Royal Ulster Constabulary (Hansard, 27 November 1986)

§ 4. Mr. Flannery
asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will be in a position to make a statement on the inquiry by Mr. Colin Sampson into matters connected with the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

§ 14. Mr. Tony Lloyd
asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make a statement on the Sampson report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

§ Mr. Tom King
I reported to the House on 23 October the progress being made by Mr. Sampson. I shall at the earliest appropriate time make a statement on any matters arising from the report that fall within my responsibilities.

§ Mr. Flannery
Does the Minister not realise that the slowness of the Government to react in a democratic manner by clearing the air when there has been wide publicity everywhere leads people to think that their suspicions that the Government are concealing something are very real? Why, in Heaven's name, have the Government subjected the deputy chief constable of Manchester to all that suspicion, and his family and another family and large numbers of people to misery, when they can clear the air by giving a proper report about what has happened so far?

§ Mr. King
The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, such as that only if he is completely oblivious of my previous answer. He appears to be unaware that Mr. Sampson's report came forward on 22 October. It has been with the Chief Constable. It is now with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The second report will be coming forward shortly. Those are obviously serious matters, which may lead to criminal proceedings. There is no question of the Government jumping in and reaching arbitrary decisions in advance. There are proper procedures which have to be observed. The proper process of law will be carried through. I have made clear my concern that the matter should be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity and that there should be no avoidable delay. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter of the deputy chief constable of Manchester is nothing to do with me, but is entirely for the Manchester police authority.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The Secretary of State must recognise that taking the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester out of that inquiry led to the widespread belief that there was some kind of conspiracy, some attempt to cover up, or some attempt to ensure that the areas he was investigating were not reached. The Secretary of State must recognise the major concern, not just on this side of the water, but in Ireland as well, about those consequences. Can he guarantee that he will be prepared to give the very fullest account of the mechanisms by which John Stalker was taken out of the inquiry and the responsibilities of those involved in Her Majesty's Inspectorate on both sides of the water?

§ Mr. King
I bitterly regret the fact that the inquiry could not have proceeded much more speedily and that there was this unfortunate interruption. The hon. Gentleman seems equally unaware of the background and procedures. The position simply was that the inquiry was proceeding at the request of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who had appointed Mr. Stalker to head that inquiry. He then received information from the Chief Constable of Manchester that Mr. Stalker was no longer available to continue the inquiry. Against that background, the Chief Constable of the RUC took immediate steps to ensure that the inquiry proceeded by appointing somebody else to continue to conduct it. The question about the suspension of Mr. Stalker was a decision taken in Manchester by the Manchester police authority. It is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Hawksley
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the inquiry has been carried out thoroughly and professionally?

§ Mr. King
My hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible at this stage to reach that judgment. The reports have been with the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have not yet seen the first report. The second report will be coming forward shortly. I shall want to address a number of matters, if appropriate, and make a statement to the House on them. Obviously, this is part of the background that I shall want to consider.

§ Mr. Mallon
The Secretary of State will be aware that six people from County Armagh were killed in those incidents in 1982. Does he agree that a four-year lapse before inquests are held would not be tolerated in any other part of this jurisdiction? Does he further agree that until this matter is cleared up in a positive and just way the only losers in this whole saga will have been those people who were killed, their relatives and the RUC?

§ Mr. King
These incidents, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, relate to matters that took place four years ago. As I made clear earlier, I am most concerned that these matters should be resolved and any appropriate decisions taken at the earliest opportunity. There is no benefit whatsoever in delay.