Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 24 January 2000 (continued)
Mr Speaker:
Order. Your time is up.
Mr Leslie:
I rise to support the motion. My Colleagues have outlined most of the flaws in the course of action that the Secretary of State proposes to take. My remarks are directed to the Secretary of State, and I trust that he will read a transcript of the debate. He might get a better feeling for the views of the people in Northern Ireland from that than from what he gets from officials in the Northern Ireland Office.
In his lengthy peroration Mr Dodds failed to address the most fundamental point that Westminster is sovereign. Was that because he is still in the time warp of the referendum campaign when the DUP assured us that the repeal of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act would mean that Westminster was not sovereign? Westminster would not be able to reform the police force, contrary to the wishes of the majority of the population, if it were not a sovereign Parliament. Nobody knows this better than Mr Dodds and his Colleague Mr S Wilson, who told us this again and again in a debate in the Chamber on 9 November 1998, with a note of triumph in his voice.
Mr Roche:
Will the Member give way?
Mr Leslie:
No. This side of the House did not give way to my party, and in the short time available I will not be doing so.
It is both to the benefit and burden of Unionism that Westminster is sovereign. The Secretary of State needs to take into account that we will not know for some time whether the reformed police force he envisages, at some cost, will be as effective in upholding the law. It is therefore essential in framing the legislation that provision is made to regularly review the progress of the reform to see if the police are able to uphold the law satisfactorily.
Mr Neeson made a highly relevant point about the need to link the pace of police reform to the creation of a peaceful society. This was not evident in the Secretary of State’s statement last week. I hope he will review the matter. It is not just that this society needs to be free from actual violence; it needs to be free from the threat of violence.
If the Secretary of State wants to emphasise that the police are in charge of upholding the law, perhaps he would like to address himself to the law itself. It would send the right signal if Westminster — as criminal law in Northern Ireland is a reserved matter — were to introduce a mandatory 25-year jail sentence without remission for the possession of arms and explosives. That might provide an incentive for the move towards decommissioning.
5.15 pm
In looking at the amendment, which has received very little attention in this debate, I welcome the fact that the SDLP is going to support it and that it will be giving its full support to the proposed reformed police service and will be encouraging people to join it. I hope the SDLP will take its views to the Roman Catholic clergy, who seem to have a rather more equivocal view on the matter.
We welcome any Roman Catholic recruits to the RUC. We look forward to their coming forward and trust that they will pass the selection procedures and go through training. However, it needs to be borne in mind that it takes time to train a police officer, and it takes time for a police officer to acquire the experience to make him effective. It is simply not practical to turn over a great number of personnel in a very short period.
In conclusion, Mrs Nelis suggested that the nightmare of the RUC must be a thing of the past. For nearly all of the people of Northern Ireland, except perhaps for those who support her party and the terrorist IRA, the nightmare we want to see ending is the nightmare of the 30 years of terrorism. I support the motion.
Mr ONeill:
I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, although perhaps "debate" is too generous a word. As I listened to it, here and in my office, I got the distinct impression that very few people are really listening to what others are saying. Maybe that is because it is a debate about what is really going on between two brands of Unionism rather than about the Patten Report or policing. Therefore we get this internecine squabble instead of a debate.
However, there are points to be made. Some of these have been covered by my Colleagues earlier, but it does not do any harm to repeat some of them. I would like to emphasise one or two things, because it is an opportunity for the SDLP to show quite clearly that we have been in the forefront of arguing for fair, neutral and available services to all. We have argued for a form of government that is open to all and for a form of policing that goes along with it. We have been arguing for those things for many years, and eventually we are beginning to get that argument across to those who count. For so long there has been a lack of identification with the police force. No one in the Chamber can honestly say that this is not true. If Members do, they are missing the reality of the situation, which has been there for a long time.
We want to create a policing service that is wholeheartedly supported by all sections of the community. We see that as one of the most essential and valuable goals of the whole political process because the policing problem is a deep-seated political one which goes to the very heart of the political entity that is Northern Ireland. Our analysis has shown that this issue is very deep and fundamental to the whole political approach. Political and policing problems in Northern Ireland are intertwined and interlocked. One cannot be solved without the other. If we fail to solve one, it is our fear that the other will be incapable of resolution.
We are conscious of the need to create a system of policing which commands the support of Unionist and Nationalist communities for the first time. To be meaningful, that support must be more than the verbal declarations that often pass for policing reform. Support implies people from Nationalist and Unionist areas joining a police service with a sense of pride, not guilt, and without censure from a community. It means serving and protecting the community as an indigenous part of it and, in turn, being protected by the community.
It means that Nationalists as well as Unionists will be involved in policing in a way which has not been possible since Northern Ireland was created. For Nationalists it will, for the first time, be the granting of allegiance to a system of policing with which they can identify politically and ideologically. That is an important point. That will be a quantum leap for Nationalists, and I recognise that. That is why we support the Patten Report. We believe that the Patten Report provides that opportunity, and for that reason, we welcome Peter Mandelson’s recent statement.
As a result of the agreement, there is great expectancy amongst people that we will get a peaceful, acceptable and agreeable form of government. In tandem with that, there is a great expectancy that we will have whole systems to which we can give our allegiance, including the police service. If we are not able to deliver that, then I fear for the consequences with regard to getting all our political views and all our political processes together.
Mr Speaker:
After four and a half hours of debate I still have a very substantial list of Members from a number of parties who wish to make contributions. Clearly, that is not possible. We also have to have the vote, and I have to assume that there will be a vote on the amendment as well as a vote on the substantive motion before 6.00 pm. The winding-up speeches for the amendment and the substantive motion also have to take place, and those who are winding up have to respond to some four and a half hours of debate. I therefore intend to call the Members who will be winding up on the amendment and on the substantive motion, with the intention of moving to the votes at 5.40 pm. This will give us approximately 10 minutes for each of the votes. This, I fear, will be very tight, so I must ask for your co-operation.
Mr Close:
The one thing that has become clear from today’s debate is that there has been, and still is, a great deal of pain throughout society. The other thing that is equally clear and obvious is that no one section of the community has a monopoly on that hurt and pain. If we all recognise those facts, then this debate will have served a useful purpose.
Another word which came through from a number of Members was the word "anger". I feel that the anger is often more painful than the injury that caused it in the first place, and I ask Members to take account of this fact.
It has to be recognised that the Patten Report has caused, in some of its recommendations, a degree of pain and hurt throughout society. However, it equally has to be recognised that there is a Patten Report because of this society’s past failures in finding an acceptable and democratic method by which to govern Northern Ireland. The point must be made that the old mentality of "Not an inch" or "No change" is exactly what got us into the mess in which we found ourselves.
Policing has been contentious, by and large, because the whole essence of politics in Northern Ireland has been contentious.
The consent principle, which is surely the effective cornerstone for policing in any democracy, has been absent. The Patten Report says that in contested space the role of those charged with keeping the peace has itself been contested.
Having listened to what has been said, I have no doubt that the areas that have caused the greatest hurt and pain, tugging hard at the heartstrings and at the emotions, are those that deal with the name and the badge. I can empathise with those who have lost relatives or friends because they were members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I can understand the feelings of almost betrayal felt by those who have lost limbs or whose senses have suffered some terrible injury because they wore the badge and the uniform. Yes, there has been a feeling of hurt and, yes, there are memories. People can take anything else away, but they can never take away those memories. I believe that those memories, those sacrifices can be enriched and enhanced.
That would happen if all the leaders in this society did their utmost to ensure that the pain was not in vain, that the pain of some could be translated into gain for the entire community. The gain to which I refer would be a police service that has the consent of the entire community, where the police and the public work in partnership. Why? Because policing, in my opinion, is too important a job to be left to the police alone.
This can and will be achieved, not by quotas but by leadership, not by the hypocritical rantings of politicians who jump to the defence of the badge and the name of the RUC because they consider it politically expedient. Leaders who in the past, by their words and actions, physically and verbally abused the person, the individual, the man or woman who was wearing that badge and uniform simply because those individuals did not comply with their political or other agenda.
There is hurt and there is pain, but there is also the stench of hypocrisy from what I would refer to as the whited sepulchres masquerading as defenders of the police. There is also the stench of hypocrisy from those who condemn the police for, for example, alleged brutality. Leadership today is the vital catalyst that will change the pain into gain. That leadership must come from right across the entire spectrum of the community, but in a particular way. It must be seen to come from those who are regarded as the leaders and as the opinion-formers in the Catholic, Nationalist and Republican sections of the community.
The composition of the police force has been disproportionately Protestant and Unionist. This imbalance, for which there are many reasons, can only be addressed by more recruits from what is euphemistically referred to as "the other side". The type of leadership that I am calling for today can only enhance the chances of that happening, and happening quickly. Those who have been in the vanguard in calling for change have now got to put up or shut up. It is not good enough to advocate a wait-and-see policy. It is time for active, not passive, leadership.
The GAA, for example, should come off the fence and encourage its supporters and activists to enlist now. It can do that by changing rule 21. It can call a special meeting of its organisation, if necessary, to enable that to happen quickly. Republicans, who could show Oliver Twist a thing or two about asking for more, should embrace the sentiments in the motto of the city of Belfast — "Pro tanto quid retribuamus" — and ask "For so much, what return can we make to this society?"
5.30 pm
They should stop their begrudging, stop their whingeing. It is time for generosity of spirit. It is time for give and take, not just take. It is time for the entire community to help the police emerge from their metamorphosis strengthened and improved, having the support not just of part of this community, but rather the confidence and support of the entire community. I call on the House to take the first step now.
There are two certainties. One is that the police are not going to be disbanded; the other is that the Patten Report is not going to be scrapped. Let us deal with the realities. Let us support this amendment and send out a message of hope rather than the negative messages of "No movement" and "Not an inch" that are the essence of the motion. I appeal in particular to the Ulster Unionists, who have sat here this afternoon and had the stick dragged across their backs by the Democratic Unionists, to support the amendment. The changes they want can be brought about by changes in legislation. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Mr P Robinson:
I will not be deflected by the pious preaching of the holier-than-thou, whiter-than-white Alliance Party. It is sufficient to leave on record its view that a motion to safeguard and retain the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a negative motion. We will see what its electorate has to say about its judgement on that issue.
It was wise of my Colleague Mr Dodds, when he was asked to move the motion last week, to withdraw it in favour of a fuller debate. The House has benefited from that. On top of that, of course, the recent announcement by the Secretary of State has made this issue all the more urgent and topical. If the House had not addressed the issue at a time when everyone outside was addressing it, we would have looked very foolish indeed.
This is a deep wound for the pro-British, law-abiding community in Northern Ireland. It is a self-inflicted wound. Its derivation is very clear. It comes directly and unmistakably from the Belfast Agreement. That is unquestionable. Is it any wonder that Chris Patten should cry out in exasperation "What did they expect?"? When one looks at the section of the Belfast Agreement dealing with policing, and in particular at the terms of reference for the Patten Commission, what else could one have expected?
The terms of reference are clearly defined. Let anybody who suggests that the change of the RUC’s name and badge came as a bolt out of the blue tell me what was meant by the agreement that was signed. It stated that a new police force should be designed. It dealt with issues such as policing arrangements including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols. What else could have been expected? Chris Patten went on to say
"I don’t say this provocatively, but it really does seem to me that we were given a very clear agenda, and I’m surprised that those who gave us that agenda did not understand what the consequences would be."
I take issue with him on only one aspect of his statement. They could not but have understood. They were told over and over and over again. They were told by all of my colleagues who were opposed to the Belfast Agreement, and this was one of the four key areas that we highlighted during the referendum campaign.
We told people very clearly that this would lead to the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Many people may well ask themselves "What advice did our politicians give us during that campaign? We did not know that this was going to happen." The advice of the Ulster Unionist Party was that it would not happen. It wrongly analysed the issue, or else it sought to deceive the people. But then deceiving the people is an interesting phenomenon. I notice that the Secretary of State had something to say about that in the House of Commons to the Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mr Maginnis. He said
"I am surprised that he chooses to say something different in public from what he has said to me in private."
The people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone — indeed, the people of Northern Ireland and, more particularly, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whom he is paid to represent — have a right to know what he was saying in private that is so different from what he is saying publicly.
The next day in ‘The Times’, Mathew Parris perhaps hit the nail on the head when he said
"You could feel Mr Mandelson’s anger rise. ‘I’m surprised he chooses to say these things’ he observed with cold fury. The punch which followed was hardly pulled, the implication inescapable: that behind closed doors together, Mr Maginnis had offered support to Mr Mandelson’s hopes for the RUC, but here, perhaps for show at home, he was making a display of opposition, speaking ‘differently in public from what he says in private’."
Mr Parris then observed
"Mr Maginnis looked gobsmacked, did not come back for more, and stayed gobsmacked for the rest of the session".
The people of Northern Ireland deserve an answer. What was the distinction between the private messages that the Ulster Unionist Party was giving to the Secretary of State about the acceptability of these proposals and what it was saying in public? And the synthetic anger of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in Westminster fools no one. He could not have been surprised. He is at least an intelligent man. He must therefore have understood what he was signing up to, and he must have understood that this was the outworking of the agreement that he had reached.
With regard to the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I note also the basic principle enshrined in the Government’s argument that this will be a factor in encouraging the Catholic and Nationalist community to join the new force. Not so, according to the Police Authority, and I put on record its views from its statement on this issue:
"Our view remains that the name is arguably one of the least significant factors deterring Catholics from joining the RUC. There is no reliable evidence to show that changing the name would produce any significant increase in recruits from the Catholic community and in the absence of this we have a real fear that the proposal will alienate a large section of the community without having any appreciable impact on the problem it is designed to solve".
I ask for support for this motion. It is of critical importance not just to the Royal Ulster Constabulary but also to this Province. My Colleague, in opening this debate, challenged the House with a question. He asked if anybody conceivably thought that if all of Nationalism was united against a proposal being considered by the Government, that the Government would proceed. Everyone knows the answer. However, during the debate Nationalists have not been prepared to face up to that question.
The reality is that if Nationalists had been opposed to it — and opposed as vociferously and strongly and passionately as Unionists are — it would never have seen the light of day. The Secretary of State would never have stood up in the House of Commons to advance it. Everyone knows that that is the case.
But it is the Unionists who are against it. Have we less right to be heard and to be taken into account than Nationalists? The Assembly by its vote today can give a clear message to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister. If every Unionst in the Chamber votes in favour of the motion, we are putting to the Government that they do not have the support of at least this section of the Unionist community. If the Belfast Agreement meant anything when it said that widespread support was required and that there had to be greater support for the new structure than the old, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister could not conceviably proceed with this proposal.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a proud record which deservedly won for the force the George Cross. No police force, especially not one serving in the circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland, could be stainless. No political party, no Church, no organisation anywhere in this Province can say that it has never made a mistake. Certainly no politician could say that. On balance, the role performed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary outshines many organisations and certainly outshines its detractors.
We must take into account not only the role that the force has performed under difficult circumstances but also its gallantry. We must remember the sacrifice by so many of its members — 302 of whom were killed defending our streets and our homes. Some 9,000 members of the RUC were maimed or mutilated. More than 400,000 people signed a petition to the Secretary of State in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In UK terms that represents between 15 million and 20 million people. In those circumstances would the Secretary of State have proceeded?
Let us make the vote a clear message from the Unionist Benches and let us see whether Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson are prepared to listen to the Unionist community’s — I hope — united voice.
5.45 pm
Question put That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 28; Noes 65.
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Sean Neeson, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, Pat Doherty, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Gardiner Kane, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Francie Molloy, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 50; Noes 42.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
This House rejects the Patten Commission’s report and calls upon the Secretary of State to reject proposals which would reward and elevate terrorists while demoralising and destroying the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose members, both full-time and part-time, have diligently and with great distinction served the whole community.
The sitting was suspended at 6.10 pm.