HC Deb 20 February 1986 vol 92 cc578-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

10.14 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

On 14 January an assistant chief constable of Northern Ireland handed to the chairman of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland a paper of which I have a copy and which stated that regulation 35 of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's code had unilaterally been amended by his chief constable, Sir John Hermon. Regulation 35 read: Nothing in these regulations will preclude the spokesmen of any of the constituent sections of the Police Association for Northern Ireland making or issuing any statement for the news media concerning the welfare and efficiency of their members. These words are incapable of any other meaning than that the spokesman of the Police Federation, the principal element of the Police Association, is free to speak out on all matters affecting the welfare and efficiency of its members, as Parliament intended when it passed the parent Act. However, the amendment, which was made without one word of consultation or explanation substituted the following words: Statements and interviews and the publication of articles in any journal or periodical concerning matters of general force policy and actions or expressions of opinion on police problems or duties are not permitted without the express consent or approval of the chief constable. The amendment continued: Where any aspect of welfare or efficiency may relate to force policy or actions, police problems or duties, the chief constable should be consulted and his approval obtained before any statement is made or any article published. These words have no other meaning than that the chief constable has decided to prevent the federation making any comment in public of which he has not specifically approved in advance.

Over the following weekend the chief constable went further. He withdrew the amendment which I have quoted and substituted for it a further force order cancelling regulation 35—the federation's free—speech regulation—in its entirety. The exact words of the order were: Regulation 35 is cancelled pending consideration of an amending regulation. Those are the origins of the damaging and unnecessary dispute that is upsetting the Royal Ulster Constabulary and giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It is the issue which is now, quite properly, engaging the attention of the House.

I approach this matter far more in sorrow than in anger. I have sought to drain my words of any emotional content. I have been personally involved in policing matters for close on 16 years but never before have I encountered an issue that raised such fundamental principles of British justice as this one, and the principle need to be spelt out clearly.

The first issue is free speech and the second is the duty on all citizens—and most of all on chief constables of police—to respect the letter and spirit of the law as Parliament makes it. The third issue is the practical need to bring this distressing and undignified quarrel swiftly to an end with no further damage and before it gets out of hand. What has upset the chief constable? According to his senior assistant chief constable, it was an editorial in the Federation magazine, "Police Beat". It said: the Federation sees the RUC as an essentially civilian force temporarily armed for its own protection while the troubles endure. Fighting a guerilla war is no job for an ordinary police officer. It is the job of the military to seek out and destroy the enemy and to provide a secure environment for the operation of the traditional law enforcement agency. Those, apparently, are the alleged offending words.

I say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that this is milk and water stuff compared with the full-blooded editorials that come thundering out of the England and Wales Federation magazine on every issue imaginable from the ineffectiveness of the machine guns issued to the police at London airport to the conduct of senior officers during racial disturbances and riots. The editorial does nothing more than reiterate the official and publicly declared policy of the Federation for the past 17 years, as agreed at its democratically elected annual conference. In evidence given to the Hunt Committee in 1969, the Federation used and published a statement of policy in almost precisely the same words as those objected to.

Why is it that the chief constable takes exception in 1986 to a statement that the Federation has repeatedly made in 1976, 1978, 1983, 1984 and 1985? What is it in these words that can justify the chief constable coming down, like a ton of bricks, and unilaterally washing out the entire regulation that guarantees the Federation's right to speak out? What is wrong with the Federation putting forward its belief that, sooner or later, the Royal Ulster Constabulary should return to unarmed, civilian, policing? Is this not what we all want? Is it not the Government's long term hope and policy?

Let us suppose that the chief constable had other motives and that he was determined for other reasons to slap down the Federation and to discipline Mr. Alan Wright. The chief constable has tried to do this several times before. The police discipline code, as I know from too much experience, is an all-embracing document. If the chief constable believes that Mr. Wright is in breach of it, why does he not charge him with an offence? He could do so, for example, under the regulation dealing with bringing the service into disrepute or in the catch-all phrase "disreputable conduct."

I am the first to accept that, in any disciplined force, the chief constable must have the ability to charge and try, and, if a man is found guilty, to punish any of his officers who break the discipline code. That is the proper remedy, but is it not the proper remedy for the chief constable to respond to what he considers to be Mr. Wright's error of judgment by abrogating all the Federation's statutory rights. This is the heart of the matter.

The rights and the duties of the Federation belong to all its members—past, present and future. They are collective rights, created by this House; and they cannot be taken away from all the members of the Federation because one member is thought by the chief constable to have stepped out of line. If, against all the evidence, the chief constable believes that Mr. Wright is guilty of any offence, let the chief constable bring charges against him. If he does this, Mr. Wright will be entitled to be informed—which he has not been—of the complaints that are laid against him; to be allowed—as he has not been—to confront his accuser and to be given a fair hearing—again he has not been—in accordance with the proper procedures of the police discipline regulations as laid down by this House.

I do not think that there is a cat in hell's chance of Mr. Wright's being found guilty of any offence in any court that I can imagine. However let us suppose that he was. Would that in any way justify the chief constable's taking away the rights of the other 10,999 RUC police officers and reservists who, by statute, have been given the right, through their Federation, to make representations on any matter concerning their welfare and efficiency? Could one man's error of judgment have justified the imposing of collective punishment on every other member of the force?

The chief constable cannot, and he must not seek to be the arbiter of what another statutory body—the Police Federation—may or may not do in its collective wisdom within the purview of the responsibilities laid upon it by an Act of Parliament. He has no lawful authority to cancel the Federation's right to make representations on welfare and efficiency. He has no business to fly in the face of the will of the House, only so recently restated when all parties acceded to the recommendation of the Edmund Davies Royal Commission, that in matters of welfare and efficiency, the Police Federation enjoys and exercises the freedom to represent its members' view in public.

The central question is what is to be done to put an end to this unseemly quarrel. The short answer is that the chief constable must withdraw his force order. Nothing less will do, for if the order were to be allowed to stand, a number of serious consequences would flow from it. First, free speech would be suppressed—the federation would be both censored and gagged. Secondly, the will of Parliament would be denied. Thirdly, the chief constable's own authority in his own force would be impaired, for the federation has no choice but to continue to exercise its statutory right to speak out in defiance of the Chief Constable's order, and that can do no good to anybody.

There are wider dangers. This action in Ulster, I regret to say, poses a threat to the Police Federations of England and Wales, and of Scotland, which for years have exercised their undoubted right to make representations in public on all matters that affect the welfare and efficiency of their forces. Therefore, I must, with a heavy heart, advise my hon. Friend the Minister, and, through him, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that on this issue the Northern Ireland Police Federation can count on the total support of the Police Federation of England and Wales, the Police Federation of Scotland—mark this well—the Association of Garda Inspectors and Sergeants in the Irish Republic, and of the 500,000-strong International Union of Police Staff Associations. The president of the IUPSA representing police officers in all of western Europe, has already offered to join the chairmen of all the British Police Federations in defending the rights of the Northern Ireland Police Federation.

In short, this affair has all the makings of one of those issues that seem at first to be no more than a minor struggle but which, because of the high principles involved, can easily plunge the Government into a major conflict of principle with the whole of the British police service, not to speak of the European force.

A wise Minister, and I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to be wise in this matter, will do his best, as I am doing, to de-fuse the problem before it gets out of hand. I ask the Minister not to do two things. First, let him not take refuge in dark hints about the Special Branch or the intelligence service reporting to the chief constable that Mr. Wright's observations have assisted the IRA. I have reason to believe that the material the chief constable says he has received to support that view falls a long way short of sustaining any such argument.

Of course, the IRA's propagandists will seek to turn to their own advantage anything and everything that is said by anyone, but I am quite sure that my hon. Friend is wise and realises that most operational officers in the Special Branch are also members of the police federation. They, too, have an interest in ensuring that the police federation in Northern Ireland is not gagged.

I will say no more about that, because my hon. Friend knows perfectly well what lies behind those remarks. Let him not rely on publishable reports about the federation's comments, for if patriotism, as is sometimes claimed, is the last refuge of the scoundrel, so, too, if I may speak from experience, can chief constables who are in difficulty reach out for Special Branch reports that they know need not be revealed and use them as an excuse for unjust actions.

The second thing I hope my hon. Friend will not do is to attack Mr. Wright. I know how easy it is for hard-pressed Ministers who are seeking a way out of a political impasse that, heaven knows, is not of their making, to try to put the blame on those who do not fall in with their own ideas of compromise. Words like "stubborn" and "unreasonable" all too easily come tumbling out of ministerial mouths when Ministers find themselves face to face with a representative body that has its back to the wall and is determined, as the federation is determined, not to yeild on a fundamental issue of principle.

The Minister's duty, as I see it, is to safeguard the broader national interest and the longer-term relationship between the Government and the representative bodies of all the police federations on this side of the water as well as in Northern Ireland. I respectfully urge him to think carefully before using any words that might be construed as an attack on a body set up by Parliament to represent the 11,000 men and women of the RUC and its reservists. What I am asking the Minister to do is simple. First, let him give a clear commitment to carry out the will of Parliament. This House gave the police federations the right to make representations on behalf of their members and I ask the Minister publicly to acknowledge that. I hope that he will make clear that the Government are bound and will honour, as the chief constable is bound and should honour, both the letter and the spirit of section 17 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

Second, I ask the Minister to have another word with Sir John Hermon. Let the Minister explain to the chief constable that he will do himself nothing but good if he admits that he has made a mistake. We all make mistakes and it is a characteristic of this House and of the British people that we rarely gloat—on the contrary, we cheer—when a man freely and openly admits that he may have been wrong. The federation did not seek and does not want this damaging fight, and the way to peace between the federation and the chief constable, who I am bound to say precipitated this conflict, is for Sir John to withdraw his order. I hope that he will do that, for if he does not I rear deeply for the well-being of the RUC.

10.34 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me a few minutes on this important matter. Rarely has an hon. Member made a more disgraceful attack on the role of the Government and of the police in an Adjournment debate than has the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) tonight.

I read in the newspaper this morning that: It was unfair to expect the RUC to impose the Anglo-Irish Agreement when it was opposed by the majority of people in Northern Ireland, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Federation, Mr. Alan Wright, said on a BBC television programme broadcast last night. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, a paid representative of the Police Federation, has come here expecting us to oppose the spirit of policies passed by Parliament. That is a most atrocious thing. If ever there was a justification for chief constables' orders—I have in the past been highly critical of the chief constable of the RUC—this is it. It is disgraceful to criticise that policy and to have unnamed members of the RUC, backed by Mr. Wright, going on television and saying: We have our Government, deciding in Parliament that there will be an agreement between two sovereign states. It has been demonstrated here that the majority of the law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland are opposed to it. Now we are caught in the middle of being seen to try and impose an agreement which the large majority of people here don't want. Now that is not a fair position really to put the police into. I never heard the hon. Gentleman say that throughout the miners' strike when the people of south Yorkshire wanted nothing to do with policy. The hon. Gentleman then talked of upholding the law, upholding the spirit of what the House had passed, the will of the sovereign Parliament, the legislation that had been carried. Tonight, however, the hon. Gentleman comes here and talks about supporting a leader of a Police Federation who goes on television and completely undermines the policies of Her Majesty's Government, the majority in this House, and the majority in the Republic, who aids and succours not reports from the special branch about the IRA but the paramilitaries and the gentlemen who used to sit on this Bench but who are not prepared to accept the majority will of Parliament in which they claim that they should have representation.

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I once had a high regard, should think very carefully about the case that he is advancing. It is an absolute disgrace to him. To bring in the rest of the Police Federation of these islands in this way is absolutely disgusting.

10.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who has great knowledge in these matters, set out three priorities. His third priority is my first—it is to try to bring the difference of opinion between the chief constable of the RUC and the Police Federation to a speedy and amicable close.

A great deal of work has been put in by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to achieve a speedy and amicable solution. I have spoken to the Police Authority, the chief constable, and to representatives of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to try to resolve the matter. By the time of this debate, it has not been possible to achieve that.

Despite the terms in which my hon. Friend raised the debate, if he will be fair, he will recognise that, whereas the federation has an unfettered right to talk about matters concerning the welfare and efficiency of the force, the chief constable must be responsible for the operational activities of the RUC, and it can only be the chief constable who decides where they overlap.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

No.

Mr. Scott

Well, my hon. Friend may disagree.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

Of course.

Mr. Scott

Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen for a moment while I develop the argument. The circumstances of Northern Ireland as they are and have been for the past 16 years and the efforts and sacrifices of the RUC and its members must cry out for an early and amicable solution of this question. Nobody wants it to drag on. I shall not call special branch reports in argument. We have only to read Republican News to see how the interests of our enemies—the enemies of every policeman in Northern Ireland, Ministers and every Member of Parliament but one, who does not take his seat—are being served and ours are not by this dispute. The sooner we can bring it to an end, the better.

I do not want to go into great detail over the background to this on this side of the water or in Northern Ireland. It was clearly envisaged that the Police Federation would be largely concerned with matters of pay, allowances and related conditions of service, and would act in these matters through negotiating and consultative machinery. Although there have been changes over the years in this machinery, which I acknowledge, its primary function in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom remains that of representing federation members in matters affecting police welfare and efficiency. That is clearly set out in the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, and the regulations of 1971 make that quite explicit.

Quite contrary to what my hon. Friend has been expounding, the right of the Police Federation to represent its members in matters concerning their welfare and efficiency is not at issue here. Its representative position is enshrined in law and it is underscored by the existence of comprehensive arrangements, of a formal and informal character, for consultations and negotiations within the RUC and at national level on matters affecting the welfare and efficiency of its members.

The issue, as I have tried to say, is the extent to which the freedom of the Police Association and its constituent members to make public statements should properly be circumscribed to avoid impinging on matters of force operational policy. Those are clearly outwith the scope of its statutory representative role.

Nobody is trying to gag the Police Federation. That is an emotive, divisive and, I believe, even unjustified allegation. The chief constable's decision to cancel regulation 35 of section 22 of the RUC code was not intended to be conclusive. It has been made clear to the Police Association, and to the federation in particular, that this was a temporary suspension of part of the code while consideration was being given to an amending regulation clarifying these matters on which the Police Association, and not just the federation, could properly represent its members.

The RUC is a disciplined service. It has to be under the direction and control of the chief constable. This involves a hierarchy, a tradition of obedience to orders, and the control by senior officers of operational matters. It cannot be otherwise. It must be for the chief constable to determine whether public statements made by any member of the force would be at odds with his operational responsibilities and control. Of course it is important that the line should be drawn as clearly and fairly as possible.

If I may say so, over the past weeks—I say this carefully to my hon. Friend—no effort has been spared to find a mutually acceptable solution. I want to pay a very warm tribute to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, and especially its chairman, Sir Myles Humphreys, for the efforts which they have put in to conciliate in this matter. They were concerned to have this unfortunate episode resolved quickly and in the best interests of all the members of the police force. They have sought to encourage everybody to go down this road, and I am disappointed that their effort has not been better rewarded.

The Police Authority, I understand, has devised a formula which would have given all parties an opportunity to reassess their respective positions without any sacrifice of principle as an interim measure while discussions went on to see whether this could be resolved round the table. It is not for me to disclose details of the proposal at this stage. The last thing I want to do is in any way to prejudice any further discussions which may take place. However, I think it is only fair to point out that three of the four parties—the chief constable, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Superintendents' Association—agreed this proposal. Only the federation has rejected it.

I very much hope that, when this debate is out of the way, we can again get round the table. The Police Authority and Sir Myles Humphreys have made it clear that they wish to be able to arbitrate in this matter and to provide a forum within which discussions can take place to resolve the problem. It serves nobody's interests that it should drag on. The overriding priority for any of us who have any concern with the RUC in Northern Ireland must be the defeat of terrorism. We have provided the manpower, the resources and the equipment; and policemen are providing the skill, the commitment and dedication and, indeed, the lives to defeat that terrorism. I know as well as my hon. Friend does of the loss of life and the injuries which have been endured by the RUC in its efforts to defeat terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland recognise those qualities in their police force. They know that the police have endured the most vicious campaign of terrorist assassination. They have unparalleled policing responsibilities and the difficulties associated with those responsibilities.

Let us, for heaven's sake, after this debate is over, get all the parties involved in this unfortunate dispute around a table and see that we can resolve it so that it does no long-term damage to a force of which the House has every right to be proud, as does every member of it. The dispute must and can be resolved. The door to the solution is open, if only people will now get together with the Police Authority under the chairmanship of Sir Myles Humphreys to find a way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.