balance. It is based on one factor only: the letter that they
received after applying in good faith to join the policing service and
passing the necessary evaluation—the letter that effectively
told them that they were good enough to be police officers, but that
they were the wrong religion. Any policing reform whose essential
element is blatant discrimination in recruitment is anathema. It cannot
be justified, defended or excused.
The Minister said that it is a
temporary measure, and although I do not wish to put words into his
mouth, he appeared to say that the greater good at the end will be
worth the pain of discrimination that the young Protestants feel. That
is not how they see the situation, however. If we analyse police
recruitment over the past three years, about 35 to 40 per cent. of all
applicants have come from the Roman Catholic community. The target set
by Patten was 30 per cent., so without any 50:50 recruitment, as it is
called, one element of applicants to the police exceeds what Patten
wanted.
Patten set
the benchmark at 30 per cent., and currently, almost 40 per cent. of
people applying to join the police are Catholics. One must assume that
in the absence of 50:50 and a broadly similar applicant-to-appointee
ratio, about 40 per cent. of recruits will be Catholics. Who could
complain about that? We in the Unionist community could not complain,
and I should hope that nationalists could not complain, because the
merit principle would have been applied. More Catholics would be
recruited; those Protestants who were not recruited could not complain,
because the merit principle would have been applied; and those
Catholics who were recruited could say, “I am here because I am
the best qualified officer.” There is one significant and
outstanding sore running through the reform of policing in Northern
Ireland and it is recruitment on the basis of religion.
My right hon. Friend the
Member for North Antrim mentioned that the ratio is not really 50:50,
and he is correct. Currently, 50 per cent. of people recruited are
Catholic, and the other 50 per cent. are “all others”, so
if we examine the figures, we see that 50 per cent. of recruits are
Catholics, 48 per cent. are Protestant and 2 per cent. are others.
Minority Protestant recruitment to the police is masquerading under
50:50. How on earth does that make the thousands of young Protestants
who apply feel when they are turned down, not because they are not well
qualified or unsuitable to be police officers, but because the state
tells them officially and formally that they are the wrong religion? It
is intolerable.
Mark
Durkan:
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that thousands of
young Protestants are being turned away because of the 50:50 provision.
In fact, the figure is hundreds—hundreds of Protestants have
been turned down because of the 50:50 provision. The thousands of young
Protestants who have been unsuccessful in applications to join the
police service are matched by thousands of young Catholics who have
also been unsuccessful, because far more people want to join the
service, which is a good thing. Will the hon. Gentleman also reflect on
the fact that more young Protestants have been recruited to the police
service in the years since Patten than were being recruited to it in
the years before
Patten?
Mr.
Campbell:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We
had a debate along these lines—in the Chamber, I
think—some considerable time ago. Unfortunately, his facts were
wrong then and they are equally wrong now. More than 3,000 Protestants
have received a letter indicating to them, in effect, that they are of
the wrong religion. When they applied for employment in the police
service, they were unsuccessful not because they were not qualified,
but because they were
Protestant.
The hon.
Gentleman makes the point that more Protestants have been recruited
since Patten. That is correct, because before then nobody was being
recruited. That was a fact. Unfortunately, according to a reply the
Minister gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, South, the police service
will not be recruiting additional personnel in the near future, but
because since Patten and until now, it has recruited additional
personnel, and because of the 50:50 provision, it has had to recruit
some Protestants.
The
point that many people of all religions in Northern Ireland make is
that we do not need a discriminatory benchmark; it is unnecessary
because there are adequate numbers of people from both communities and
from beyond Protestant and Catholic communities applying. If 40 per
cent. of the applicants applying to the police force are Catholic, that
is above
the benchmark that Patten set. Therefore, we do not need the 50:50
recruitment, and that is the way it ought to be.
There ought to be absolutely
open applications from all sections of the community, and when we get
that—we hope that we will get it before 2010 or 2011—all
sections of the community can take pride in the fact that they have
police officers serving the community who are there on merit and who
are there not because of their religion but because they want to serve
their community. Then, everyone in society can feel the utmost
indebtedness to and respect for those police officers, irrespective of
the community from which they come. The Minister ought to address that
and the Government should fundamentally reassess their view of the
50:50
provision.
6.18
pm
Mr.
Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): I declare an
interest at the outset as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing
Board and as the chair of the Assembly and Executive review committee,
which will prepare a report for the Assembly on the preparations for
the devolution of policing and justice
powers.
As a member
of the Policing Board, I can confirm what the Minister said in his
opening remarks: the board is working well. My hon. Friend the Member
for Upper Bann and I are part of the new board that has recently been
formed following devolution on 8 May. For the first time, we have
members from Sinn Fein joining the board and making a contribution. I
welcome the fact that Sinn Fein, at long last and, indeed, for the
first time in its history, has given its support to the police and the
rule of law in Northern Ireland. I believe that that is significant and
that it is right that the Democratic Unionist party should take a large
measure of credit. We pressurised Sinn Fein and made it absolutely
clear that devolution would not occur until it gave its support to the
police and the rule of law. We held out, despite the pressure that was
applied by others. We held the line because we believed that it was
essential that if any party was to be in the Government of Northern
Ireland in any circumstances, it should support the police and the rule
of law. That, for us, was a key principle, and we welcome the fact that
Sinn Fein crossed that line, gave its support to the police and the
rule of law and, in taking ministerial office, gave commitments to
continue that
support.
It is clear
from reports to the Policing Board from police commanders throughout
Northern Ireland that there has been remarkable improvement in places
such as south Armagh and north and west Belfast, where the police have
traditionally found it difficult to gain co-operation from the
community and where Sinn Fein and others have sought to influence the
community against co-operating in crime investigations. People are
coming forward to give evidence to the police and to help them with
their inquiries. It is happening on an unprecedented level in such
places.
It
is clear evidence that the strategy on which we
embarked is working. We required that those elected provide political
leadership to secure practical support
and co-operation, and the police commanders in those areas are reporting
a marked increase in crime reporting and community assistance with
police inquiries. I think that everyone who values democracy and
supports the rule of law would value and welcome that.
The former Prime Minister,
Mr. Blair, sent a letter recently to the Chief Constable of
the Police Service of Northern Ireland in which he stated in reference
to the PSNI and the RUC George
cross:
“For
years they did their duty, reaching out to individuals and
neighbourhoods, often in the face of extreme violence, determined to
deliver a service to everyone. It is that commitment which has now
helped convince all sections of the community in Northern Ireland to
embrace and support policing and the rule of
law.”
It is right that
he should recognise the contribution of the RUC, and latterly that of
the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in helping to hold the line and
stand in the gap between those who favour democracy and those who were
trying to undermine it. They brought us to a place where we have a
relative degree of peace. It is not perfect by any means, but it is a
big improvement on where we were
before.
It
is worth noting that it has been many years now since
a police officer in Northern Ireland lost his or her life in the course
of duty. All of us welcome that. I have attended the funerals, as I am
sure have hon. and right hon. Members from all parties, of police
officers murdered in the course of duty. It is good that police
officers are not now losing their lives, but it was despicable that
last weekend, on the Castlemara estate in Carrickfergus, people who
call themselves loyalists opened fire on the police, injuring a police
officer by shooting him in the back. Those people masquerade as
defenders of the community. They would say that they are men of
courage. What courage is there in standing in the middle of a crowd and
shooting a police officer in the back? There is none. Let us be clear
that the Democratic Unionist party unreservedly condemns the actions of
those so-called loyalists. They have no place in leadership in our
society; they are not wanted. The communities in which they live do not
want them to engage in such activities; they want them off their
back.
It is time that
those organisations ended such violence for good, ended their
criminality and recognised that the rest of Northern Ireland is moving
on. If they are not prepared to move with us into a peaceful society,
they will have to be left behind, and the police must be given the
resources to deal with them. They must be removed from society before
they engage in more such activity and damage Northern Ireland’s
prospects for moving forward. Those organisations must decide whether
to move forward or stay stuck in the past, engaged in criminality and
paramilitarism. We will not tolerate that, and I know that the
Government will not tolerate it
either.
Mr.
Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): I want to place on record
my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his party on the
statement that he is making.
Mr.
Donaldson:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity.
We are determined to provide leadership in that respect, and to send a
clear message to the Unionist community that loyalist paramilitarism
and
the kind of actions that we saw at the weekend will not be tolerated,
and that the police will be fully supported and given the resources
they need to ensure that those who are engaged in that kind of activity
are brought before the courts and dealt with. It is for the police
alone to deal with this problem, because they and the courts are the
only source of the rule of law in Northern Ireland. It is not for
anyone in any self-appointed organisation to take the law into their
own hands. I hope, expect and believe that the community in
Carrickfergus will rally behind the police to ensure that the people
who are engaged in that kind of activity do not receive popular
support.
I want to
address resources for a moment. The Policing Board is very concerned
about the prospect of a reduction in the police budget in Northern
Ireland in the coming year, which is a serious issue. My right hon.
Friend the Member for North Antrim commented on the cost of policing
the past. The Chief Constable recently attended a meeting of the
Policing Board and gave a presentation in which he broke down the cost
of policing the past. It is one of the tragedies of the situation in
Northern Ireland that we still have more than 3,000 unsolved
murders—3,447 in fact. That record does credit to no one, and it
is important to give this issue attention.
We know that the historical
inquiries team, which the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned, are
re-examining many of those cases. I believe that 40 cases a month are
reopened. I support the team’s work, but I am concerned that we
are getting a hierarchy of victimhood in Northern Ireland. A huge
amount of money is being spent on a small number of inquiries, which
inevitably limits and eats into the overall police budget and means
that what the team is able to do is also limited in some
respects.
As my
right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim said, the budget for
2007-08 for the team and its associated legal costs is £14.47
million. That is the cost of policing the past in 2007-08, and it will
take a big chunk out of the policing budget for that year. I know that
the budget is much larger than that, but if the Chief Constable is
coming to the Policing Board and saying “This cannot go on;
something needs to be done. This is limiting my operational
capacity—my capacity to deal with current crime,” we have
to sit up and take note. That is not to say that we should draw a line
under the past, because that would cause a lot of damage and would be
an injustice to those who have lost loved ones, but we have to consider
whether we can continue to fund the kind of expensive inquiries that my
right hon. Friend talked about earlier, which are picking up a large
percentage of the cost of policing the past.
My right hon. Friend talked
about the Saville inquiry. May I give another example? Since the murder
of Rosemary Nelson in 1999, the police inquiry into her death has cost
£15 million—that is one murder. The historical inquiries
team has not spent that much money yet on all the murders it has
investigated to date. That is why, understandably, many victims’
families say to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is
a hierarchy of victimhood and that some people and cases are given
special attention, which they do not get. We have to level the playing
field.
Sammy
Wilson:
The Finucane inquiry has cost more than £30
million. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the one thread that
appears to go through all the expensive inquiries such as the
Londonderry, Finucane and Nelson inquiries is that they were demanded
by Sinn Fein? They were demanded for one reason alone, which was to
make a political point, rather than to get to the bottom of the
matter.
Mr.
Donaldson:
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention,
although I am sure that the hon. Member for Foyle and his party will
want to claim some of the credit for calling those inquiries as well.
However, my hon. Friend made a very valid point: there is no doubt that
the political party that makes the most noise about such issues,
certainly on the Policing Board, is Sinn Fein. It must accept that
there is a responsibility to consider the policing budget and the cost
of those inquiries—and not only the financial costs.
As my right hon. Friend the
Member for North Antrim said, at the moment, 288 police officers are
tied up with investigations carried out by a small number of inquiries.
That has a big impact on operational policing—288 police
officers is more than the total number in my local policing district,
which happens to be the largest in Northern Ireland. More officers are
tied up with those inquiries than are on the beat in Lisburn, Dromore,
Moira, Glenavy, Hillsborough and so on. It is no wonder, therefore,
that I get complaints from my constituents saying, “My home was
broken into last night. I called the police, but no one came!”
Antisocial behaviour is another problem. People come to me and say,
“Look, there is vandalism in our area and the elderly are being
intimidated, but we cannot get police officers on to the streets to
deal with it”. We have to look at this
problem.
My party
welcomes the Government’s recent decision to appoint Lord Eames
and a group of interested parties to examine the past and how to deal
with it. That is something that we need to consider, and I am sure that
the Minister will want to comment on that in his remarks. A further
consequence of this situation is on the work of the Police Ombudsman
for Northern Ireland. In Dr. Maurice Hayes’s original report,
which set the framework for the establishment of a police
ombudsman’s office, he set out what I believe were reasonable
parameters for its work. That report envisaged that the ombudsman would
examine cases where complaints were made within a two-year time
frame.
Clearly,
that original proposal would have limited the scope of the police
ombudsman’s office, but it was changed, largely at the behest of
the SDLP, which resulted in a large amount of the ombudsman’s
time being taken up with cases that occurred five, 10 or 15
years ago. That is creating problems. Recently, the ombudsman published
a report on the murder of Raymond McCord Jr., and as a result of her
recommendations, the police and the historical inquiries team have had
to undertake a significant body of
work.
The Policing
Board recently met the Chief Constable and Dave Cox of the historical
inquiries team, and it was made clear that the extra costs resulting
from the ombudsman’s report would have to come out of existing
resources, which was going to make things very difficult for them. The
board wrote to the Minister
about that, and he responded by saying that no additional resources were
available. I know that the board is going back to him on that
issue.
If the
Government are to expand the scope of the police ombudsman’s
office, if it will be raking over the past and going into cases that
occurred many years ago, and if the PSNI and the historical inquiries
team will have to deal with the consequences, it is not right that the
Government do not help by making available the necessary funding. That
money should not come out of the policing. There are no boundaries to
that process and none of us know how many reports there will be or what
the impact on the work of the PSNI and the historical inquiries team
will be. If we do not set limits and boundaries, the scope and
potential to draw on the policing budget and the funding required is
endless. That is why the Government must consider that issue.
I say to the Minister that
there is no way that the Assembly will take on the devolution of
policing and justice powers under circumstances in which there is a
blank cheque for policing the past. We will have to find the money out
of an existing policing budget, which will impact on the investigation
of crime today and on dealing with drugs, antisocial behaviour, traffic
offences and the death toll on our roads in Northern Ireland. There
will be an impact on all of those areas. In addition, according to the
recommendation before us, the number of police officers in Northern
Ireland after 2010-11 will decrease from 7,500 to 6,028. So we will
have almost 2,000 fewer police officers to deal with those issues and
do the ordinary policing tasks as well. We are storing up serious
problems for ourselves on the policing front. That is why the issue
must be addressed, not only in terms of the work of Lord Eames and his
group on how we deal with the past, but in terms of the whole funding
issue. Let me be clear: we want the unsolved murders to be
investigated, but we want a level playing field. We do not want money
spent on inquiries into a small number of murders at the expense of the
rest of society and the other victims who have an equal right to have
the case of their loved ones investigated.
Finally, I reiterate the
comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim. In
the Assembly, it is my task to chair the committee that considers the
preparatory work on policing and justice powers. Let me be clear: the
Democratic Unionist party will not support the devolution of policing
and justice powers unless and until there is sufficient community
confidence to ensure that policing and justice devolution can work
effectively and have the support of the community. That will require a
number of things to happen. I shall not list them for the Committee,
but I will say the following. I agree with my right hon. Friend; there
is no way that we will agree to the devolution of policing and justice
powers when the IRA army council remains in place—no way. That
is an issue that Sinn Fein will have to address and deal
with.
A further point
on the devolution of policing and justice powers is that we support it
in principle and believe that it is desirable. However, it is desirable
at the right time and under circumstances where there is sufficient
community confidence. That is essential. I
reiterate and reaffirm what my right hon. Friend said to the Minister:
it would be wrong for the Government to start setting deadlines on that
issue. Do not make May next year a deadline because it will have the
potential seriously to undermine the political progress that has been
made. Do not get hung up on dates. That is not critical. What is
critical is that progress is made to build the confidence in the
community that will enable policing and justice powers to be devolved
to the Assembly in the right circumstances and with the right level of
support. I hope that the Minister will take that on
board.
6.38
pm
Sammy
Wilson:
Given the time, and the fact that there will be a
Division in the House at half-past 7, I will be brief. In addition, I
do not want to cover points that other hon. Members have
made.
I believe that
there is a new era for policing in Northern Ireland and despite the
events of the weekend in my constituency when a police officer was shot
in the back by someone from a loyalist paramilitary group, which was
alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I
believe that the situation for police officers generally has improved.
As I have already done in public interviews, I reiterate the need for
full co-operation from everyone in the community to ensure that whoever
carried out the dastardly act on Saturday evening is brought to
justice. When they are apprehended by the police, the courts should
deal with them in a proper manner. The police, and especially the Chief
Constable, have time and again expressed the frustration that police
officers apprehend people but that no sooner are they apprehended than
they are out on bail, with a long period before being brought to trial.
I hope that the whole of the justice system right through to the courts
will ensure that a proper message is sent out to those who would return
us to the days of the past.
I turn to the whole issue of
police reform. I am a former member of the Policing Board—I was
a member when many of the Patten recommendations were going
through—and it worries me a little when I hear the Minister
saying that, having completed most of the changes that Patten
recommended, the Government are looking at what further changes they
might impose on the police. I understand that policing
techniques—the policing context, the various resources available
to the police and some methods of policing—are always evolving
and that that will require change, but I believe that those changes are
best dealt with by the police and within the policing organisation,
rather than imposed from a political level.
The police in Northern Ireland
have gone through a period of great change. Some of those changes were
necessary, the police themselves were beginning to introduce others,
and earlier speakers alluded to the fact that some were done purely for
political reasons. I do not know that they have made a change for the
better, and some of them have certainly been for the worse.
The 50:50 recruitment process,
referred to by a number of Members, is a case in point. The Minister
said that confidence in the police is rising, and that is good, but he
failed to refer to the fact that confidence
in the police within the Protestant community has fallen. People believe
that there has been political interference in the recruitment of police
officers, and that is reflected in the general attitude to the police
within the Protestant community.
I do not want to see a
situation in which the people who mostly vote for me do not have
confidence in the police. As a politician and a former member of the
Policing Board, I believe that it is one of my duties to instil support
for the police, but when there is political interference of the sort
that we have seen it is sometimes difficult to lead people in that
direction. When contemplating further reform—or, indeed, when
contemplating some of the measures that cause anger now—the
Government must bear that in mind.
Mark
Durkan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he
lays 50:50 recruitment entirely at the Government’s door and
talks about political interference when it was a key recommendation of
the Patten report. When Patten and his team were engaged in their
inquiry, they faced demands that ranged from the total disbandment of
the RUC—that all officers should be stood down and that those
who wanted to continue to serve should apply again—to no
change.
Part of the
compromise was to create an opportunity for a turnover of staff but to
retain the large body of serving officers; that would be achieved by
guaranteeing 50:50 recruitment until 30 per cent. of the membership was
from the Catholic community. That was the compromise. The hon.
Gentleman should remember the context in which the Patten
recommendation was made. People accepted that compromise. If we were to
ask again whether there should be open recruitment, people might say
that there should have been total
recruitment.
Sammy
Wilson:
First, the Patten proposals were politically
driven as a result of the Belfast agreement, mostly as a result of
nationalist and republican pressure when the agreement being
negotiated. Patten himself brought a political dimension to it. My hon.
Friend the Member for East Londonderry has shown that given the change
in circumstances and the fact that there would be less intimidation as
time went on, there would be natural evolution towards more Catholics
applying to join the police, and the merit principle would probably
have ensured a greater recruitment of Catholics to the police force.
However, I do not want to get bogged down in that question, because it
has been dealt with
adequately.
Rev.
Ian Paisley:
Is it not true that Mr. Patten
admitted that he was not getting enough opposition, so he advertised
for more people to be against the police? Those are the facts. I sat
through a meeting at which people were crowded in the doorways saying,
“Give us police, but give us police that are absolutely
impartial and do not look at their
religion.”
Sammy
Wilson:
Certainly, at the meetings I attended in east
Belfast to which Mr. Patten came along, he received that
message loud and clear from the people attending. He may have received
a different message when he went to west Belfast, but he knew that many
of his recommendations would be politically unacceptable to the
Unionist community.
I want to deal with a number
positive measures that could be taken for the future of policing.
First, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is perhaps the most
overseen and scrutinised in the world. Until the closure of Al
Hutchinson’s office, 15 bodies scrutinised the Police Service of
Northern Ireland, leaving 14 bodies now. Some of them duplicate the
work of others, and it is expensive for the police to service those who
scrutinise them because they have to write reports and so on. As a past
chairman of the Policing Board finance committee I know the amount of
time that was involved for the police even when introducing something
like a computer system, because about five different groups oversaw the
introduction of the change. A lot of the Assistant Chief Constable and
his team’s time was taken up by answering the same questions
time and again. Perhaps we should consider how to rationalise or reduce
that level of scrutiny without removing accountability, to free up
police time so that it is used for policing rather than writing reports
for the plethora of scrutineers, some of whom exist to please
particular siren voices from the past.
Secondly, a
number of hon. Members have mentioned police training and the emphasis
on human rights. My view of human rights policing is that if I or a
member of my family were arrested by the police, we would want to be
treated fairly, courteously and within the law. That is what human
rights policing means to me. However, some of the training and human
rights scrutiny that the police go through is not determined by those
practical considerations, but is driven by a human rights industry,
some of which has more interest in denigrating and weakening the police
than in ensuring proper policing.
When I was a member of the
Policing Board, it was my job to visit recruits when they were going
through their training and to explain the board’s work. That was
usually done within half an hour and followed by interesting discussion
about their training. Some came from the Irish Republic, where they had
served in the Guarda Siochana, and because they were at constable level
they had to go through the training all over again. Many of them were
from English police forces—perhaps people who were from Northern
Ireland and who wanted to come home again at constable level and had to
go through all of the training again. The one thing that all of them
remarked on was the absolute emphasis on human rights training. Many of
them, especially those who had already served as police officers, felt
that for the uninitiated who had never done any policing, the effect of
the human rights training would be to make them scared to do anything
when they went out on the streets. The emphasis was not on good
practice in policing, but on what was politically correct and what the
human rights industry people wanted to tie into policing.
I met some of the recruits
last summer during my time in the parliamentary police scheme. They
were coming back for their second bout of training after three months
on the ground. Many of them said that during their first few weeks on
the street and until they began to put their training into some kind of
context, they were fearful of doing anything. Perhaps another reform
that the police ought to consider is to ask some of the police
recruits, rather than those from the human rights industry, what should
be included when it comes to the human rights element of policing. That
would be quite useful.
It has been emphasised, but it
needs to be brought home to the Government that we are falling between
two stools as far as historical inquiries are concerned. Many of the
victims of the 3,000 murders that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Lagan Valley mentioned are not happy with what they get from the
historical inquiries team. It seems to look in a superficial way at
what evidence is left and what forensic evidence exists, and it may
show people the files and take them to the scene of the crime and so
on. Any historical inquiry that is referred to the ombudsman’s
office is dealt with in a far different way.
I do not know how many of
those who were involved in terrorist activity during the troubles have
been brought in by Mr. Cox and his team to be grilled and
put through questioning about the crimes in which they are suspected of
having been involved. I doubt that it is many, if any. Yet almost
everyone whose case was referred to the ombudsman has been
arrested—every policeman, even though some of them had left the
police service years before and some were in ill health. Some of them
have been arrested in the gaze of publicity because the
ombudsman’s office has told the media that it is about to make
the arrests. They have been brought in and questioned, and sometimes
even when they have been released without charge the media have been
informed what they were brought in for and for what crime they were
investigated. That has caused great anxiety within the police and it
has not satisfied other victims.
As has been mentioned, others
get even greater attention. Millions of pounds have been spent on
individual cases. Even when those millions of pounds have been spent,
we still get the Finucane family saying that they want a judicial
inquiry next because the police inquiry is not good
enough.
Mark
Durkan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I
ask him to think again about that ungenerous reference to the Finucane
family. The Finucane family, as were the entire public, were promised
by the former Prime Minister that if Judge Cory recommended a judicial
inquiry, there would be a judicial inquiry. Fulfilment of that that
promise has been withheld. We were told for a long time that there
could not be a public inquiry because that might compromise the
prospect of a prosecution. We now hear that there will be absolutely no
prosecution in relation to any of the evidence or issues around the
Finucane murder. We now have a travesty on top of a scandal on top of a
cover-up on top of a murder. How can the Finucane family rest easy with
that?
Sammy
Wilson:
The hon. Gentleman has illustrated once again what
happens when there is political interference in the policing process.
For the Prime Minister or whoever it was to make that promise to one
family while scant regard is paid to the cases of thousands of other
families causes angst and anger among victims in Northern Ireland. That
is why the Government now need to address such
matters.
My views
differ from those of some members of my party in that I am not so sure
that we can keep on delving into the past. In many cases, there is no
point in
pretending to people that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached in
respect of crimes that happened 30 or 40 years ago, when files and
forensic information have disappeared and the police who were involved
in the investigations are now dead. On top of that, there is a
political dimension. Some groups of people—those involved in
past terrorist activities—are now exempt for political reasons,
because we did not want to annoy them. It seems that only members of
the police and the Army are investigated in any great detail. We must
look again at the whole historical
element.
Civilianisation
can save money within the police, but it must be remembered that
although many jobs currently held by police officers could be done by
civilians, they are held by officers who were severely injured during
the troubles and who were given desk jobs because of their injuries. We
must be careful when moving towards civilianisation that we do not go
back on the promises that were made to those officers and the
recognition that was given to them by moving them into desk jobs, and
thus cause further grievances. Over time, through age and ill health,
many of those posts will become vacant. I have no great opposition to
them being used by
civilians.
It is one
thing to say that it is easy to recruit people to be police officers
where the pay is quite good and where they are prepared to be mobile,
but it is another to say that we shall recruit civilians to jobs at
perhaps £12,000, £12,500 or £13,000 a
year—jobs that are essentially local—and still expect to
obtain 50:50 recruitment. In some cases, that is not possible. People
will not travel a long distance to a job that carries such pay.
Recruitment might take place in an area that is mostly Catholic or
Protestant, so a 50:50 recruitment would not be possible. If that is
so, civilianisation should not be held up simply because we cannot meet
the 50:50 rules, although it can help to save
money.
As for value
for money, of course we have to get the best out of the resources that
are made available for policing. As a former chairman of the Policing
Board finance committee, I know that there is a lot of waste within the
police budget, but I do not believe that the sort of cuts that are
envisaged—nearly 15 per cent. of the police budget—can be
found through efficiencies. Gershon efficiencies have been applied for
several years and, if the Government persist in what is rumoured in the
comprehensive spending review, policing will be affected detrimentally
in Northern Ireland. Even if it were politically possible, I do not
think that politicians in Northern Ireland would want to take on
policing that is bereft of such resources and have to find them from
the block
grant.
6.59
pm
Paul
Goggins:
This afternoon’s debate has been
excellent. I wish to begin by saying to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury,
in his absence, that our thoughts are certainly with him and his
constituents. We understand why he cannot be here. However, he should
take heart from some of the developments in south Armagh to which we
have referred. The Army has now gone from Bessbrook. We no longer have
routine Army patrols and, indeed, we have the prospect of a meeting
this week at community level between people in the area and the PSNI,
which I think will lead to further positive developments.
I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle for what I
thought was a positive assessment of the current situation. On these
occasions, I always pay tribute to him and his party colleagues who
stood tall, took risks some years ago on policing, and were prepared to
take their place on district policing partnerships and the Policing
Board. They deserve great credit for taking those risks, and people
should not forget what they did. I was pleased that he paid tribute to
senior officers within the PSNI; I think that they are of a very high
calibre.
On funding—this applies
to the remarks of other hon. Members—there is no let-up in the
Government’s commitment. Two years ago the policing budget was
£860 million and this year we are spending £100 million
more than that—£960 million. There is a commitment. We
are involved in a comprehensive spending review, and, of course, we
have been in discussion with Treasury colleagues about that. We hope
that, as a result, we can maintain our commitment to having 7,500
regular officers throughout the period of the comprehensive spending
review, in line with the Patten
recommendations.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, along with several other hon.
Members, raised the issue of historical inquiries. It is very important
that we remember that the £34 million allocated to the
historical inquiries team is intended precisely to get through to the
families that are often the hidden victims—those who suffered
the most, often in silence—to give them explanations and
information. In my discussions with the Chief Constable, the ombudsman
and others, I make the point that it is very important that we do not
forget that.
The
cost of historical inquiries is very high. Some £210 million has
already been spent on the four big inquiries that are ongoing, along
with £34 million for the historical inquiries team and the
£14.4 million to which the Chief Constable has referred. Those
are huge costs and that is why it is so important that we move on from
case-by-case investigation into the past towards something more
holistic and comprehensive. Finally, I reassure my hon. Friend that,
with regard to devolution, it is not the Government’s intention
to diminish in any way the role of the Policing Board, which plays a
pivotal role in public scrutiny and accountability.
I pay tribute to the right
hon. Member for North Antrim for his role in general in Northern
Ireland and the great leadership that he has shown,
not least in getting devolution off to such a tremendous and positive
start in recent months. I warmly welcome his welcoming of the 60
financial investigators who are now in place, funded in large measure
from the proceeds of crime. That indicates the virtuous cycle with
which we are trying to turn around the situation. The Organised Crime
Task Force is unique to Northern Ireland and we should all take pride
in that. The recovery of £37 million of assets last year,
£22 million of which was from drugs, was encouraging, and, of
course, we want to see more.
The partnership with business
is helpful to deal with issues such as the cash-in-transit robberies. I
share the revulsion expressed about organised criminal activity, the
drugs that poison the bodies and lives of young people in the
communities of Northern Ireland, and
the shoddy goods that are passed off to families who can ill afford to
pay for them. Those real crimes that need to be dealt with.
In relation to the devolution
of policing and justice, hon. Members have said that this is not a time
for push and rush—I agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman
knows that the triple lock is in place, and it should reassure
everyone. However, as confidence grows, we should not hold back
unnecessarily. The right mood is one of constructive engagement,
discussion and reflection, and that is certainly the mood that my right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I wish to proceed with in
relation to these matters. It was encouraging and important to hear the
right hon. Member for North Antrim saying that he wants to see the
powers devolved, albeit in the right circumstances—when there is
confidence.
Although
this is from before my time as Minister, I say to the right hon.
Gentleman, the hon. Member for East Londonderry and others that, in
relation to the 50:50 issue, I acknowledge that the way in which people
who had applied to join the PSNI were told that they had been
unsuccessful left a lot to be desired. The letter that the hon. Member
for East Londonderry referred to has been withdrawn, and rightly
so.
The fact is that
people from both Catholic and Protestant communities who got into the
merit pool through the whole 12 rounds were not appointed. That applies
to young people from Catholic as well as Protestant backgrounds. It is
true that 708 people from a non-Catholic background were not appointed
although they figured higher in the merit pool than Catholics who were
appointed. I regret that fact for those individuals, but the hon.
Member for East Londonderry hit the nail on the head. We must have a
representative police force. That is why this extraordinary measure is
used in extraordinary circumstances to get the situation
right.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Blaydon asked me two specific questions. There is good
news about the community restorative justice projects. I pay tribute to
my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their work. The former Northern
Ireland Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn
(Mr. Hanson), published a protocol earlier this year, and I
am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that a number of schemes have
expressed an interest in adopting it. Four organisations from Northern
Ireland Alternatives have already been through the pre-accreditation
inspection and they are now having further checks done before full
accreditation. There has also been some interest from the republican
side in adopting the protocols. However, that has to be done in proper
partnership with the police—not as an alternative to the
criminal justice system, but in partnership with
it.
My hon. Friend
touched on an important and sensitive issue in relation to exiles. I
want to reflect more on the points that he made and perhaps discuss
them with him and others at an appropriate time. The situation struck
me forcefully when a man from Northern Ireland—an exile from the
violence—came to my surgery in south Manchester just two weeks
ago. That redoubled my commitment to do what we can to ensure that such
people are supported
appropriately.
The
hon. Member for Argyll and Bute paid tribute to police officers, which
I welcomed. Progress on
human rights and other matters is for the Policing Board, and I assure
him that the Policing Board will pursue that issue rigorously in the
months and years ahead. He also asked what discussions Ministers had
had about the devolution of policing and justice. I am pleased to say
that officials from my Department have given some initial information
to the committee that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley chairs. I
say again what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman privately: we
will co-operate, provide information and discuss any and all of these
issues as co-operatively as we possibly can, as he prepares his report
for March 2008.
I
have one further comment for the hon. Member for East Londonderry about
50:50, about which I know that he feels strongly. I shall mention
something that reflects a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Foyle. The sheer number of applications always has to be borne in mind.
We have had 72,000 applications over the 12 rounds, over a five-year
period. There will be many disappointed people. However, the other side
of the coin is that we have some high-calibre, highly committed people.
We should all rejoice at
that.
I pay tribute
to the work of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley on the Policing
Board and to his role as chair of the Assembly and Executive review
committee. Everything that I see and hear suggests that he is adopting
a thoughtful approach in that role, which is welcome. He mentioned
improvements in community confidence, which is also welcome. On
Wednesday this week there will be a meeting in Newry of local people to
discuss policing in Crossmaglen, which will be done with the PSNI. That
was unthinkable until recently and it is welcome, as was the right hon.
Gentleman’s strong condemnation of the violence in Carrickfergus
on Saturday. I am pleased to tell the Committee that the officer
involved is recovering well. That is a miracle and we are all very
pleased about it. I am also pleased that three people appeared in court
today in connection with that
event.
The right hon.
Gentleman welcomed the panel dealing with the past, including Lord
Eames and Denis Bradley, and I think that the whole Committee would
agree with that. He mentioned the £1.6 million that the
chairman of the Policing Board has written to me about. That extra money
is not there, but that is all the more reason why we have to look at
the past in a different way. If we spend considerable resources and do
not get a resolution, we do not police today, and we do not heal the
hurt of yesterday
either.
The right
hon. Gentleman referred to the value-for-money report, which looks into
the long term—beyond 2010-11—and tries to estimate the
number of police officers that will be needed to police Northern
Ireland in more normal times. Indeed, a figure of just more than 6,000
is estimated as the right level, but that is not something that we
shall move towards in haste. That figure is certainly not in any way
influencing the ongoing comprehensive spending
review.
I pay tribute
to the hon. Member for East Antrim for his work on the Policing Board
and welcome his largely positive assessment, although he made some
sharp comments, as he invariably does. I, as a Minister, do not want to
impose changes to operational policing—that would be
inappropriate—but the Chief Constable himself has made changes
and introduced the new structure of eight district command units, which
is going very well. As Lord Patten saw, we need a period of
consolidation. Perpetual revolution is not always healthy, and we need
a settled period now that we have the architecture in place. The one
big change that needs to happen, albeit carefully, gradually, and with
reflection and so on, is that a local Minister should be accountable
for policing.
The
hon. Gentleman made various points about historical inquiries,
oversight and human rights training. On the last of those, he referred
to meeting new recruits. We should all rejoice at the quality of those
recruits. The commitment and breadth of experience that they bring is
superb. He also mentioned civilianisation and the need to ensure that
police officers who have been injured are properly looked after and
cared for. That is a responsibility of the Chief Constable, but I
undertake to discuss that next time that I meet
him.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the matter of policing reform in Northern
Ireland (progress to date).
Policing
Motion
made, and Question proposed, That the Committee do now
adjourn.—[Mr.
Watson.]
7.12
pm
David
Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I shall start by declaring an
interest: like my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim, I am on the
Northern Ireland Policing Board. I know that we are pushed for time and
are trying to get this over by 7.30 pm if we can, so I shall do my best
to do that and accommodate the Division in the
House.
I wish to take
the opportunity to mention some of the key challenges in policing in
Northern Ireland. There have been some notable policing successes
recently, and I do not intend to repeat a lot of them because some
debates such as this are inclined to be repetitive. There have been
great successes in relation to the seizure of drugs. Some £18
million-worth of cannabis was seized in Newtonards in October, which
was the largest ever drugs seizure in the Province. Another
£300,000-worth of cocaine was recovered on the M2 motorway in
March. We all know that criminals can replace the drugs, but that shows
that policing is having some success.
Last week, a new campaign was
launched to encourage the reporting of domestic violence. In my
constituency, my council area of Craigavon has one of the highest
levels of domestic violence anywhere in the Province, and the new
campaign should be welcomed and supported by everyone. I believe that,
gas well as Craigavon, the campaign will initially run in Belfast,
Londonderry and Lisburn. The Craigavon district command unit has one of
the highest levels of reported domestic violence, and the number of
cases there has increased from 912 in 2003-04 to more than 1,400 in
2005-06. Across the Province the total number of incidents reported has
increased from 16,900 to 23,059 in the same period. The actual
prevalence will be substantially higher, as historically only a small
proportion of incidents have been reported. A cultural shift in
tolerance of domestic violence is required across our society, and it
must not only include the reporting of incidents but incorporate the
courts and the sentences that they hand down. I shall return briefly to
the issue of sentencing a little
later.
Research has
been published estimating the cost of domestic violence to society in
England and Wales at a staggering £23 billion a year. On a pro
rata population basis, that figure suggests that the cost of services
and the loss to economic output due to domestic violence amounts to
some £189 million a year in Northern Ireland. However,
estimating the total for Northern Ireland is not as straightforward as
simply reading across from Great Britain by population. The culture of
paramilitarism and lawlessness that has plagued our society in recent
decades is likely to mean that the situation in the Province is even
worse. Domestic violence is much more common than people realise, and
the psychological impact can be enormous.
Serious issues of rape and
sexual assault need to be tackled. In the last year for which figures
are available, the average sentence handed down by courts in Northern
Ireland was just 105 months, meaning possible release in less than five
years. In 2003, a case of
attempted rape received a sentence of just 24 months. Those are
unacceptable figures, and they must be read against success rates for
prosecution. In 2005, only 19 per cent. of all rape cases brought
before Northern Ireland courts resulted in convictions. The number of
cases in which victims withdraw their statements or did not pursue
allegations to prosecution has risen in the past three years from 29 in
2004 to 136, so in 79 per cent., or just under four out of five, of all
cases investigated by the police no prosecution resulted. The situation
has become far more than just unacceptable; it has become a law and
order scandal and
shame.
A whiff of
covering one’s tracks hangs around recent parliamentary
questions. Why, in an answer to a question about rape convictions on 25
June 2007, did the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon.
Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) give the figure as 19 per
cent? And no later than 23 July, in a question specifically related to
rape cases investigated by the police and referred to the Public
Prosecution Service, why, instead of dealing with that specific matter,
did the Minister choose to answer about
rape
“or some other
related offence”?—[Official Report, 23 July 2007;
Vol. 463, c. 771W.]
The
conviction rate for rape in the Province is a shocking 19 per cent. The
fact that by using that broader definition the Minister could cite a
better success rate of 63 per cent. in 2005 and 50 per cent. in 2006
offers one interpretation of the answer. Why did his Department answer
as it did? Ignoring the specific basis of the question and introducing
other issues changed the figures dramatically.
What incentive exists for a
victim of such crime to come forward when the chances of even getting
to prosecution are so slim? If the case does make it to the court,
fewer than one in five cases are successfully prosecuted. The problem
must be tackled. I look forward to hearing in detail exactly what the
Government’s proposals are to make it easier for victims to come
forward, simpler for the police to get a case to court and it more
likely that the guilty will be sentenced and more certain that the
sentence will fit the
crime.
Turning to the
historical inquiries team, I have sought assurances from the Chief
Constable at the Policing Board and the Secretary of State in the
Chamber that there will be no interference with the team’s work
on investigations that might implicate people now prominent in the
political arena. The question is simple. Will the Police Service of
Northern Ireland fully investigate serving politicians if they are
implicated through DNA or witness evidence in troubles-related
crime?
Several cases
from Upper Bann and other constituencies have been referred to the
historical inquiries team. I have been given the names of some of the
people who are currently being investigated, some of whom are prominent
politicians. If prominent people are identified as having been involved
in those killings, it is vital that the team’s hands are not
tied and that the investigations are free from Government influence. No
matter how prominent those people might be today, it is vital that no
one is above the law. The Government should be absolutely clear that
there must be no repeat of the Donaldson affair, in which his role as
an informant clearly played a part in the
suppression of a criminal prosecution. If the team exposes a senior
politician, the law should be allowed to run its course.
At the end of last week, it
emerged that the police ombudsman is looking at the files on the deaths
of three IRA men in Lurgan, in my constituency, 25 years ago. The
deaths have been used to suggest that a shoot-to-kill policy existed,
but many of us feel that, if that were the case, the security forces
are likely to have adopted a very different approach over the years.
The Council of Europe has suggested that there should have been a more
substantial investigation into the deaths in Lurgan, and advised the
Government that the cases should be reconsidered. However, back in
2004, the then Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, stated that a fresh
inquiry would be a burden on the Government and referred to the Bloody
Sunday inquiry as an example. Such exorbitant costs are widely
recognised as being wasteful, with lawyers being the only ones to
benefit. He also said that it would not be reasonable to contemplate
the right-to-life provisions of human rights law so many years after
the event.
The
Unionist community has very little confidence in the outgoing police
ombudsman and any investigation that she might undertake. Rank-and-file
officers believe that she has a political agenda and clearly have an
absence of trust in her investigations. That has been demonstrated by
the Police Federation on numerous occasions—any outcomes are
treated with suspicion. My right hon. Friend the Member for North
Antrim has already, in Northern Ireland questions in the Chamber, asked
about the ombudsman’s remit and sought a review of the
legislation pertaining to the role of her office in investigating
historical inquiries. Investigations have to be free from political
bias.
As we have
heard today, there are, unfortunately, thousands of unsolved murders in
the Province, and it is important that justice is served so that
innocent victims can obtain closure. The issue of the Lurgan deaths
again brings to the fore questions about where our focus should be with
policing. The historical team investigates, in order, cases from 1969,
but the longer ago the crime, the harder it will be to uncover hard
evidence. Understandably, victims want justice. They have suffered more
than any of us in Northern Ireland in the past 35 years. We, as a
party, have delivered a victims’ commissioner and their needs
remain high on our priority list. We cannot overlook the fact that
every resource that is directed at the past could be used to tackle or
prevent crime today. It is important to strike the right balance; we
have to make difficult choices in the Province. People are sensitive
because the hurt is till so
raw.
An independent
consultative group was established by the previous Secretary of State
to deal with the legacy of the past. That group must not fail to take
account of the fact that thousands of entirely innocent people in
Northern Ireland were severely injured or killed, irrespective of their
religious affiliation, whereas others suffered while carrying out
illegal terrorist acts. That is the fundamental distinction that
relatives of those who were murdered rightly insist on, while
apologists for the terrorists insist on referring to a
conflict rather than to a vicious, brutal and totally unjustifiable
campaign carried out against innocent people.
Finally, it remains to be seen
whether members of that independent group are prepared to face up to
the issue. If they are, they will have done a service to all those
innocents who have suffered in atrocities; if they are not, they will
have unwittingly or otherwise engaged in revisionism on a massive
scale.
7.25
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
The hon. Member for Upper Bann, in his initial remarks, outlined
several key challenges that we face in Northern Ireland, not least in
the police service. He knows that Northern Ireland, compared with many
parts of the United Kingdom, is a relatively safe place to live, even
though all the issues of the past reach out to the present day. In
terms of recorded crime, however, it is one of the safest places. When
we see drug seizures, the like of which he described, we know that the
police are doing a good job, and we give them our full support for
doing so.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned sexual violence and domestic violence. There have
been many exchanges between us in parliamentary questions and answers
over recent days and weeks, but there has been absolutely no attempt
from me, nor would there ever be, to try to put a gloss on the
situation. The simple fact is that in Northern Ireland, too many
victims of sexual crime and domestic violence do not have the
confidence to come forward, and they need such confidence. They need
the help of the police service, the prosecution service, voluntary
organisations and others to sustain successful prosecutions and bring
perpetrators to justice, and I shall join him in ensuring that we do
better on that issue.
We are taking steps to ensure
that such improvement takes place. We have in place better equipped
care units, which the PSNI is developing to help not only women victims
but child victims of sexual abuse. I am determined to launch a sexual
assault referral centre in Northern Ireland as soon as possible, so
that we can support victims of sexual crime and gather the forensic
evidence to mount more successful prosecutions against the perpetrators
of such dreadful crimes. I look forward to working with the hon.
Gentleman to develop those measures further, and I shall consider the
questions to which he drew my attention. If there is a problem with the
answers, I shall redraft them and communicate them to him. However,
there shall be no gloss from me on the issue; it is far too
serious.
In answer
to the hon. Gentleman’s question, there will be no political
influence over decisions to investigate and prosecute. Where there is
evidence, the matter should be investigated by the police, and where
there is sufficient evidence, people should be prosecuted. It does not
matter who they are or what position they hold in society, if wrong has
been done and there is sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution, it
is in the hands of others, not of Ministers. It is in the hands of the
prosecution service and the Chief Constable, and rightly so in an open,
free and democratic society.
The hon. Gentleman made various
remarks about the ombudsman, and I know that some of her work is
controversial. However, much of her work, particularly that which
relates to ongoing and up-to-date situations, is affirming of the
police, and as I said in the earlier debate, of the very high standard
of policing in Northern Ireland. It is always important to note that
whatever difficulties and wrongdoing may be uncovered, the vast
majority of officers, both in the PSNI and earlier in the RUC, have
done a fine and dedicated job, serving the people of their communities.
We should not forget that.
I explained earlier to the
Committee that the Government have not launched a new inquiry into the
alleged shoot-to-kill policy. However, there is a remit for the
ombudsman to investigate unexplained deaths that may involve a police
officer. The reports in the press last week alluded to that.
Finally, I agree with the hon.
Gentleman about victims. Victims and witnesses are the people whom we
need to place right at the heart of our concerns about criminal
justice. We must give them our support, not only because they need and
deserve it, but because without it, we will not mount successful
prosecutions.
Question put and agreed
to.
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven
o’clock.
