Patten Report

HC Deb 19 January 2000 vol 342 cc845-64 3.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson)

With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's decisions on the report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, known as the Patten report after its chairman, Chris Patten.

Of all the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland, policing is probably the most controversial. In the past 30 years, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has faced demands completely unlike those faced by any other force in the United Kingdom or, indeed, elsewhere in the developed world. I would like to place on record the Government's deep admiration for the courage, resilience and professionalism with which the RUC has met these challenges. The accounts that I have heard of personal tragedy, pain and loss in the RUC family are profoundly moving and humbling. Three hundred and two officers have been killed, and many thousands injured. We all owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude. The George Cross is a fitting acknowledgement of its sacrifice.

However, in rising to the challenge, the RUC has inevitably, if unfairly, become identified more with one side of the community than the other. It finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community and, with 88 per cent. of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent. Catholic, is not representative of all sides of the community. That is not a desirable state of affairs. The RUC itself is forward looking and accepts the need for change. It is eager to police a normal society in a normal, professional way, but it is held back by the burden of history.

The talks which led to the Good Friday agreement addressed but did not resolve these problems. Instead, Chris Patten and his colleagues were asked to design arrangements for a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen to be an integral part of, the community as a whole. The Patten commission rose to this challenge and I pay tribute to it. Its report covers, among other things, composition, training, culture, ethos and symbols. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) accepted the report in principle, and launched a period of consultation about the details. Since my own appointment, I have met all the interested parties and police groups—some more than once—and have listened very carefully indeed to what they had to say.

The decisions that I am announcing today will be reflected in legislation which we will bring forward later in the Session. In reaching them, I have been driven by, and have tried to keep in balance, three distinct but interdependent considerations: representativeness, effectiveness, and respect for the sacrifices of the past. I say "interdependent" because only a police service that is accepted and draws members from both traditions and is therefore accepted throughout the community can hope to be fully effective. It is only by recognising the sacrifices of the past that we can move forward together to meet the challenges of the future. I am determined that the police in Northern Ireland should be modern, representative and effective, and no longer the fulcrum of antagonistic debate.

However, Patten also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops", and that judgments will need to be made on how and when they should be introduced. That is advice that the Government will, rightly, keep firmly in mind as we take the process forward.

Patten rightly places much emphasis on human rights. The Chief Constable and the new Policing Board together will be made responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive programme of action, including an audit to ensure full compliance with human rights requirements.

We also accept a new police oath as proposed by Patten, which will be taken by all new recruits to the police service. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for already attested officers to take the new oath, which would in any case raise significant legal difficulties. All officers will, however, receive human rights training and will be required to behave in accordance with a code of ethics. That code will be provided for in legislation and will, like the new oath, emphasise the priority to be given to human rights.

The Government accept Patten's recommendation for the creation of a new Policing Board composed, as the report recommends, to replace the current Police Authority. The new Policing Board will be responsible for securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police service and holding the Chief Constable and the police service to account.

I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the work of the Police Authority over the past 30 years. Many have served with distinction on the authority and were prepared to come forward even when there was a direct terrorist threat against them. Two members of the authority were murdered by terrorists. The contribution of the authority, its members and staff will not be forgotten.

The report recommends clarifying the roles of the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. The broad thrust of the recommendations is that the Policing Board should play a more developed role, setting objectives, priorities and performance targets, while leaving operational control and direction of the police firmly in the Chief Constable's hands.

I entirely agree with the report that the new Policing Board should be empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively". I therefore accept the recommendations and will introduce legislation accordingly, subject to the Chief Constable continuing to answer to me on all matters involving national security and the work of relevant agencies.

Patten proposed the creation of district policing partnership boards to provide an element of local accountability. He envisaged that they should have a primarily consultative role, with an ability to monitor police delivery against an agreed local plan, and I endorse that. He also proposed an additional community safety role, with powers to purchase services on top of normal policing. The latter activity is currently a subject being considered by the criminal justice review. Until decisions are taken on the review, which will be published shortly, I do not intend to extend their function in that way. It will be better, in any case, to concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level, in what I propose to call district policing partnerships. I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast, where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.

Progress on the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment. Subject to that overall proviso, in line with the report, the Chief Constable has decided to re-organise the police service into district commands based on district council areas and geared towards policing in partnership with the community. District commanders will have much higher levels of devolved authority under the overall command of the Chief Constable, who intends this structural reorganisation to be under way by November.

The Chief Constable will also re-organise police headquarters to produce a slimmer structure. Headquarters will, in future, take a more strategic approach to management. Special Branch and CID will be retained and placed under a single Assistant Chief Constable, as the Chief Constable believes is desirable, when the security situation permits.

The Government accept Patten's recommendations on the future size of the police service—a regular complement of 7,500 full-time officers—provided, as the report says, that the security situation does not deteriorate significantly. We accept Patten's recommendation for the enlargement of the part-time Reserve and the discontinuation of the full-time Reserve. Again, that is subject to the security situation.

The severance arrangements to enable serving police officers, whether regular or reservist, to leave the police service will be generous and sympathetic. The Government are committed to finding the necessary resources. Negotiations with the police staff associations are currently in progress. I hope that those discussions will help all sides to agree arrangements that will address officers' understandable concerns about their future.

I attach particular importance to Patten's recommendations for action to transform the composition of the police service. They are essential to gaining widespread acceptability. I endorse the proposal for 50:50 recruitment of Protestants and Catholics, from a pool of candidates, all of whom—I stress this—will have qualified on merit. We propose that the requirement for that special measure should be kept under review on a triennial basis, with rigorous safeguards to ensure that the rightly challenging targets for recruitment do not diminish the standard required of recruits. There will be no question whatever of ex-terrorists joining the service.

Our aim is to develop a police service that is both effective and accepted throughout the community. That aim, as Patten recognises, clearly bears on the name and symbols of the RUC. The issue is not whether the name of the RUC is wrong or something of which people should not be proud. I understand exactly why serving and former officers, their families and, indeed, widows are proud of the RUC and its name. The issue is whether a change in name, underlining a new start, is a necessary and indispensable part of attracting balance in recruits to the new police service.

Of course, the name is not the only barrier to recruitment. At times, there has been disgraceful intimidation of nationalists who wished to join the RUC. However, a change of name was, in Patten's view, essential, and I agree.

That change is needed to signal the new beginning, which will be symbolised in particular by the arrival in the new training environment of the first recruits entering through the new independent procedures and selected on the new balanced basis. That point will come in the autumn next year. At that point, too, I will bring into force the new title, which will be the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a name that I believe is preferable to that proposed by Patten.

At the same time, a service badge incorporating this title will be introduced after the new Policing Board has had a chance to address the issue. In that context, the RUC will wish to consider how best permanently to record the award to it of the George Cross last autumn. Existing police memorials will remain as they are, and the colour of the uniform will not change.

The Government also accept Patten's important recommendation for information technology improvements to put the police in Northern Ireland at the forefront of communications and information technology, and for police training. I am also delighted to tell the House that we have accepted the case for a new police college, and appropriate resources will be provided. Those measures are in addition to a range of other forward-looking recommendations on practical policing issues, which, although I will not detain the House by detailing them here, we will also implement.

Finally, Patten recommends the appointment of an oversight commissioner to monitor the implementation of those changes, which have been agreed by the Government. That appointment will not in any way cut across the responsibilities of either the new Policing Board or the Chief Constable, and the accountability that I and my colleagues have to the House on policing issues will not diminish as a result. The oversight commissioner will help to create a first-rate police service for the future.

The implementation of those changes will entail a major and challenging programme of work for the Government, the Chief Constable, the Police Authority and, in due course, the Policing Board, but, most of all, for police officers themselves. This is not an overnight event, but a process of change that will extend over several years. I am confident that the police will meet the challenge of change positively and with commitment.

For those in the Unionist community who have fears, I urge them to accept the need for significant change to create a police service in which all can feel that they belong and with which all can identify. To nationalists who have for so long withheld their support from the police in Northern Ireland, I would ask them to reflect on the transformation that is planned and to reconsider their position. It is now time for them to support this programme of change, unambiguously to support the police and to encourage young men and women from their community to join the police. The prize is a modern, effective police service drawing support and strength from all parts of the community. It is within our grasp. The proposals I have announced today should enable us to achieve it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

In paying the most handsome tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve, it must be said that without their courage, even-handed professionalism and terrible sacrifice, the Good Friday agreement and the opportunities in Northern Ireland that have flowed from it would quite simply not exist. They have been the thin green line standing between the maintenance of democracy and a descent into anarchy. Their sacrifice is without equal: 302 officers have been murdered and more than 10,000 maimed or injured. The award of the George Cross is richly deserved.

With that in mind, does the Secretary of State share the widespread dismay that one of the most disappointing and hurtful aspects of the Patten report is its failure to pay proper testimony to the sacrifice and achievements of the RUC? The Patten report is nevertheless a useful basis for what policing could be like if peace were firmly established. The overwhelming majority of its recommendations are non-controversial, have been foreshadowed by the Chief Constable himself and should be implemented quickly, but there are aspects of the statement that we cannot support.

We do not believe that the name of the RUC should go. It is a name of which past and serving officers and their families are justly proud. The evidence used to support change is not convincing. The most recent Police Authority survey shows conclusively that changing the name will cause major offence in the Protestant community and will not lead to significant improvements in support from the Catholic community. The hugely respected Monsignor Denis Faul has argued for retaining the name. The Secretary of State should accept the compromise name recommended by ourselves, the Police Federation and others: the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If it is right to honour the force for seeing us through the past 30 years, surely the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name intact, has earned the right to be Northern Ireland's police service in what we all hope will be a new era.

The Secretary of State referred to a number of security-sensitive measures. Does he agree that it would be dangerous folly to introduce them before there is a real and lasting peace and substantial decommissioning? Will he assure us that, at a time when the capacity of the main terrorist organisations remains totally undiminished, there will not be substantial cuts in the size and capability of the force, including the abolition of the full-time Reserve?

We of course want greater representation of the Catholic community in the RUC. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the greatest disincentive to Catholic recruitment remains IRA intimidation? Like him, I call on the leaders of the Catholic community to encourage their young men and women to join the police force.

We welcome what the Secretary of State said about the district policing boards, but what guarantees can he give that they and the new Policing Board will not lead to greater politicisation of policing, rather than the removal of politics from it? Will he give me this afternoon an absolute guarantee that the operational independence of the Chief Constable will be fully preserved?

Everyone, including the RUC, recognises that there must be changes. We all share the goal of building a police service that is genuinely representative of the community, routinely unarmed and has no need of flak jackets and armoured vehicles; yet for many people, the process has been all take and no give by the terrorists. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the greatest contribution to dispelling that and to transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland would be for the terrorists immediately and finally to begin decommissioning their illegally held weapons?

Mr. Mandelson

I say straight away to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly share his views about decommissioning. The Good Friday agreement is not there to be cherry-picked; its parts stand or fall together. It is not acceptable for some parts of it to be implemented and for others to be overlooked or forgotten. Decommissioning, as Sinn Fein itself has acknowledged, is an essential part of the peace process. If it is to be completed by the deadline in the Good Friday agreement of May this year, an early start is absolutely necessary.

On the right hon. Gentleman's overall response, I am glad that he shares our vision and goals for a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. The problem is that, although he shares the ends, he is not prepared to will the means of getting there and of achieving that new beginning for the police service that we all want.

I, as it happens, regret that the Patten commission did not say more about the sacrifices of the RUC. I have said that before, and it remains my view. I understand why it did not, but it is a deficiency in the report, and an unfortunate one.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I have already said this—that one of the factors, and an important one, in discouraging people from the nationalist community from joining the RUC was straightforward IRA bullying, thuggery and intimidation. However, other important factors are that Catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland do not identify with the RUC and that the nationalist community does not encourage its young people to join. People from the nationalist community who have thought of joining have feared a loss of family and community support for joining. We have to tackle that problem and make changes to make the police force in Northern Ireland acceptable to the nationalist community as a whole if we are to persuade individuals from that community to come forward and join that force.

I can say quite honestly that in a perfect world I, too, would have kept the name of the RUC. I would have liked it to be maintained. It is a proud name that represents a fine tradition and is rightly honoured by the whole RUC family, but I am afraid that it is not owned by both communities in Northern Ireland. I realise the hurt that is involved in giving up the name, but I equally recognise that the police service will never be entirely accepted unless that change is made, so change there must be.

Mr. John Hume (Foyle)

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. My party will study it in detail. We look forward to working with him and with the other parties to implement the Patten report in full.

This is a time for reflection. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the basis of order in any society is not the police force but agreement on how we are governed. That is the most fundamental principle of democracy. When there is no agreement on how people are governed, no matter where that is, the police force will be seen as on one side or the other.

There have been victims of past failures to reach agreement on how we are governed. That has been the situation in Northern Ireland since it was founded. There have been many victims of that failure, especially in the past 30 years, but now we have a new beginning and a real opportunity to create a lasting basis of peace and order on our streets. For the first time, we have reached an agreement on how we should be governed, and we are already working together to implement it.

The parties must take the opportunity to have meetings with the Secretary of State and talk to everyone who needs to be talked to about implementing the Patten report in full. That will give us a police service that has the loyalty of the entire community and a membership drawn from the entire community, so that when policemen walk the streets in Northern Ireland, no matter what district they are in, they are walking among friends. That would be a real change. It is an enormous challenge to us all, and I hope that we are up to it.

Mr. Mandelson

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman said a single word with which I disagree, but I have something to add. When we have studied what I have said, debated the detail, considered exactly how the proposals are to be implemented and all reached the conclusion that a new beginning for policing has indeed been created in Northern Ireland, that will be the time when leaders of the nationalist community, like him—both political and religious leaders—must stand up, speak up and back the police, and call for people from the nationalist community to support the police. He is right to take time to look at the details of what I have said. I hope that in due course, when he has studied them, that call will be forthcoming.

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Will the Secretary of State accept the support in large part of my party for the proposals in the Patten report? I brought up the matter recently in Northern Ireland questions, and I am encouraged to see that progress will now be made on the proposals to try to resolve some of the issues that he has just highlighted.

We support some of the specific elements of the report: for example, the very strong emphasis on human rights, including the commitment to uphold human rights in the oath. That gives Northern Ireland a real opportunity to lead the United Kingdom in terms of the attitude and character of the police force.

Will the Secretary of State also accept our support for the concept of district policing, which puts a greater emphasis on community policing? The latter might in turn help to dismantle the power of the military vigilante operations in some parts of Northern Ireland, which lead to the completely unacceptable paramilitary beatings that have been going on for so long.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept our support for the introduction, at long last, of video recording in custody suites? We have criticised the Government for failing to implement that for some time. It is good to see the promise of a generous retirement and severance payment scheme. The details of the scheme will determine whether those eligible will agree to it.

Is the Secretary of State sensitive to the real and genuine concerns felt by many people, not merely in the Chamber but in Northern Ireland, about the change of name and symbols? While I recognise the difficulties and sensitivities that surround the matter, we tend to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that something needs to change. Given the reaction in the Chamber, it is clear to those who would abandon such a closely held and greatly revered name as the Royal Ulster Constabulary that such a change has to be made sensitively. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, while some may try to score party political gain from such statements, those who genuinely represent Northern Ireland constituencies and rightly bring those concerns to the fore here today have the right to be listened to and to participate in the discussions and negotiations that must necessarily take place before those changes are implemented?

I have two further concerns. Will the Secretary of State reassure us by reiterating that the police force will not be reduced in size until it is clear that the peace is long lasting and sustainable? Otherwise, there could be instability.

Will the Secretary of State commit himself to asking about quotas? Does he realise that getting more Catholics into the police force cannot be achieved simply by having a 50:50 quota in place? As he said, the key issue is that Catholics have been dissuaded from applying. Will he consider adding to the Patten recommendations by doing something to promote such applications in the first place?

Finally, the Patten report is, by and large, uncontroversial, as we have heard. Therefore, the Secretary of State will need to give us an assurance that the matters that are so controversial and provoke such strong emotional as well as intellectual reactions will need to be handled with the greatest sensitivity in the House.

Mr. Mandelson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and that of the Liberal Democrat party for what I have announced. I can readily accept and endorse the bulk of what he said. On the oath, the House may be interested to learn that the Home Secretary is considering extending the reference to human rights to the police oath for the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be welcome.

On the hon. Gentleman's questions, yes, we will be doing everything we can to promote the new police service and to encourage applicants from all parts of society in Northern Ireland, not merely nationalists, to join. On reducing the size of the police service, that is a judgment that the Chief Constable will make in the first instance, and it will indeed be linked to his assessment of the security threat.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Secretary of State will remember that the very first paragraph of the terms of reference of the Patten commission instructed that commission to bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements". Does he realise that despite his euphemistic language, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) —;the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—is absolutely right to say that what has been announced today degrades, demeans and denigrates an honourable force that has stood four-square between the law-abiding community—the greater number of people in Northern Ireland—and the terrorists for the past 30 years? Can I suggest to the Secretary of State that it is misleading of him to suggest that the changes that are taking place have anything to do with the Belfast agreement, or with anything that my party assented to within the terms of that agreement?

May I remind the Secretary of State that his predecessor, on her first visit as Secretary of State to Northern Ireland, made the dangerous promise that she would change the nature of the RUC? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to admit that the preparations for Patten were carried out by the Chief Constable when he was Deputy Chief Constable and brought forward his fundamental review? Furthermore, does the Secretary of State accept that many of the points in that fundamental review were quite acceptable to the majority of people and would have found widespread community support if they had not been changed and corrupted by the Patten commission, and if those issues had not been endorsed by the Government?

It appears that there were two major objectives of the Government's plans. One was to change the name of the RUC, and I have dealt with that. The other was to ensure that the RUC would be able to recruit from both traditions within Northern Ireland—something that my party wholeheartedly supports. However, is the Secretary of State suggesting that we should create district police partnerships, in which the scum of parochial politics—the Mr. McElduffs and Mr. Conways—will participate?

In case people do not know who Mr. McElduff and Mr. Conway are, I should point out that Mr. McElduff has campaigned against a senior Roman Catholic cleric, Monsignor Denis Faul, who has tried to interface with the RUC on behalf of the community with which he works. If Mr. McElduff and his like are prepared to take on Monsignor Denis Faul and to ask the archbishop to remove him as parish priest in Carrickmoor, what are they likely to do to 18 and 19-year-old young men and women whom the Secretary of State and I want to join the RUC?

The intimidation will continue because although the Secretary of State has proposed that the name of the RUC be changed, one thing has not changed—the name of Sinn Fein-IRA. Those people continue to organise and to be armed. They continue to ride on the backs of the entire community and, as Monsignor Faul has said, specifically the Roman Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland—

Madam Speaker

Order. I understand fully the strong feelings on this issue, but I have a lot of business today to safeguard. The Secretary of State has let the House know that there will be areas of legislation on which speeches will be made. With respect to the House, today is not the time to make speeches—it is the time to question the statement made by the Secretary of State. I have so far called only three other Members to question the statement. I hope that those whom I wish to call will be brisk in putting their question and, likewise, that the Secretary of State will be brisk in answering. This cannot go on, as we have so much more business to conduct this afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point?

Mr. Maginnis

I am grateful, Madam Speaker, that you recognise the sensitivity of the issue. This concerns the future of law and order in Northern Ireland, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. He talked about human rights, but can he tell us whether there will be any human rights training for those two members of Sinn Fein-IRA who will be on the police board? How will the Secretary of State find hundreds of millions of pounds to create the package he has promised, when last week he could not provide the £5 million overtime money requested by the Chief Constable? Is the Secretary of State disappointed that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in his contribution, did not encourage members of his tradition to join the RUC?

Mr. Mandelson

I think that it would be best if I responded to three specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, rather than responding in kind to the rhetoric that he offered and that, on mature reflection, he might like to reconsider.

Mr. Maginnis

I am not a betrayer.

Mr. Mandelson

The hon. Gentleman has said to me many times in the past that he compliments me on what I have said about the RUC, that he welcomes statements I have made in support of the RUC, and that he is glad of the stand that I have made for the RUC since I became Secretary of State. Therefore, I am surprised that he chooses to say something different in public from what he has said to me in private.

On the three specific points, it is true that the decisions I am announcing today stand alone on their own merits and independently from the Good Friday agreement. I intend that the reform of the police in Northern Ireland will continue, whatever cloud happens to gather over the institutions of the Good Friday agreement.

As for the district police partnerships, there is no question of any member of any district police partnership being able to exercise any improper influence, let alone control, over any aspect of police operations or any individual member of the police in that district. As far as human rights training is concerned, each member of the police board will be subject to the same strictures and expectations as every member of the police service of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

There are only two collective areas to which the George Cross has ever been issued—one is Malta and the other is the RUC. Malta was proud to call itself Malta GC. I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that, in 2001, the Northern Ireland police force can be known as the Northern Ireland police force GC. That will be a continuing recognition of the work of the RUC into the future. I hope that Ulster Unionist Members will accept that the significance of the award of the George Cross to the RUC will continue to be recognised in the development of a police force that will service the whole community.

Mr. Mandelson

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The George Cross was awarded by the Queen to the RUC in recognition of its success in leading a campaign against the most sustained onslaught of terrorism the developed world has ever seen. During that time, the RUC exhibited extraordinary courage, bravery and valour, and that will never cease to be associated with the RUC and also—I hope—with the police as a whole in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Chief Constable are considering how the award of the George Cross can be recognised in perpetuity—I am certainly determined that it should be.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

On 9 September, when the Patten report was published, the Secretary of State' s predecessor said: This report is about policing. As Chris Patten said, it is not about politics…It has been the RUC who have held the fabric of this society together over the past 30 years. Against that background, can the Secretary of State share with the House the reactions at all levels of the RUC itself to these proposals, as the morale of that force is crucial to the future?

Mr. Mandelson

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the morale of the RUC is absolutely central to our continuing ability to combat terrorism, and crime in all its forms. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for focusing on the question of morale.

I have never once visited Northern Ireland without meeting members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have done more than just meet them: I have sat down to discuss policing with groups of officers drawn from all ranks. That has happened on each and every occasion that I have made a visit.

I acknowledge that there is uncertainty in the RUC. There is some fear—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

And hostility.

Mr. Mandelson

Among some individuals there is indeed hostility to the changes that are being made. However, it is equally true that there is a ready recognition in the RUC that change must come. Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the police in Northern Ireland have acted as a security force. The force now has to change into a normal police service that polices Northern Ireland according to normal, peacetime terms.

Officers understand why change must come about, and readily accept and acknowledge that the extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the police in Northern Ireland is simply unsustainable. A normal, peacetime society cannot be policed by a force that is so extremely unrepresentative of the society that it serves. Therefore, although all RUC officers may not agree about the means that we are employing to overcome that imbalance, they certainly share our objectives. When they reflect on what we are proposing—and on the paucity of alternatives—many officers will come to accept that, painful and hurtful as they are, this change and these reforms are necessary.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is full support for the statement that he has made today among those on the Labour Benches? He has made a number of courageous and difficult decisions, and he deserves our party's support. However, is he also aware that large sections of the community in parts of Northern Ireland do not share the admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary expressed by many hon. Members today? Officers in the RUC who uphold the law impartially always deserve our support, but some officers have fallen short of that high ideal on many occasions. It should be recognised that that is one of the reasons for the changes announced today.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House about the role of the new oversight commissioner? When can we expect the name of that person to be announced? Will the appointment require legislation, and what steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that whoever is appointed has the full support of both communities and of the new Northern Ireland police service?

Mr. Mandelson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his strong support of, and welcome for, what I have announced. His words will find an echo in crucial parts of Northern Ireland, and notably in the nationalist community.

In response to his specific question about the oversight commissioner, I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that it will be necessary to wait for legislation to make appointment to the post. The search for that personality has already begun, and I believe that it will be possible to appoint someone who commands cross-community support. However, I want to stress that the responsibility of the oversight commissioner is to implement decisions taken by the Government. It will not be the commissioner's job to cut across the responsibilities of the Chief Constable, the Policing Board or the Secretary of State.

Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire)

I declare an interest. Like others hon. Members, I may owe my life to the professionalism and bravery of RUC officers.

While it is beyond argument that Northern Ireland needs a more broadly based police service, does the Secretary of State understand that many will object in principle to his decision to change the name? Many more will strongly object because they will suspect that he is doing it only to try to buy an element of peace from terrorists. To thwart that perception, will the Secretary of State agree to make the name change—if he is determined to go ahead with it—conditional on the acceptance of all the main aspects of the Good Friday agreement?

Mr. Mandelson

That linkage between the Patten recommendations and the Good Friday agreement would not be very welcome to all members of the Ulster Unionist party, for obvious reasons. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the objectives that I have set out a broad acceptance. There is no question of my having judged these issues on anything other than their strict merits—not for what they might or might not buy in return. I am simply not trading the future of the police in Northern Ireland in some sort of political marketplace. People may disagree with certain conclusions, and they may take issue with some of the details of what I have been saying, but I hope that they appreciate the sincerity of our objectives.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the excellent work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? Under the superb chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), it produced a report in July 1998 that was a useful signpost for the Patten commission.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the all-party group saw the need for significant reform of the RUC to make it more representative of the communities that it seeks to serve? Does he recognise that that principle was underpinned and endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement? Does he recognise that the members of the Select Committee dealt with such controversial issues as the need to address the incompatibility of membership of sectarian organisations like the Orange Order and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Finally, does my right hon. Friend regret that there is not more mature consideration across the Chamber of his response to the excellent work of the Patten commission?

Mr. Mandelson

When people consider the careful and sensitive way in which I am implementing a number of Chris Patten's recommendations over time, I think that they will focus more on what they welcome in my comments than on those things to which they object.

Of course I acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Its report was a significant milestone in considering these matters. I believe that the Patten commission extensively took into account the Select Committee's report, and quite right too.

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)

Is the Secretary of State aware that the remit of the Patten commission was to produce proposals that would find broad acceptance and support throughout the entire community? Bearing in mind the fact that the pro-Union community produced a petition with more than 400,000 signatures—300,000 from Northern Ireland—and given the reaction of the elected representatives of that community, can it be said that the Patten proposals and the Government's decision to act on them can possibly be in accordance with the principle of widespread community support?

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, have repeatedly said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked? They cannot be severed. However, under the d'Hondt principle, these proposals would place on the supervising advisory board at least two members of a political party that is inextricably linked with one of the most ferocious—if not the most ferocious—terrorist organisations in western Europe. That is the board to which the Chief Constable will be accountable.

In relation to the comments that have been made on the award of the George Cross and the difficulties that will arise, is the Secretary of State aware that many members of the RUC believe that that award was made for political purposes? As one senior officer said, it was tantamount to a soldier being given the Victoria Cross on the first day of the Somme, and shot for dereliction of duty on the 10th day.

Mr. Mandelson

I shall leave it to the House to judge the final remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not support the Good Friday agreement; he does not support the Executive; he does not support devolution; he does not support local decisions being taken by local people with local accents in Northern Ireland. He has made no contribution at all. No pain and no gain are experienced, given or received by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The key point about the contribution made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is that, whenever he speaks against the Good Friday agreement and against local devolved responsibility in Northern Ireland, he never offers any alternative. He never suggests how we might achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. He has been on form this afternoon, as usual.

Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney)

The background to the Patten report was based on one of the most extensive consultation and listening exercises undertaken in Northern Ireland. When Chris Patten reported, he said that the report must be considered as a package and not cherry-picked. He acknowledged that the changing of symbols would undoubtedly be controversial—crucially, some of the symbols that were about tradition and the past had to change. However, the report was not about disbanding the RUC, but transforming it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to maintain and build trust and confidence in both communities, the most fitting and most lasting memorial that we can offer to the 302 officers who died and to the thousands who were injured is for all hon. Members of the House to play their part in ensuring that the reforms succeed?

Mr. Mandelson

I welcome my hon. Friend and his contribution in every sense of the term. He is right. The greatest disservice to the RUC would be for people to argue that there is no need for any change by that body, or for them to try to manipulate the emotions of the RUC family. That would only make the pain of the change all the worse. I hope that those who appear to be grandstanding—more for political effect than to give support to the members of the RUC family—will bear that very much in mind.

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire)

If the ultimate aim of all these changes is to produce a balanced police force, acceptable to all, that is an aim that I would certainly share with the Secretary of State. However, is he aware that, at the end of the day, this is not about names, symbols and emblems, offensive as the decisions on those have been to the majority community in Northern Ireland? It is actually about getting the IRA to stop intimidating members of the nationalist community to prevent them from joining a police service in which they can be identified.

If the Secretary of State has not had assurances from the likes of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness that they will acknowledge that this is a new start, and that, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) markedly did not say, the nationalist community must now be encouraged to join the new police service, all that he has done is to take another step down the road to appeasement of the terrorists.

Mr. Mandelson

There is no question of appeasing anyone. During my political career, I have not been known to be very willing to appease, or pander to, anyone. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about intimidation, but I think that the best way to ensure that that intimidation is isolated, rejected and overcome is to ensure that those who wish to join the police can do so in the knowledge that they have the consent and backing of their wider community. That is what is so important.

I have only just this afternoon announced the Government's conclusions and decisions on the implementation of the Patten report. People have hardly had very long to reflect on what I have said. I hope that, when they do, their commitment will be great, and that we can successfully overcome whatever residual intimidation might linger in and around the nationalist community, so that we achieve the balanced and acceptable police service that the hon. Gentleman says that he supports.

Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)

Will my right hon. Friend find a way of expressing the fact that the normalisation of the police service is of immense benefit to the whole community of Northern Ireland, including the constituents of many Opposition Members who are fiercely antagonistic to these proposals? Will my right hon. Friend, in seeking to persuade people of the benefits of the proposals, emphasise that those members of the nationalist community of a strong disposition to peace nevertheless hardly ever regard it as natural for their offspring to enter the police service?

I speak as someone with relatives in the Province, in the nationalist community, and as someone who comes from a line of people, many of whose uncles made the police force in New York, Chicago and elsewhere. That family tradition never emerges in Northern Ireland, because we need a discontinuity. We have had an unnatural—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard Madam Speaker's comments. I should be grateful, and so would the whole House, if he would now put his question very briefly.

Mr. McWalter

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that message about normalisation, about the importance of the name change, is taken on board? That is the real barrier to peace-loving nationalist people who refuse to countenance joining the police force.

Mr. Mandelson

A normal society in Northern Ireland is precisely what all hon. Members, of whatever party, are seeking to achieve—a normal society, in which people can go about their everyday lives without fear of bombs and barricades; a properly locally run, democratic society, in which there is not the high-profile security presence that many people find intimidating but that, for the time being, it is necessary and important to maintain, and a society in which there is a normal police service. Those are all different definitions and descriptions of the same thing—a normal society. It is into that state that Northern Ireland is now finally emerging. The decisions on the police that the Government have taken will assist, and not hinder, that further progress.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will the Secretary of State accept that, to some of us, he has appeared to sign the death warrant of the most efficient, effective, professional and courageous police force in the world and has sold out lock, stock and barrel to the republican element and terrorism in Northern Ireland? To whom do many of those to whom the right hon. Gentleman has pandered with his bland words owe their loyalty? I am proud to be a member of the United Kingdom. Are those to whom he has pandered of the same view? Do they owe the same loyalty as I do?

Mr. Mandelson

The whole point of the peaceful environment that we are creating in Northern Ireland and the political dispensation that is emerging there is that people are able to live as Unionists—proud of their Britishness and continuing as part of the United Kingdom—alongside others who have a different nationalist aspiration. It is to find coexistence and harmony between the two traditions that the Good Friday agreement was created in the first place. I am afraid that I do not accept in one respect what the hon. Gentleman said about the police service in Northern Ireland. Yes, the RUC is efficient and it has won successfully a war against terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, if it is to remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past, it must also become representative of the society that it seeks to police. To achieve that representativeness and to enable the police to continue to be effective, we are implementing the decisions that I have announced.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an announcement that maintains the momentum for the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland. However, in the light of the photographs that were published this week of members of the Royal Irish Regiment parading with Orange Order banners, what proposals does he have for a review of the Royal Irish Regiment?

Mr. Mandelson

I have absolutely no proposals for a review of the Royal Irish Regiment. I look forward to home regiments continuing to be garrisoned in Northern Ireland in perpetuity. As for the photographs to which my hon. Friend referred, I am sure that they are a matter that relevant commanding officers and the General Officer Commanding will be willing to look into if my hon. Friend were to raise it with them.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

As a Minister in 1970 at the time of the previous review of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and as someone who owes his life to the RUC, I naturally feel emotional today. However, I accept that there have to be changes to policing in Northern Ireland. After 30 years, there must be changes.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Ulster Unionist party agrees with 70 or 80 per cent. of the Patten report? However, there is no doubt that the report landed the Secretary of State in a difficult situation and on a topic that will cause on-going debate for several months. Does he understand that Ulster Unionists agree that we must have more of the Roman Catholic community serving as police officers in Northern Ireland?

We agree that there must be training in human rights, not just for policemen but for members of police boards. We agree with the proposals for a police college and, of course, with the information technology proposals, but does the Secretary of State understand that all that could be achieved without changing the name of the RUC, a force that has served Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom well. Will he also tell us for how many years the oversight commissioner will be in office? Will the 50:50 proposal for enrolment of new officers into the police system in Northern Ireland contravene fair employment legislation? Will the 50:50 proportions apply to part-time members as well?

Mr. Mandelson

The right hon. Gentleman makes a special contribution to this debate because he was a casualty of the terrorist war that the RUC fought and finally won. His contribution therefore has considerable weight. I am grateful to him for saying that the overwhelming bulk of the changes proposed by Patten, which we are agreeing to today, commands the support of all sections of society from both traditions in Northern Ireland.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all genuine respect, that I do not agree, and cannot accept, that, if we failed to change the RUC's name, it would simply be possible to wait indefinitely for people from the nationalist community to join the police. I do not believe that it would happen. If I thought that there was any way that we could have made those changes and transformed the composition of the police in Northern Ireland without changing the name, I would have done it.

On the basis of all my contacts, my conversations, my research and my exposure to opinion in the nationalist community, I do not accept that nationalists or Catholics in Northern Ireland would join a police service that continued to be called the RUC. Frankly, they associate that name with Unionism and the British state. They accept that the principle of consent is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement, but they also have a nationalist identity and aspiration, and those must be made compatible with their desire to join the police service. I am afraid that a change in the name is a necessary condition for that.

Mr. Taylor

What about part-timers?

Mr. Mandelson

On the specific question of the part-time reservists, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South)

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the centrality of human rights to the reform of the police. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to find that funny. It is a radical move that should be extended.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) referred earlier, found that one of the major impediments to the retention of police from the Catholic community was the wider canteen culture that remains prevalent within the RUC? Will there be measures, alongside the new quotas that are proposed, to ensure that recruits from the Catholic community—who will increase from the current figure of 8 per cent.—will be retained and trained appropriately?

Mr. Mandelson

I readily accept my hon. Friend's point. RUC training is the best and the most rigorous of any police service in the world, and those standards will continue when the new police service is created.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

I spent about a year working closely with the RUC, and I patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland with Catholic and Protestant officers. I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State in his desire to get more Catholics into the police force. Everybody does.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the evidence of his own Department from April 1988, which said that the main reason given by Catholics for not joining the RUC is that they fear intimidation or attack on themselves or their relatives"? Why instead—this question has been asked before—has he given way to the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA and as a result is allowing the very people who have attacked and intimidated police officers to have their way? He is giving way to those who have sustained the terror campaign of which he spoke earlier.

Mr. Mandelson

If I were meeting the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA, I would be disbanding the RUC, because that is what they want and have demanded. They have made a string of demands that are completely unacceptable—they were unacceptable to the Patten commission and remain unacceptable to the Government. I readily acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's experience and knowledge, but I repeat that the use of words or symbols perceived to associate the police with one side of the constitutional argument has an effect. Their use is an inhibiting factor that discourages people from joining the police, over and above any form or degree of intimidation. We have to recognise that. In an effort to overcome it, we support the changes that I have described this afternoon.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement, which gives a precis of the way forward for policing. I am sure that he agrees that today is an important day for Northern Ireland. The changes will enable us to have a police force that commands the respect of all the community—I say "all" advisedly. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, to underpin the peace that we have, it is absolutely essential that both the actuality and the symbolism of the new police service is readily acceptable to both communities.

I should like to place it on record that the Social Democratic and Labour party, which represents the vast majority of nationalists in Northern Ireland, expresses our deep regret over the deaths of RUC members who have been murdered, and our sympathy with their families, who continue to grieve, and with those families who have suffered maimings or killings. We have put that on record many times before, even in our written response to Patten.

Having said that, I find it sad that those sacrifices are being used almost as a political weapon to prevent progress. That is most regrettable. I am sure that, in his travels around Northern Ireland and conversations with members of the RUC, the right hon. Gentleman has, like me, found that they welcome change—the vast majority of them want it. They want to be acceptable and to walk in safety in our communities. The only way to achieve that is through the Patten proposals, accepted by the Secretary of State, which will create a force that is acceptable to both sides.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the best interpreters of the will and attitudes of the nationalist community are its representatives. Much of the blame for the bipartisan situation surrounding the RUC lies with Opposition Members from Northern Ireland referring to that force as their police force, their men—theirs, not the communities'. There are many instances of that being true: we all remember Bombay street and Hooker street, and the RUC B-specials burning down one street after another. That remains in our folk memory. We must have impartial symbols and attitudes if we are to underpin a new service and the peace, and thereby prevent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must have heard my earlier comment, so will he please now bring his question to a quick conclusion?

Mr. McGrady

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely essential that the symbolism, as well as the actuality, of reform is carried through, so that the full support of both communities can be gained?

Mr. Mandelson

Obviously, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is notable that he and other leaders of the SDLP have readily and generously associated themselves with tributes to the sacrifices made by the RUC during the past 30 years. I am grateful to him for repeating that this afternoon.

It is unfortunate that certain individual—probably maverick—Unionist spokesmen have in the past 24 hours referred to the RUC in a way that suggests that the police service literally belongs to Unionists in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that no Member of the House has done that, but other Unionist spokesmen have. It is as if they are saying, "You can do anything you like in Northern Ireland as long as you keep your hands off our police force." It is precisely that sort of attitude and statement that confirms people's worst suspicions. I am glad to say that it is thoroughly unrepresentative of mainstream Unionist opinion and of the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's support will be forthcoming for the changes that I have announced, and will be followed by an encouragement of his supporters and those from his community to join the new Northern Ireland police service. I cannot predict better than the Chief Constable himself, when he said: If these recommendations"— referring to the Patten report— bring about a new beginning for policing, the pain that my colleagues and friends are being asked to endure becomes a pain that they have to endure for the greater gain". That "greater gain" is a representative police service in Northern Ireland, one that has cross-community support and that nationalists finally join. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be encouraging them in that direction.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the immense contribution made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland and in fighting terrorism throughout the United Kingdom?

Given what the right hon. Gentleman has said about district policing partnership boards, will he give an undertaking to the House that any legislation that he brings forward will not contain powers that would enable those boards to employ terrorists, as recommendation 32 of the Patten report would make possible?

Mr. Mandelson

The right hon. and learned Gentleman either was not here or did not hear what I said in my opening statement. Possibly he was here, in which case I apologise to him. I said that I was not at this stage going to proceed with those aspects of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to community policing and the expenditure of moneys for those projects to which he has referred. That remains the position.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I appreciate that this is a very important matter. However, it is one to which the House will be returning in due course. We have spent a long time on the statement and, to preserve the rest of the business, we must move on.