Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 6:30 pm on 15 November 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton Minister of State, Cabinet Office 6:30, 15 November 2000

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".

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".

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.