Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 24 January 2000 (continued)
Mr A Maginness:
Will the Member give way?
Mr Benson:
No.
I can give an example of this. A very close colleague of mine, who had reached a high rank in the force, was a Roman Catholic who had married his childhood sweetheart. Both were from west Tyrone. During the time when his family was growing up he could never return to visit his wife's parents because of the near-certainty that he would be shot. Because both sets of parents lived in a strong Nationalist area he had to take his wife and family down, drop them off to visit and then get offside. Several hours later he would pick them up at a predetermined safe area - sometimes many miles away.
Members can now see why many Roman Catholics who wished to make a career in the RUC considered the intimidation and risk too great. The surprising thing is that any Roman Catholics at all were prepared to withstand the pressure.
Members will have seen the great excitement, in the last week or so, over the exhumation of the body of Tom Williams, the IRA murderer, and the big memorial service for him yesterday. I am certain that, like me, they heard little mention of the man he murdered. He was Const Patrick Murphy, a decent, honest Roman Catholic man doing his duty, and he left a widow to bring up her young family. This was a brave Roman Catholic man who made a career in the RUC and ended up a sad statistic. Unfortunately Patten and Mandelson have forgotten these victims and are now rewarding the murderers.
I cannot speak too highly of the loyalty and bravery of my colleagues in the RUC. I stood with them during the serious riots in the Falls, the Shankill and the Bogside, when petrol bombs and bullets were the order of the day. I know what it is to be on the receiving end of a brick thrown by a Bogside Republican at Butcher's Gate. No amount of intimidation and murder could prevent the RUC from continuing professionally to defend its fellow countrymen, both Unionist and Nationalist. I am 100% behind the motion, but the DUP's motives for bringing it forward appear to have more to do with having a bash at the Ulster Unionists and David Trimble than with defending the RUC.
Let us examine the DUP's record of support for the RUC over the years. First, it tried to form the Third Force, which was really a means of undermining the authority of the RUC and the security forces. Then it marched up and down mountains waving firearm certificates - again distracting the RUC from its prime function of administering law and order. During its many protests, some members of the DUP were quite happy to knock policemen and policewomen about and tramp police caps on the ground - caps that bear the very badge that the DUP is now purporting to be trying to protect. On one occasion, when some of its members were being carried away from a sit-down protest, remarks such as "Don't come to us for help when you are being burned out of your homes" were made and other insults hurled.
I am delighted that the DUP has now come into line with the Ulster Unionists in defending the RUC.
The proposer and seconder of the motion are expert at making snide remarks about my party, so let us examine their contribution to the defence of Northern Ireland during the time of the troubles. Did either of them don the uniform of the security forces, and what medals can they wear? I could make a snide remark like "Perhaps the Clontibret Star", but I will not go down that road.
I fully support the motion, and I appeal to Tony Blair, William Hague and Charles Kennedy to advise their members to do what was suggested by Msgr Denis Faul, who is surely a responsible representative of the Nationalist people. The RUC name should be retained and the words "Police Service for Northern Ireland" added. If parity of esteem is to mean anything, this must be the correct course of action.
If the RUC is sacrificed on the altar of appeasement, these three political leaders and their parties will be tramping on the graves of those who gave their lives to protect all people, Unionists and Nationalists alike. This would be an insult to the bereaved who will go on suffering for the rest of their lives.
I make this plea from the bottom of my heart.
12.00
Mr Attwood:
First, I wish to state that I intend to tread warily and easily, not least because of the comments made by Mr Benson, who said that this is one of the most painful experiences of his life.
When I reach the body of my speech my perspective will be to tread warily and tread easily because we tread on people's hearts and experiences. Nothing that I say on behalf of the SDLP - indeed, no SDLP comment today - will be meant to do anything to compound the hurt, anxiety and anguish in our community.
However, a number of matters that were raised by Mr Dodds and Mr Neeson need to be commented on.
Mr Roche:
In view of your comments about not wishing to tread on the sensibilities of Members, what do you make of the comments made by the deputy leader of your party when he attended the Brehon Law Society 'Irishman of the Year' award in Philadelphia? He took the opportunity to inform his United States audience that in the North of Ireland the RUC has reduced the rule of law to little more than the law of the jungle. That is your party's position.
Mr Attwood:
I will deal with that issue, but first I wish to deal with some other points.
Mr Dodds referred to the Garda Síochána. He asked if the SDLP had made any submissions to the Irish Government about issues such as emblems and names in respect of the Garda Síochána. Whilst I did not wish to start with this issue, the point that Mr Dodds raised is germane to the issue of Patten, the RUC, and policing change.
While it may or may not be necessary for the Garda Síochána to modernise in a pluralist society, it can be said that there is no disagreement about the nature of the Republic of Ireland and its Constitution. There is no disagreement about the nature of its institutions of state, including its police service. As far as we are aware the people of the Republic of Ireland are comfortable regarding the name 'Garda Síochána' and the symbols and emblems it displays.
That is the reality in respect of the Garda Síochána and the Republic of Ireland but it has not existed heretofore in the North of Ireland. The fact that these core values and requirements about the nature of the state and its institutions did not exist in relation to the North is one of the compelling reasons why the nature of our state, and its police service has to change. This is why the name, the emblems, the symbols, policies and practices of the police service in the North must change. There are compelling arguments why that must be done - arguments that do not exist in relation to the Garda Síochána.
In the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin, the SDLP - along with many other parties - made proposals to the Irish Government about how that state should modernise in the context of a pluralist future and the new millennium. Therefore we are not behind the door about making proposals to the Irish Government about ways in which they could change their constitutional institutions in order to reflect more fully the requirements of our changed circumstances.
My second point was raised by Mr Dodds also. He said that the SDLP had lain down before Sinn Féin in relation to the issue of the RUC and policing. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Our attitude towards the RUC and policing change has been fundamentally different to that of Republicans. We have repeatedly said that, whatever its nature, our conflict should not be expressed in violent terms. It should not be visited upon any member of our state, including the RUC, in violent terms. We have said to our community that, whatever our difficulties with the Patten Report - and there are some - it remains the baseline around which people in the North can begin to gather in order to create a police service which earns the allegiance of all. We have said that to our own community and to Republicans.
Regardless of our anxieties about the hesitancy evident in some of the Government's comments on Patten in its response last week, we tell our community, and we urge Republicans to tell theirs, that this represents the opportunity for a new beginning for policing. We should not dismiss it idly or casually.
We differ from Sinn Féin in this matter and in many others. It is dishonest and inappropriate to say that we have lain down before any party on this issue. Our judgements have been made solely on what we feel best serves the needs of all communities in the North - not on what may or may not be the view of any other party.
I wish to turn to the core of my speech by returning to some of the comments I made earlier in reply to Mr Benson. It is important that some of these matters be put on the record in this Chamber, just as we hope we have put them on the record in the public domain in the past. Nothing that I say on behalf of the SDLP should deny certain truths. My community recognises how greatly, both individually and collectively, the RUC, their families and the wider community have suffered. They have acted courageously, and members of the present RUC are entitled to be in a future Northern Ireland police service.
While we have been tough on what is wrong in policing - myself in particular, perhaps - we have also been tough on the wrongs visited on the RUC. Some of those who seek to protect the RUC do not fully accept that my community acknowledges what the RUC has endured. My community's requirement for far-reaching change is seen as somehow diminishing what has been endured. That is not the case, and my community wishes this to be known conclusively. If nothing else arises from this debate, I want those Members who feel most protective of the RUC and who have valued its role over the last 30 years to understand how my community and our constituency view the RUC, notwithstanding our concerns about RUC actions in the past.
There is a concept developing, especially in certain eastern European states, of "chosen victims, chosen victories". It concerns the selective remembrance of the past. We can all relate to how we have "chosen victims and chosen victories." Whilst it is too painful at this stage of our history to move beyond that way of viewing past conflict, it is essential that we remind ourselves that others have their own victories and victims also.
If we are selective or partial, and if we do not deal with matters in a complete way we will end up not dealing with the conflict of the last 30 years and the pain inflicted and endured over that time in a complete way. Whilst our community has not yet reached that stage, it will be essential for us to fully and creatively deal with past abuses if we are to move past this phase of conflict.
It is inevitable that the differences about the future of policing are intense. Emotions surrounding the RUC and our experiences of it have been different. Wrongs have been perpetrated against the RUC, and wrongs have been perpetrated against Nationalists and others by the state and its agencies.
Next Sunday I, Bairbre de Brún and other Assembly Members will be speaking at the "bloody Sunday" commemoration rally. It would be helpful and creative if the pain of "bloody Sunday" were more fully acknowledged and accepted by all Members of the Assembly and not just by those who have been associated with that issue.
Mr Morrow:
I am interested to hear the Member say that next Sunday he will be parading and coat-trailing in Londonderry. I recall that his leader is on record as saying that it is time to draw a line under the past and let history be the judge of it. Unfortunately, as he knows, a very expensive commission has been established to investigate what is supposed to have happened on "bloody Sunday". Is he prepared to draw a line under this, or is this one of the special items that is reserved for the domain of the Nationalist community?
Mr Attwood:
When John Hume referred to drawing a line under the past he did not mean that we should ignore or abandon it, or that our obligation to explain, interpret and deal with the past should not be accepted. There is a difference between drawing a line under the past, in terms of how we conducted our political affairs, and how we should try to understand and interpret what happened in the past so that it does not happen in the future. That is why we have a victims' commission, a police ombudsman and a human rights commission which is enabled and empowered to investigate and deal with issues of the past which have caused anxiety and concern. There are issues of the past that every Member can talk about that must be dealt with, but that is different from saying that we should ignore the past and abandon it to memory and history. That is what John Hume meant, and if he were here it is what he would say.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Member to try to mislead the House by suggesting that the policing ombudsman has the power to investigate past alleged misdemeanours by the RUC? She has no such function.
Mr Speaker:
That is not a point of order.
Mr Attwood:
I did give way to the Member. If he were to consult the police ombudsman the Member would be aware that any existing complaints that are ongoing and will become the responsibility of the police ombudsman. These include complaints arising from the killings of Robert Hamill, Pat Finucane and others, and the investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of Rosemary Nelson. Complaints from anybody else, from whatever background, will continue to be within the custody of the police ombudsman, and she will have the responsibility of dealing with those issues when she is empowered next August.
Mr Roche:
I am sorry to have to interrupt the Member twice. Does he not think that it is a little incongruous to be attending the "bloody Sunday" event next week with Bairbre de Brún, who is a colleague of Gerry Adams, when in the book 'Man of War, Man of Peace', written by Mark Davenport, Mr Adams is explicitly mentioned as being among the planners of "bloody Friday"?
Mr Attwood:
There is no incongruity whatsoever in any Member going to Derry next Sunday and standing with the families of those who suffered on "bloody Sunday" to respect the dignity which they have shown in their campaign and to acknowledge that we are at a very important moment, given that the Government have undertaken this inquiry into the circumstances of "bloody Sunday" - to stand with them in order to get at the truth of what is in representative and local terms a deeply painful moment in the last 30 years of our history. There is no incongruity in doing that. That is why I will be there next Sunday and not for any other reason.
We all must recognise the wrongs of the past and the wrongs perpetrated one on the other in the past. As a consequence we come to the issue of policing change carrying different, sometimes common pain, but with pain comes wisdom.
12.15 pm
The late Robert Kennedy, who often quoted the ancient Greek writer Aeschylus, said
"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our own time against our will comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
That wisdom has informed the political process over a number of years, and, unlikely though it may seem at the moment, it may yet inform the policing debate over the coming months. I appeal to everybody to stand back and reflect on what Patten and the Secretary of State have said and proposed. Everyone should ask themselves a number of questions. These are essential if we are to move this debate from the sterile ground which it currently occupies into a more fertile area. The following questions must be answered if we are to solve the current policing problems.
First, if each of us were asked to design a police service for a new beginning, could we say honestly and with absolute conviction that the Patten proposals and the Government's response are so far off the mark? Do any of us, including Republicans, seriously believe the changes are the outworking of the obsolete slogan "Disband the RUC"? Are the proposals on training, recruitment, human rights and structure such that, taken in totality, they would not create a service to which we could all give allegiance? Ultimately, if both traditions join in equal numbers and with equal enthusiasm, is that not a prize worth striving for? The answers to those questions, which should be placed honestly before each of our parties and communities, may enable us to begin to work through the current problem and find a solution.
I should like to comment on what the British Government have said and what they will do in the coming weeks. The judgement of the SDLP is that, taken in totality, the Patten and Mandelson proposals create the potential for a police service that can earn the allegiance of all. That judgement will be better informed when the Government publish their draft legislation. We trust that the legislation will faithfully and fully reflect the Patten and Mandelson proposals. I say that advisedly.
The draft Northern Ireland Bill, which gave legislative effect to the Good Friday Agreement, did not faithfully and fully reflect the agreement when first published. It required a lobby inside and outside the House of Commons and the good offices of Paul Murphy, in particular, to ensure that the powers of the Human Rights Commission and the responsibilities of the Equality Commission, as intended by the Good Friday Agreement, were reflected in the Northern Ireland Act.
The intentions of the Patten and Mandelson proposals need to be reflected in the forthcoming Police Bill; and we anticipate that that will be the case. If not, people's concerns that elements within the police or Government wish to design the new police service in their own way rather than in a way that is consistent with what Patten and Mandelson have proposed will be confirmed. If that were to happen, a new policing world would dawn, but the old men would have come out again and remade it in the likeness of the world that they knew.
The Government need to be aware that we shall watch closely to ensure that that situation does not arise. In particular the Government should be aware that we wish to see human rights put centre stage in the new police service. It is surely not coincidental that the lead chapter of Patten is on human rights, and it cannot be coincidental that the lead sentence of the report says
"the fundamental purpose of policing should be . the protection and vindication of the human rights of all."
Patten translates that principle into a wide range of practices, including a code of ethics, codes of practice, training and awareness of human rights, close monitoring by the police board, integration of human rights in every module of police training and a new oath for new officers that expresses an explicit commitment to upholding human rights.
Given the centrality of human rights to Patten, there cannot be selective, partial or occasional implementation of his proposals. On this issue where Patten's proposals are authoritative, where the arguments are definitive and compelling, where the recommendation is unambiguous, Patten should be implemented through Mandelson in full, and in good time. The same is true for any Patten proposals that are definitive, compelling and unambiguous.
I conclude by addressing my comments to those in the Nationalist and Republican constituencies. While the SDLP has a degree of concern and caution over certain Patten/Mandelson proposals - in particular, the timeframe for balanced membership, the use of plastic bullets and emergency laws - nonetheless, we say to all, and not least to those in our community, that it is a baseline around which those who wish to see a representative, unarmed, civilian, accountable police service that conforms to human rights standards can congregate.
We say to all - and again not least to those in our community - that we must move beyond slogans about the RUC and into strategies about good policing policy and practice. In spite of the headlines, 85% and more of the Patten proposals can be signed up to by 85% and more of the population. The Patten proposals, with all their integrity, that Mr Mandelson intends to implement in their totality represent a new beginning in the practice of policing to sustain our new beginning in the practice of politics.
I remember when I first read the Patten Report I was anxious about what was not recommended. Last Tuesday I was anxious about the hesitancy in the Government's response to some of the proposals. All of us, and I not least, would design a new police service somewhat differently. But if each of us were asked to design a police service for our new beginning, not in the image of Nationalism or Unionism, not remade in the image of the previous policies and past practices, we would design a service to be shared in and joined in, and the Patten/Mandelson proposals are not so far off that mark.
I commend the amendment to the House.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Let us be realistic about this motion. The harder the DUP tries to convince itself and others that the RUC is a normal, acceptable police body like other police bodies throughout the world, the less people believe it. Most right-thinking people acknowledge the reality that the RUC as an organisation is the product of a failed political dispensation. RUC families have suffered as a result of this.
I wish to correct the comment made by the spokesperson on the Official Unionist Benches. Gerry Adams addressed the suffering of Const Murphy's family at yesterday's commemoration in honour of Tom Williams. The Good Friday Agreement was put in place to give us the new dispensation, and part of that new dispensation is a new police service acceptable to all the people on this island. I can tell you now that that will not be the existing RUC or a reformed RUC. The RUC is not acceptable in Nationalist areas. It can be argued that there is some evidence to suggest that it is not acceptable in some Loyalist areas either, in spite of the continual assertions from the Unionist camp that the RUC is their police force - not a Nationalist but a Unionist one. And this claim is part of the problem.
The abuse of the Nationalist community is well-recorded, and what body would want to claim such a record?
The RUC has been involved in a campaign of intimidation, harassment and terrorisation of people in Nationalist areas, not only in the last 30 years, but since this state was set up. The RUC has been responsible for killing women, men and children with plastic bullets, yet not one of them has ever been convicted of any of those murders.
There is growing evidence of the RUC's collusion with Loyalist death squads that resulted in the deaths of 300 people, including two lawyers. Sinn Féin is not the only group that has flagged up the role of the RUC in murder and torture. It has been criticised by a raft of credible and prestigious human rights bodies such as Amnesty International, the United Nations' Rapporteur on the Independence of Lawyers and Judges, the US Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, the British-Irish Watch, the Helsinki Watch, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Pat Finucane Centre and even the British Scarman and Bennett Inquiries. They all indicted the RUC over its abuse and violations of human rights - a catalogue which includes murder, torture, intimidation and threats.
The RUC has paid £2·5 million to members of the public arising out of 6,702 complaints made against them in the last four years. This year alone it has paid out £982,000. Six thousand people do not complain for the sake of it, and the RUC does not pay compensation for the sake of it - the compensation is an admission of guilt.
This is the RUC that Nigel Dodds attempts to defend and tries to convince us is a decent, good and honourable force, while all the sheep on the DUP benches say "Baa, baa". The world-renowned organisations I have mentioned, whose credentials cannot be disputed, have found that the RUC's track record of consistently abusing human rights has resulted in the British Government's being brought before the European Court of Human Rights 23 times during the last 25 years. It can be argued that the RUC has contributed to and prolonged the conflict in this island and that it is the greatest threat to its peaceful resolution.
If we are to start from scratch, as Patten suggested, we should do so urgently because daily in our communities we can see the results of a policing vacuum. We should take the Patten Report's recommendations on human rights, culture and community policing as a positive template.
The Human Rights Commission has a key role to play in a number of areas relating to policing. Two of its key actions should be to weed out those RUC personnel guilty of human rights abuses and to press for an end to the suppression of reports on the RUC, including those by Stalker and Stevens. The RUC has never diligently or with any distinction served the whole community, as this motion states.
12.30 pm
Patten recognised that, because he consulted with the community and heard the truth about the RUC. In fact, there is an article in this morning's Independent which states - and this has been suspected for a long time - that
"the inquiry into claims that RUC and Army officers colluded in the [Pat Finucane] murder is understood to have found material to support allegations made by two informers that the authorities ignored a series of tip-offs"
that he was to be murdered by the UDA. In fact, Mr Stobie, an RUC informer who is now on bail, was arrested in 1991 on a charge of murdering Pat Finucane and admitted to his involvement in the murder. He also admitted to being a registered informant of the RUC Special Branch and that he had informed his handlers on the night of the murder that Pat Finucane was going to be murdered and that they ignored it.
It is obvious from these disclosures that the RUC wanted Pat Finucane dead. It is a known fact that RUC members threatened Pat Finucane's life just as they threatened the life of Rosemary Nelson. The RUC have known for 11 years who murdered Pat Finucane. They knew that their paid informers were acting to their agenda, were involved in that murder and supplied arms for the murder. Yet this is the police force that Nigel Dodds wants us to try to defend and wants the Nationalist community to support - this so-called law enforcement agency that conspires in the murder of lawyers who were attempting to uphold their clients' rights and uphold justice.
In saying this, I am reminded that policing is one of the most important issues that lies at the heart of conflict resolution. To ensure the success of the Good Friday Agreement - something I am sure most Members want - it is crucial that a proper democratically accountable police service be established. This is a touchstone issue for Nationalists and Republicans.
Sinn Féin has called for the RUC to be disbanded. In common with the other participants of the Good Friday Agreement, we believe that a police service should be one which is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control and accountable, both under the law for its actions, and to the community it serves. It should be representative of the community it polices and should operate within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system which conforms with human rights.
In essence, the RUC cannot deliver on any of the above, as it is an integral part of a failed political dispensation. For young people in Nationalist areas the word "police" has become synonomous with the word "sectarianism", with repression, with all-invasive surveillance of their everyday lives, with harassment and brutality meted out with total impunity, with daily humiliation at the hands of an armed force which has shown total contempt for the political and religious beliefs of the people in this community.
I have a cutting from a paper which states that an Omagh student successfully sued the RUC for damages for assault. One of the officers commented to another policeman that there was nothing like beating a few Fenians on a Friday night. It is no wonder young people have no respect for this brutal force. Yet, in spite of their myriad negative experiences at the hands of the RUC, Nationalists and Republicans still want a policing service.
Our community is implacably opposed to the RUC, but it is not anti-police per se. Nationalists and Republicans, like all sections of society, want and, indeed, deserve a policing service they can trust and respect, one which they can feel confident of joining or recommending to others as a possible career option.
We were promised a new beginning in policing. Our task at present is to assess whether this report and its implementation hold the potential to create that new beginning. Pending the establishment of an all-Ireland policing service, Sinn Féin wants to see the establishment of a police service that can attract the widespread support that is necessary and is seen as an integral part of the whole community. We remain to be convinced that the Patten Report provides the potential to bring this about. However, we could be convinced if there were clear evidence that the British Government have the political will to see such a service established.
Nationalists and Republicans, like all sections of society, want and deserve that policing service. I do not believe that anyone from any community will accept being policed by a force whose members sit by in a Land Rover while a young Catholic is kicked to death by a Loyalist mob, by a force whose security files on Nationalists are routinely passed on to Loyalist death squads, by a force that acts with total impunity - [Interruption]
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
It is even confident of issuing death threats against solicitors, whether because of their fight to uncover the truth or because of the identity of their clients. Such a force must go - and go for ever.
The Patten Commission has said that human rights abusers must be dealt with, but the British Government have yet to make it clear how this will be done. The nightmare that was the RUC must now be a thing of the past as we move forward to create a new future for all our people.
Let us stop pretending. The composition of the RUC never reflected the Nationalist Catholic community prior to 1969. With a new police service, we may now have the opportunity to redress this imbalance. Sinn Féin will reserve judgement on that until it sees the colour of Peter Mandelson's eyes.
I oppose the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Mr Roche:
The destruction of the RUC is a core requirement of the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement requires there to be a new beginning in policing in Northern Ireland - a requirement based on the understanding, on the part of those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement that
"it is essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; [and] accountable, ... under the law, for its actions".
Those words from the agreement are a radical denigration of the operational efficiency, legal accountability and professional integrity of the entire RUC.
The negotiators of the Belfast Agreement, which, of course, included the leadership of the Ulster Unionist -
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You called for order when there was a great deal of noise coming from Assembly Members. Is there something you are not aware of?
Mr Speaker:
Continue, Mr Roche.
Mr Roche:
The negotiators of the Belfast Agreement, which included the leadership of the UUP, obviously considered that the RUC was so deficient that a new beginning to policing was imperative for Northern Ireland. The Patten Report incorporates the letter and spirit of this section of the Belfast Agreement and is, in short, a blueprint for the destruction of the RUC. The content of the Patten Report, in keeping with the terms of reference for the Patten Commission in the Belfast Agreement, was determined by the fundamental perspective set out in paragraph 1·8.
This paragraph states that the so-called reform of policing in Northern Ireland
"should not be a cluster of unconnected adjustments.that can be bolted or soldered onto the organisation that already exists".
The "organisation that already exists"is the RUC. This means that the fundamental perspective of the Patten Report is that the implementation of the recommendations of the report is entirely incompatible with the continued existence of the RUC. In fact, the so-called new police service for Northern Ireland, recommended in the Patten Report, which the Government are now committed to implementing, will be radically different from the RUC in terms of symbolic identity, basis of allegiance, organisational structure and, over a relatively short period, personnel. Not even the name will remain.
At an even more fundamental level, the imperative of the Patten Report to destroy the RUC is based on an unbelievable inversion of reality. For the members of the Patten Commission, terrorism is not central to the intractability of political conflict in Northern Ireland. The Patten Report makes the RUC the cause of the persistence of political instability and terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Patten Report presents the RUC as being at the
"heart of . the problems that politicians have been unable to resolve in Northern Ireland".
The logic of the report is that the effective destruction of the RUC must be central to a process that the report claims is required to restore the
"values of liberty, the rule of law and mutual respect"
and to
"reorient policing in Northern Ireland onto an approach based on upholding human rights and respecting human dignity".
The authors of the report obviously consider that these values are absent from policing in Northern Ireland and that the restoration and maintenance of these values is incompatible with the continuing existence of the RUC. The report explicitly states
"by means of a fresh start for policing, our aim is to help ensure that past tragedies are not repeated in the future".
The clear implication in this statement is that the destruction of the RUC is required to prevent a repetition of the tragedies of the past. This means that the RUC must, in the minds of the authors of the Patten Report, have been, in some unspecified way, responsible for these tragedies. This is a gross and offensive insult to the memory of the 302 RUC and RUCR officers who were murdered and almost 10,000 who were maimed in defence of liberty and the rule of law during 30 years of Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism.
In keeping with this inversion of reality, the Patten Report deploys the tactic of demonising the RUC. This tactic has been central to Sinn Féin/IRA and SDLP strategy for 30 years. The tactic involves relentless denigratory propaganda. What is the political motivation behind this tactic of demonisation? The political motivation is to remove every security barrier to the SDLP and Sinn Féin/IRA goal of the political unification of the island of Ireland.
The Sinn Féin/IRA and SDLP strategy of demonisation directed against the RUC has the unqualified support of the Clinton Administration and the US House of Representatives. On 22 July 1999 the House of Representatives unanimously accepted a report on the RUC by the Committee on International Relations. In this report the RUC is presented, as the enforcement arm of the dominant Unionist majority and as a Gestapo-type organisation which is rotten to its core. Needless to say, there is not a shred of evidence in the report to back any one of these absolutely outrageous claims. Both Sinn Féin/IRA and the SDLP propaganda feed these outrageous sentiments.
Mr Mallon is a vociferous anti-RUC propagandist, and I want to repeat what I said to one of the SDLP members earlier. At the Brehon Law Society 'Irishman of the Year' award ceremony in Philadelphia on 24 April 1999, the then Deputy First Minister (Designate) took the opportunity to inform his United States audience that in the North of Ireland the RUC had reduced the rule of law to little more than the rule of the jungle. This is precisely the understanding of the role of the RUC that determined the conclusion of the report by the House of Representatives Committee on International Affairs.