Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall be brief. It was reported in yesterday's press that Sinn Fein insists that any IRA re-engagement with de Chastelain will be contingent on the implementation of Patten on police reform, substantial demilitarisation and an amnesty for members of the IRA on the run. The only time that the IRA has ever made any kind of gesture in our direction was when the current Secretary of State had the courage and intelligence to call its bluff and stand up to it on the issue of disarmament in the Assembly. I feel that this is another such moment: the bluff should be called. Members of the IRA should be made to see that they cannot issue threats.

I little thought that I would ever do this, but I shall quote with immense approval the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, who stated on 12th November:


Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I, too, shall be brief. I should like to echo the words used by my noble friend Lord Cranborne as regards the assumption that peace is on the way. So far, the Government, in their pursuit of peace--which is what everyone wishes to see--have travelled a long way and have given in to

15 Nov 2000 : Column 326

people who have not, in return, conceded anything at all. Those people have not hesitated to use the bomb and the bullet and they have shown their total contempt for the ballot box.

I should like to explore the Government's mind on one point. In order to justify our continuing journey down this road, can the noble and learned Lord rise to his feet and say that he is truly confident that, given the measure which we are now about to pass, there is a real prospect of peace in Northern Ireland? Furthermore, can he confirm that those who so far have made a success out of using the bomb, the bullet and every other form of violence, will be content to lay aside their weapons and live in peace in a way that so far they have not even attempted?

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, from this Dispatch Box, my noble friend and I have said constantly that this Bill contains important reforms which we support, as well as certain aspects which we have not supported. However, the questions of when and how these reforms are to be implemented are matters of crucial importance. That is why we support these amendments.

The Belfast agreement reached on Good Friday in 1998 promised a way out of the conflicts in Northern Ireland. That promise still exists, but it has not yet been fulfilled. Whatever my right honourable friend Chris Patten may have said personally, the Patten report constantly discusses matters such as "looking forward" to policing in a peaceful society. As we have heard once again during the past few minutes, we have not yet attained that peaceful society.

Page 1 of the Patten report expresses the essence of that agreement; in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as,


    "a spirit of mutual compromise".

Since that time, the Government have consistently compromised, but the terrorists have not. We have not seen any mutual compromise. The terrorists retain their full capacity for terror--the main organisations as well as the so-called splinter groups. Furthermore, they are continuing to use terror in support of brutal criminal rackets which are a great source of concern. While that is the case, then it is at the very least dangerous to blunt the efficiency of the police.

But there is also the politics of the situation. The amendment would make the Bill a promise to the terrorists and others of things to come when they lay down their arms and accept the democratic authorities. That way it would be a positive encouragement to peace, whereas weakness encourages violence.

I should at once make the point that this is not about unionists and nationalists, Protestants and Catholics. The police, the RUC--or whatever they are called in the future--have shown an exceptional even-handedness over the years, as I know personally from when I saw them at close quarters. They have had to stand up--and still have to stand up--to so-called "loyalist" violence as well as to republican violence, particularly in the past few years.

15 Nov 2000 : Column 327

I referred earlier to the bomb at Castlewellan. I understand that forensic tests show that it is thought to be a loyalist bomb that blew off the leg of a policeman the other day. A little earlier, the latest policeman to be killed was killed also by a loyalist bomb. But, of course, the threat is just as great from the other side.

This is not only about the politics but, as I said, it is also about the rackets. At the moment, the rackets worry me quite as much as the political inspiration of violence. The RUC is not alone in the fight against the rackets. Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security among government organisations, and many others, need to be, and are, directly involved. But the RUC is, quite properly, in the lead in the fight against rackets, and is crucial to it.

It is interesting that the Patten commission visited quite a few overseas police forces, but did not visit the Italian police or the authorities there. They have had considerable success against the Mafia in recent years--by no means total, of course--and make a highly relevant comparison. We should never forget that the Mafia started as a political organisation--the Sicilian Independence Movement--but it has long been involved in criminal rackets. The organisations in Northern Ireland have gone down the same road.

The basic point is that in politics, and in all kinds of negotiation, timing is all important. These reforms should be timed to encourage the move towards a peaceful society. It is that timing which the amendments seek to ensure.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments would make the commencement of the Bill dependent on a declaration by the Secretary of State that all terrorism in Northern Ireland had ended.

Before dealing with the substance of the amendments, I want to record the Government's acknowledgement of the work of the RUC in, for example, intercepting the mortar at the weekend. It continues selflessly to protect the community. The Government are indebted to it, and to the army in support. We will not take chances with the lives of its members or those of the community as a whole.

These amendments are not necessary. If they were accepted, they would block changes which the Good Friday agreement, the Independent Commission on Policing, the Government, the police and all political parties--including those of the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment--see as welcome and positive. The amendments also ignore the fact that already certain aspects of Patten implementation--and that does not only include aspects in the Bill--are security dependent.

The Good Friday agreement, in the section on policing and justice, makes it clear that the policing structures and arrangements,


    "must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance".

15 Nov 2000 : Column 328

So it envisaged change taking account of the security situation, but it did not say that there should be no change until the threat had disappeared.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, mentioned, Patten in turn recognised the need to take account of the security situation. In the first chapter of his report, for example, he said:


    "Organised terrorism and threats to public order have limited what the police have been able to do and have felt themselves able to do in partnership with the community. Even after the Agreement is--we hope--fully implemented, those factors will continue for some time to cast a shadow on policing".

In chapter 7.1 Patten stated:


    "others [recommendations] will depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops, and judgments will need to be made over the next few years as to when they should be introduced, or whether some should only be introduced in selected areas".

The Government are clear, and have always been clear, that there are a number of Patten recommendations which are dependent on the security situation. We made that clear in the Government's implementation plan published in June. Perhaps I may give some examples of the security-dependent provisions: phasing-out of the full-time reserve; amalgamation of Special Branch and Crime Branch; progress towards an unarmed police service; changes to police buildings and vehicles; repeal of emergency powers; and the need for Army support.

These amendments, however, would block any change for as long as there is terrorism of any kind. While, therefore, I am sure that it is a shared aim of every one of your Lordships that there should be--that there must be--an end to terrorism in Northern Ireland, I cannot accept that we should prevent non-security-dependent changes to policing, changes which the Good Friday agreement called for.

The amendments would, therefore, undermine the value that the changes in the Bill and implementation of Patten generally would bring for policing. For example, the Chief Constable has said that,


    "the vast bulk of the recommendations are simply about good and effective policing--they should be proceeded with as soon as possible".

The chairman of the Police Federation, Les Rodgers, has said:


    "because it is mainly based on the 1995 RUC Fundamental Review, and incorporates most of our own recommendations to Patten, there is much to find favour with in Patten".

During Second Reading in another place, the right honourable Member for Bracknell, Mr Andrew Mackay, said:


    "the great majority of the recommendations should be implemented straight away but others should be implemented only when there was no longer a security threat".--[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 187.]

Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said only yesterday:


    "we support about 90-95 per cent of the changes that are required under the Police Bill".

15 Nov 2000 : Column 329

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to consider those points and not to press his amendment to a Division. The Government have made it clear that they will continue to move on implementation only as the security situation permits. Changes which are not dependent on security should not be stalled.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page