§
Amendment made: No. 37, in page 35, line 18, after 'Schedule 1,', insert—
'in paragraph 3(7)(b), the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii), in paragraph 10(1)(b), the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii) and'—[Jane and'. Kennedy.]
Order for Third Reading read.
§ 6.1 pm
§ Jane KennedyAs has been said before, the Bill further implements the Patten report and last year's review of policing arrangements.
Although they do not always attract the attention that they deserve, the Bill includes valuable measures that will directly assist the Chief Constable in making the Police Service of Northern Ireland both more effective and more representative. They will also help the Policing Board in its role of ensuring that the police are both effective and efficient.
I have in mind, in particular, the detailed provisions allowing the Chief Constable to extend civilianisation and the measures that would allow for the introduction of a number of experienced constables with expertise, such as detectives, and of secondees from other forces.
I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is faced, as Tom Constantine regularly reminds us, with an unprecedented change programme. To have made so much progress, while delivering high-quality policing, is a great tribute not just to the Chief Constable and his leadership team, but to all the police officers who 540 serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whether regular, full-time or part-time, and to their support staff right across the organisation. It is also in the best tradition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary from which PSNI has evolved.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Policing Board. In particular, the Board has recently launched the district policing partnerships. I am delighted to see such interest right across Northern Ireland in the delivery of local policing and in improving community safety. I have no doubt that the district policing partnerships will be a significant new chapter in taking policing forward in Northern Ireland and in making it a safer place for all inhabitants. The police ombudsman, too, has an important role to play in the new architecture.
I shall say something about the wider political context. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach plan to return to Northern Ireland before the middle of next month to take forward the work that was advanced in the discussions at Hillsborough earlier this month. I do not want to rehearse the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) suspended devolved Government last year. However, as he said then, as others have said recently and as I, too, know, it is essential to restore trust if devolution is to be restored.
Confidence led to the Belfast agreement in the first place, and it is a prerequisite for its continuance. I welcome the positive, continuing contacts between political parties since the Hillsborough talks and I hope that they can be built on. However, as all hon. Members know, something more is required. As the Prime Minister made clear in his Customs House speech last October, it is time for acts of completion. To use his words, that means:
Commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent … an end to tolerance of paramilitary activity in any form.Sinn Fein's annual Ard Fheis starts tomorrow. I hope that the party and its supporters take the opportunity to look forward. There are tremendous opportunities, not only for them but for wider society if the chance is seized.I reiterate that none of the provisions that we discussed yesterday will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will be commenced only by a subsequent order, which will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses in Parliament. I repeat on the Floor of the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would envisage introducing a commencement order only in the context of acts of completion.
At the risk of provoking some hon. Members' wrath, it may be helpful to conclude by turning again to the initial chapter of the Patten report. Paragraph 1.7 states:
There is plainly a close relationship between the success of the overall Agreement and the changes in policing. If the fresh start for politics founders, it will be more difficult to make changes in policing; and if changes in policing are resisted (or mishandled) then there could be a serious impact on the attempt to rebuild democratic politics in Northern Ireland".
§ David BurnsideWould not the Minister like to give the context of section 19 of the Belfast agreement, which authorised Patten and the commission to make recommendations that would encourage widespread community support? A raft of policing proposals—some are already in law and others are about to be enacted—has been introduced in Northern Ireland. They have no widespread community support.
§ Jane KennedyI do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. I know that many members of his party would make the same point, but the changes in policing have been supported. For example, they have cross-party support on the Policing Board. I look to that to continue as a result of the changes to the Bill.
As I have said previously, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has come a long way already. The new beginning for policing has not foundered, despite what some of its critics would have us believe. One has only to consider the reception that was given to the Chief Constable and the two new recruits at the White House earlier this month to realise the high regard in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland is held in America and elsewhere.
Since the agreement, the change has been most marked in policing. I pay tribute to all who have played their part. I look forward to the day when those who have yet to do so step forward to embrace policing on the basis that the Prime Minister set out.
§ Lady HermonI am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on her closing remarks but the point that I wish to clarify is crucial to whether we support the Bill.
I understood from yesterday's debate that the commencement orders would not be brought to the House until after acts of completion had taken place. I listened carefully to the Minister, and she used the phrase "in the context of acts of completion". Does "in the context of' mean "after"?
§ Jane KennedyThroughout our proceedings yesterday and today, I used the phrase "in the context of acts of completion." I assure the hon. Lady that acts of completion—putting away paramilitary activity in all its forms in Northern Ireland—is an essential part of the change that we want to happen. I am not going to get into a debate about the detailed sequencing of how events might happen. The acts of completion that we are looking for have been stated many times.
I began my remarks by talking about the necessity of re-establishing trust, but that trust must reside not just in the Governments of Britain or Ireland. The parties to the arrangements that we want to re-establish in Northern Ireland will have to make those partnerships work. It is within that context that we would consider the changes being brought forward.
The Bill provides a further basis for the development of the new beginning to policing that is already well under way. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. Quentin DaviesThree clear conclusions emerge from the debate. First, the Government's abuse of the guillotine in business as important as this is nothing less than scandalous. Rafts of new clauses and amendments have gone through without discussion.
Secondly, an otherwise good-tempered debate was marred towards the end by the most extraordinary display of bad temper by the Minister of State that I have seen in the House for a long time. She appeared to be so riled by our criticism of the Bill that she lashed out with insults to all concerned—to me, the Liberals, and the Democratic Unionists. I choose my words carefully, but she seemed in danger of giving a false impression to the House by implying that there had been a vote on the Policing Board about the substance of new clause 4. I am assured by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—an honest man—that that was not the case.
§ Jane Kennedyrose—
§ Mr. DaviesI shall not give way to the Minister, although I have never failed to do so before. Earlier, she declined to give way to me because she knew that she was utterly in the wrong. I am now going to pay her back in kind. She must recognise that the courtesies in the House must be reciprocal.
The matter of reciprocity has an even more important context. The third thing to emerge from the debates over the past two days is that the Government have reverted to the bad habits of the past. They prepare and bring forward and offer new concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA in advance of, and in the absence of, any necessary movement from the other side—that is, acts of completion. The tactic is completely misconceived, at a time when we have been waiting in vain for any such moves from Sinn Fein-IRA, and in a week when a major arms cache has been found. Much of the arms and other equipment may be new, and so represent very clear evidence of a breach of the ceasefire.
It is utterly inept of the Government to bring forward concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA and to try to incorporate them definitively in primary legislation. The Government have been guilty of that ineptitude over and over again. There were moments when they seemed to accept that it was a great mistake, and I am sorry that they should be making the same mistake again.
This is a bad Bill, made a great deal worse by the incorporation of the new clauses introduced by the Government on Report. It is based on bad strategic and tactical thinking—or perhaps no such thinking took place, even though it should have. The Bill's inadequacies have been ineffectively covered up by a display of bad temper.
I can think of no reason why the Opposition would do otherwise than vote against the Bill. I hope that it will receive the more profound discussion that it so evidently deserves in another place, and that their lordships will be able to give it the treatment that we in this House have been unable to give it because of the Government's abuse of the guillotine.
§ Mr. MallonIn many ways, the conclusion of the Bill's passage through this House is the end of an odyssey in relation to policing and my participation in it over the past 30 years.
I say to people here who do not like the Bill that if, like me, they were a spokesman for a small party and had lived and worked in south Armagh over the past 30 years trying to sell a message that was political to the core because it centred on justice and policing, they would have a different perspective on what has transpired today on the Floor of the House. It is a sea change. I advise hon. Members to think back to what was happening—dead bodies day and night; policemen being killed and killing; constituents being killed; emergency prevention of terrorism legislation. That was the staple diet. Somehow or other, we were able to keep alive the hope that there was a political process; that peace was available and that central to both peace and the political process was a resolution of the policing issue. I maintained for years that when we cracked policing, we cracked the political difficulties. I still believe that passionately for many reasons, but for this one especially: that one cannot have a viable organic political process that works in devolutionary terms in a divided society unless it works together effectively on political and administrative issues, and it cannot do that unless it addresses the issue that goes to the core of stability, which is the provision of fair and just policing for the society that it serves. We now have the opportunity to achieve that.
I am sorry that two years were wasted, but I believe that we have now got it right. There have been enormous changes. The Minister referred to the Policing Board., which has been, and will be, an enormous success. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) would agree that in the past the Police Authority was not a place for him or for me. People were chosen. One had to have the right colour eyes to be part of that set-up. If a couple of castle Catholics, maybe two garden centre Unionists and at least one lapsed member of the Alliance party were stuck on to every board in the north of Ireland, that was called representation and accountability. Whatever the difficulties that arise from people's political views, warts and all, the current situation is much more viable and contains within it the seeds of hope that did not exist before.
§ Lady HermonI just want to pay tribute to those who served on the Police Authority, many of whom were threatened and intimidated during their years of service. I want it to be on the record that they did a service for the people of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. MallonThe hon. Lady misses the broad point that I am making. I am not attacking the people who were on the Police Authority. I know that some people were intimidated; I know that some people resigned, and I know why they felt obliged to do so. But those are things of the past.
I want to finish with a political point—a brutal political point, because political points in the north of Ireland are never that nice; they are underpinned by a harsh reality from which we sometimes try to hide. The negotiations that took place at Weston Park represented an act of completion in relation to proposals on policing that was essential to the Bill and to the political process. 544 I regard that as the act of completion in terms of this issue. If it is not the act of completion in terms of this issue, there will be a reaction not just from people such as me, but right across the board.
I trust that Weston Park was the act of completion, because I want to refer to a further act of completion. I know how difficult it is for Ministers to speculate about what will happen in the next two or three weeks. I have the freedom now to say what I believe will happen and what must happen. It would be inconceivable if, in effect, when this legislation has been drawn to a close, as an act of faith in the future and as an act of reconciliation within the community in the north of Ireland, those who call themselves patriots did not prove it by taking their rightful place on the Policing Board. That is the acid test of all the political theories, ranging from the principle of political consent down to every dot and comma of the Good Friday agreement.
That act of completion must be there to facilitate other acts of completion, which will lead to the restoration of devolution. And in my view, that will happen. I put it directly and bluntly to the Sinn Fein leadership, "Show your courage, show your political courage, show your capacity to look at the whole question of justice and policing in the north of Ireland, and put your representatives where you must put them: on the Policing Board." There can be no prevarication about that. There can be no further demands. There can be no back-room negotiations, post-negotiations or other movements on this issue. The moment of truth has come for that organisation and for everybody else. I believe that they will respond, and that they will do so for this reason: people in England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the United States and all the European states are looking at what is happening here. At present, there are distractions, but they are looking here, because this is the template for how these issues of violence and division can be resolved. The Northern Ireland resolution, the Good Friday agreement and this legislation contain the template of what can be applied in other countries throughout the world.
That is why it is so important that we do this not just for ourselves, for where we live, and for those whom we represent, but for other places throughout the world that can learn something from what we have gone through. It is a small thing to ask, in historical terms, to show now the courage to lead from the front in terms of real justice, real stability and real peace, which will arrive from this legislation.
§ Mr. CarmichaelThe hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) started his remarks with a sobering and timely reminder of the importance of policing to the situation in Northern Ireland and the real and tragic human cost of not accepting its importance. His remarks were very pertinent to this Third Reading.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred in his opening remarks to the Minister, suggesting that there had been a slight tetchiness. For my part, I have found the Minister nothing but charming throughout the passage of the Bill, especially once she realised that we were supporting her. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said to me at one stage, "Someone needs a hug." 545 I do not know whether he was referring to the Minister or the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford; I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
I should like to comment in passing that the conduct of today's business in particular has vindicated the decision taken by the Liberal Democrats, along with Conservative Members, to vote against the timetabling motion yesterday. I hope that, once the smoke of battle has cleared, so to speak, the Government might take that consideration on board.
The Liberal Democrats will support the Government in the Lobby on Third Reading, but we shall do so with just a slight hesitation. We will support them in no small measure because of the very generous concession that the Secretary of State made to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire yesterday in relation to proceedings on new clause 2, particularly his admission that the judgment of when acts of completion had been carried out was a political question. I found his candour on that issue helpful and refreshing.
The Minister opened her speech by referring to the Patten report. She said that the Bill was an extension of Patten and the next stage. I do not take too much issue with that suggestion. The Patten report seems to be a little like the Bible, as everybody can find something that they are happy to quote with approval—
§ David BurnsideSacrilege.
§ Mr. CarmichaelI can say sincerely that I do not intend any sacrilege. Let me say instead that the use of the Patten report is a bit like the use of the Bible in that respect.
We are broadly supportive of the Government's aims on policing. We recognise the importance of cross-community involvement in the police service. As the Minister must surely now understand, we are not yet convinced that 50:50 recruitment is a suitable mechanism for achieving that aim, but we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point. We recognise the importance of policing at the very heart of the process of normalisation.
The Minister spoke about the wider political context, which is also worthy of consideration, and about the need for a restoration in trust. That strikes at the very heart of the matter. However, I remind her of the remarks that I made yesterday about the fact that the Government have a role to play. She spoke about real, total and permanent acts of completion. For our part, we would prefer "full cessation of violence" as a form of words, but it amounts to the same point at the end of the day. I say to her that the Government set themselves a very high standard—real, total and permanent—and that, if they should find themselves tempted to fall in any way below that very high standard, they would risk doing serious damage to the process that they have sought to pursue with some vigour and with no small measure of success, as today's proceedings have indicated. It is all very well for me to say, as we did yesterday, that that would be a point of disruption for us. That is largely academic. If it were to happen, it would be a point of disruption not only for us, but for the wider community. That is why the maintenance of those very high standards is so important.
§ Lady HermonI am very pleased to be called to speak on the Third Reading of this very important Bill.
I should like to take my cue from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), with whom I often find myself in agreement, although not always. It is a pleasure to have him here this evening. The cue is that he referred to his constituency and the experience from which he spoke, and I respect his experience. I should like to spend a few moments on my experience in North Down.
North Down was strongly supportive of the Belfast agreement, but nothing has undermined confidence in the agreement more than police reform. That is undoubtedly a fact, as will be shown in the forthcoming elections.
Despite that, I have attended Unionist meetings on many occasions—although not recently—and expressed not enthusiasm but criticism. I have said that I want Sinn Fein members to take their rightful places on the Policing Board, and to call on young republicans to enter the police service and take responsibility for policing rather than passing the burden to someone else. They may see it as a poisoned chalice, but they should be invited to take up that poisoned chalice and carry the burden along with everyone else.
As Members can probably tell from my tone of voice, I am deeply angry about the fact that the Provisional IRA will turn out to have been responsible for the Castlereagh raids. Their responsibility is no longer a hidden secret. That was on 17 March last year; as if we were not satisfied with that, there was then the revelation that a substantial spy ring had been operating for some time at the heart of Government.
My confidence has been completely undermined by the events that have taken place since spring last year. I do not think I am alone in saying, as a Unionist, that my confidence in Sinn Fein needs to be rebuilt—and that cannot be done if Sinn Fein are tied in any way to a paramilitary army.
I thank the Minister for taking my intervention earlier. One issue is fundamental to whether my party supports the Bill this evening. I understood the Minister to have made it clear that the commencement orders would be made only once acts of completion had taken place. Today, however, we were told that they would be made in the context of acts of completion. That, I am afraid, is not enough to rebuild our confidence, and makes it impossible for us to support the Bill—unless the Minister wishes to intervene now and tell me that the orders will be made after acts of completion.
I say that with regret. I spoke on Second Reading, before the addition of the two clauses relating to district policing partnerships, disqualification of those with convictions and the Belfast sub-groups. I made clear our recognition that the vast majority of the Bill had come to the House of Commons at the request of the Policing Board, which has done a magnificent job in serving the entire Northern Ireland community. It had come to us at the request of the Chief Constable himself. I do not want to undermine the wonderful job that the board has done, or the wonderful job that our new Chief Constable is doing. That is why, on reflection, I supported new clause 4. We need more detectives because of the increased crime throughout Northern Ireland, which does not exclude North Down.
547 I distinctly remember welcoming, on Second Reading, the additional resources for the Chief Constable, particularly investigation officers, detention officers and escort officers. There was nothing new about that, in that it duplicated existing arrangements in Great Britain provided for in the Police Reform Act 2002.
It is with deep regret that, if the Minister cannot assure me that the commencement orders will be made after acts of completion—
§ Jane Kennedyrose—
§ Lady HermonOh, thank you. Excellent.
§ Jane KennedyI hope I can reassure the hon. Lady by reverting to the phrase used yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that the clauses we were debating would
not come into effect unless there are acts of completion. They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 361.]It was in that context of trust that I tried to answer the hon. Lady.
§ Lady HermonI thank the Minister for clarifying that point, and I look forward to the agreement of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said yesterday, but I did not actually think that it clarified matters.
§ Lembit ÖpikI am sure the hon. Lady agrees that one thing that still needs to be clarified is who is involved in the process of agreement. Unless the Minister wishes to intervene again, I shall assume that agreement must come from all sides in Northern Ireland.
§ Lady HermonI hope that the Minister will intervene on me again, because I am not happy with what she has said. I certainly understood, following talks at Hillsborough, that that was the context—that the commencement orders would not be made until the acts of completion. Therefore, I am disappointed that we cannot have a categorical clarification on the Floor of the House that they will come after the acts of completion.
The reason I say that is that we must build trust back up, as the Minister said, in both communities. The Unionist community believes in devolution and in sharing power in the Executive. I certainly do. I cannot wait for the Executive and Assembly to be up and running again; I am deeply committed to devolution. However, there will not be trust unless the people of Northern Ireland—not just one community but all the people of Northern Ireland—can be assured. They deserve to know that those who sit in government are in no way connected to a paramilitary army. That is all I am asking for.
The vast majority of the Bill comes, rightly, from a unanimous Policing Board, which I commend warmly, and from the new Chief Constable, who is doing an extremely good job in very difficult circumstances. It is with a heavy heart that I say that, unless we have clarification, we cannot support the measure on Third Reading.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyIn a very important debate, the Prime Minister spelled out his principles in respect of terrorism. He said that
weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant is the surest way not to peace, but—unfortunately—to conflict.IRA-Sinn Fein are tyrants. Members of certain Roman Catholic families were shot. Men know where they are buried, but they will not even attempt to get the decomposing bodies to allow them a Christian burial. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that that is the case. If that is not tyranny, I do not know what is.A very noble sergeant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who served in Newry, was shot dead by the IRA. The night before he was to be buried in the family plot, it was made clear to the undertaker and to the priest that his body would not rest in the family plot. It had to be taken from the Warrenpoint area to Banbridge to be buried.
The diabolical hatred and venom of tyranny is seen in many such cases. To bring it up to date, I mention what happened in my constituency at Ballymena when a young person from the Roman Catholic Church was recruited to the new police structures. An attempt was made to kill him, his father and his mother. Literature is spread around places of work inciting people to treat former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary the way they were treated when they were in uniform and to treat every member of the new police service in the same way.
What the Prime Minister said, rightly, are my principles. He said that looking back over the years
the truth is that we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, and to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 765.]I speak in this House on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and on five occasions I have had the majority vote across the whole of the Province, not just in North Antrim. No assurance tonight from Ministers will satisfy those people, given what the Prime Minister told me in this very House when the acts of completion were being discussed.On 27 November, I asked if he was aware that
in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?That was a clear question.The Prime Minister said:
I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfiesnot the Government, the Policing Board or we who have responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland buteveryone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]549 Before the House accepts this Bill, it should hear what the Republicans have to say. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said what she said. She made it clear that she was with the Government and agreed with what they were doing on many things that I and members of her own party would not agree with. However, she has become partly disillusioned because of what is happening. If it is getting through to her, how do people feel in Northern Ireland tonight?We listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) yesterday, and he made it clear, as a prophet, that we would soon come back to deal with even more serious matters.
What happened at Weston Park? Why have not the people of Northern Ireland been told? If the process is for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland, why were we not told what happened? The leader of the Ulster Unionist party said that he did not know what was agreed at Weston Park, but this I do know: I am a member of the Stormont Assembly, and the leader of the SDLP in the Stormont Assembly said on the record that he was told by an official when he protested at Weston Park, "You have no guns." At Weston Park, there was a betrayal and a surrender to tyranny.
§ Mr. MallonI can help the hon. Gentleman. What happened at Weston Park in relation to policing is published in full in the revised implementation plan, which is there for everyone to see. I regard that as an act of completion in its totality. It has always been my belief that there should be devolution, and that, for it to work, the powers related to policing and justice should be devolved, because it will then come of age. That was not what happened at Weston Park, but what happened at Weston Park in relation to policing is on record in the revised review.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyIs the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that nothing more than that is in the latest measures that we are being asked to put our seal on tonight? Is it just Weston Park, full stop?
§ David BurnsideAnd Hillsborough.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyIndeed. Is the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh saying that nothing was added? We know very well from prominent sources of information that many things were added. The Prime Minister—and the Taoiseach and his friends—had to come and sit for long hours because something was being added, and I think that we are entitled to know what it was.
§ Mr. MallonI thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I repeat that I regard what was agreed at Weston Park about policing as closure. May I assure him that, if anything was added to that, either at Hillsborough or subsequently, I would regard it as an absolute breach of negotiating principle?
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyWe have heard Government spokesmen telling us what the people of Northern Ireland feel, but they do not know. They have been there 550 on a few occasions, but they do not know the mind of the people. If they had a mind to know it, they could have organised a selection process and put their own candidates into the field. When I was speaking in the Chamber yesterday, a man shouted from the Labour Benches, "What about democracy?", yet his own party will not even recruit in Northern Ireland and ask the people what they feel about—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill?
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyI am sorry that I allowed myself to go down the path of the person who interrupted me—or whom I allowed to interrupt me. All that I am saying tonight is that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens—Roman Catholics and Protestants—are very concerned about what is taking place, and about what is going to take place in the future. I know Roman Catholics very well, and I serve them very well, as they all—even their priests—have said. Many of them feel that it is a stigma that they are not permitted to get a job entirely on merit. The House needs to recognise that.
The one thing that the House must learn is that it can pass this legislation. The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister will come to tell the rest of us who do not know—I do not know to this day—what happened at Hillsborough. I asked to have a look at the document and was refused, but the gunmen in the IRA who will be at the conference this week know. Why should a gunman who has slain policemen know what the future holds for my people when I do not? No Member on the Labour Benches would tolerate that, yet we are asked to tolerate it. If the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland are not recognised in the House, upon the House will come problems. These things are very serious.
I want to make one final point. A huge cache of arms was found in the Ormeau road this week. The police usually tell us that such arms belong to dissident republicans. This week, however, they made a statement saying that they were the arms of the Provisional IRA. Those arms are not the usual arms; they are up to date, purchased after the Provisional IRA signed the ceasefire. I am asked tonight to go back to my people and say that the law of the land now is this new policing for Northern Ireland, which contains proposals hammered out behind closed doors and partly revealed in the document that preceded this debate. I say to this House that no democratically elected Member should be asked by any Government to sell something to their people unless they know what it is. However, we will have to wait until the two Prime Ministers come to our Province and let some of us know a little of what is in this document.
I want to make one other point. I was told by the previous Secretary of State that if the Democratic Unionist party were to join the Policing Board there would be no cries for IRA-Sinn Fein to join it; that there would be no campaign, run by the Government, to get them to join; that IRA-Sinn Fein would have to wait until the election took place, and then re-appointments would be made. I asked him, "Is that your word?", and he said, "Yes, that is my word." Yet the board was 551 hardly in operation, when the call went out: Sinn Fein must be on this board. Evidently, the new Chief Constable thinks that it is his business to get Sinn Fein on to the board.
During yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked what will happen, but she knows what happened in her own party, and where it stands.
§ David BurnsideWill the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? If, as he recognises, Sinn Fein is involved in the continuation of terrorist activity, and we reach the stage where it is invited, within the law, to come on to the Policing Board, will his party withdraw from the board with the Ulster Unionists?
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyI have already said that publicly. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not read newspapers, although perhaps he does not read those newspapers that report me. We certainly will not be on any Policing Board with IRA-Sinn Fein—how could we, when we have taken a stand on the Executive arid tried to be absolutely consistent? If Members want to close the Policing Board, vote for this; if they want to take the Unionists off the board, vote for it. That is what is happening. I said publicly in Omagh the other night—it was recorded in the press—that the Chief Constable does not know what he is doing when he is telling people these things.
I greatly resent what the Minister said about the way in which the police were received in the White House. Royal Ulster Constabulary Members, including Sir Ronnie Flanagan, were well received in the White House years ago. To say that the way in which the White House is receiving the police shows for the first time how successful this initiative is ignores the fact that the police force can never he successful until it is completely democratic. It is not totally democratic when it closes the doors, puts on the locks, and says to the Protestant people, "You're not getting your position, but you will get it by a percentage." However, we are not even talking about the true percentage, because there are more than 50 per cent. Protestants in Northern Ireland. Also, others who are not Protestants or Roman Catholics are put in together, and told that they will get 50 per cent.; however, the Roman Catholics will get 50 per cent.
I do not know what ear the Minister is listening out of. I was with the Chief Constable and a deputation some time ago. He told me that it was impossible o police Northern Ireland at the moment because of the 50:50 rule. That is what he told me, and I have evidence for that. That is a fact. What is more, never has the 50:50 rule been kept to, because it is impossible to keep to it. Sometimes, it could be 52 per cent. or 53 per cent., but that cannot be tested. I need to say tonight that this House must take care in what it is doing about the police in Northern Ireland.
§ David BurnsideTime is short. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I will take great pleasure in voting against the Government tonight, because their record on policing in Northern Ireland and their destruction of the Royal Ulster 552 Constabulary are a disgrace. The Government should be ashamed of that, rather than heralding it as a new start to policing.
Because of the restrictions on time, I was unable to move new clause 15, which would have recognised the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland—people who were proud of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down knows, the RUC was incorporated in existing law, but was operationally ripped out of Northern Ireland—from the force, from the police stations and from the insignia. There was to be no display of any sign of Britishness, although a later decision made an exception to incorporate a crown in the new badge of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
I have been here only two years, unlike the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who has been here for almost 30 years. However, I will play the long game for as long as the Unionists of South Antrim select me and elect me. The elected majority in this House will come and it will go—I should say, elected dictatorship, not elected majority. There will come a time in this House when the smaller parties will hold the balance of power and we will have an opportunity to restore the dignity, operationally, of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I look forward to opposing this motion, which will not improve policing. In four weeks' time, a deal will be put to the parties in Northern Ireland. I can assure hon. Members that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland will look at that deal. At present, we read about it only in The Irish Times, the Irish Independent and our local papers in Northern Ireland; but we will look at that deal and evaluate it. We will make our judgment on whether Sinn Fein is a legitimate democratic party. That judgment will be heard loud and clear in the governing body that rules my party—the Ulster Unionist Council. A clear message will be sent to this House that we have been fooled and conned for long enough in the political process called the peace process, and that we will try to move ahead in a new, democratic and accountable way. At present, the process is not working and does not reflect the views of the law-abiding unionist people of Northern Ireland.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I will not support any move to have representatives from my party on the Policing Board with Sinn Fein-IRA, and nor will I support Sinn Fein-IRA coming into the Executive of Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read a Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 98.
555| Division No. 148] | [6:58 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Battle, John |
| Adams, Irene (Paisley N) | Berry, Roger |
| Allan, Richard | Blackman, Liz |
| Allen, Graham | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen) | Blizzard, Bob |
| Bradshaw, Ben | |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Brake, Tom (Carshalton) |
| Austin, John | Brooke, Mrs Annette L. |
| Banks, Tony | Browne, Desmond |
| Barron, rh Kevin | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Burden, Richard | Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Prosser, Urmston) |
| Burgon, Colin | |
| Burstow, Paul | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Byers, rh Stephen | Hurst, Alan (Braintree) |
| Cairns, David | Hutton, rh John |
| Calton, Mrs Patsy | Iddon, Dr. Brian |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate) |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | |
| Caplin, Ivor | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Carmichael, Alistair | Jamieson, David |
| Casale, Roger | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cawsey, Ian (Brigg) | Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Challen, Colin | Kaufman, rh Gerald |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Chaytor, David | Kidney, David |
| Clapham, Michael | King, Andy (Rugby) |
| Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough) | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow) |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | |
| Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V) | Knight Jim (S Dorset) |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Ladyman, Dr. Stephen |
| Coleman, Iain | Lamb, Norman |
| Connarty, Michael | Lammy, David |
| Cooper, Yvette | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Laxton, Bob (Derby N) |
| Corston, Jean | Levitt, Tom (High Peak) |
| Cousins, Jim | Linton, Martin |
| Cox, Tom (Tooting) | Love, Andrew |
| Cranston, Ross | Lyons, John (Strathkelvin) |
| Crausby, David | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Cruddas, Jon | McCabe, Stephen |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | McCafferty, Chris |
| Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S) | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | McDonnell, John |
| Davidson, Ian | McIsaac, Shona |
| Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H) | McKechin, Ann |
| Dhanda, Parmjit | McKenna, Rosemary |
| Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Dobson, rh Frank | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | McWalter, Tony |
| Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W) | Mallaber, Judy |
| Drew, David (Stroud) | Mallon, Seamus |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Mandelson, rh Peter |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Mann, John (Bassetlaw) |
| Efford, Clive | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston) |
| Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E) | |
| Farrelly, Paul | Meale, Alan (Mansfield) |
| Fisher, Mark | Merron, Gillian |
| Follett, Barbara | Michael, rh Alun |
| Foster, Michael (Worcester) | Miller, Andrew |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye) | Moffatt, Laura |
| Moran, Margaret | |
| Gapes, Mike (Ilford S) | Mountford, Kali |
| George, rh Bruce (Walsall S) | Mudie, George |
| Gerrard, Neil | Mullin, Chris |
| Goggins, Paul | Munn, Ms Meg |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Naysmith, Dr. Doug |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Hamilton, David (Midlothian) | Olner, Bill |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | Öpik, Lembit |
| Healey, John | Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) |
| Heath, David | Palmer, Dr. Nick |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Perham, Linda |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Picking, Anne |
| Heppell, John | Pickthall, Colin |
| Hesford, Stephen | Pike, Peter (Burnley) |
| Heyes, David | Plaskitt, James |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Pollard, Kerry |
| Hinchliffe, David | Pound, Stephen |
| Hodge, Margaret | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) |
| Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) | |
| Howells, Dr. Kim | Primarolo, rh Dawn |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Purnell, James | Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Quin, rh Joyce | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Thurso, John |
| Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute) | Tipping, Paddy |
| Rendel, David | Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire) |
| Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland) | Trickett, Jon |
| Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown) | |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) | |
| Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S) | |
| Roy, Frank (Motherwell) | Vis, Dr. Rudi |
| Ruddock, Joan | Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E) |
| Ryan, Joan (Enfield N) | White, Brian |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Whitehead Dr. Alan |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Sawford, Phil | Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W) |
| Sheridan, Jim | Williams, Roger (Brecon) |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | Winnick, David |
| Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington) | Wood, Mike (Batley) |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Woodward, Shaun |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Wright, David (Telford) |
| Soley, Clive | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
| Squire, Rachel | Wyatt, Derek |
| Stewart, Ian (Eccles) | Younger-Ross, Richard |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stoate, Dr. Howard | Mr. Nick Ainger and |
| Stunell, Andrew | Jim Fitzpatrick |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Heathcoat-Amory, rh David |
| Arbuthnot, rh James | Hendry, Charles |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) | Hermon, Lady |
| Bacon, Richard | Horam, John (Orpington) |
| Barker, Gregory | Hunter, Andrew |
| Baron, John (Billericay) | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Bellingham, Henry | Johnson, Boris (Henley) |
| Bercow, John | Key, Robert (Salisbury) |
| Blunt, Crispin | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Boswell, Tim | Lansley, Andrew |
| Burns, Simon | Leigh, Edward |
| Burnside, David | Letwin, rh Oliver |
| Cash, William | Liddell-Grainger, Ian |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | Lidington, David |
| Loughton, Tim | |
| Chope, Christopher | Luff, Peter (M-Worcs) |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
| Collins, Tim | Mackay, rh Andrew |
| Conway, Derek | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Cran, James (Beverley) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Curry, rh David | Maples, John |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford) | Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian |
| Mercer, Patrick | |
| Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden) | Norman, Archie |
| O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | |
| Djanogly, Jonathan | Osborne, George (Tatton) |
| Duncan, Alan (Rutland) | Ottaway, Richard |
| Evans, Nigel | Page, Richard |
| Fabricant, Michael | Paice, James |
| Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster) | Paisley, Rev. Ian |
| Prisk, Mark (Hertford) | |
| Flight, Howard | Randall, John |
| Flook, Adrian | Redwood, rh John |
| Forth, rh Eric | Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent) |
| Fox, Dr. Liam | |
| Francois, Mark | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis) | Rosindell, Andrew |
| Goodman, Paul | Ruffley, David |
| Gray, James (N Wilts) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Grayling, Chris | Selous, Andrew |
| Green, Damian (Ashford) | Shepherd, Richard |
| Hammond, Philip | Spelman, Mrs Caroline |
| Hawkins, Nick | Spicer, Sir Michael |
| Heald, Oliver | Spink, Bob (Castle Point) |
| Spring, Richard | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Stanley, rh Sir John | Waterson, Nigel |
| Steen, Anthony | Whittingdale, John |
| Swayne, Desmond | Wiggin, Bill |
| Swire, Hugo (E Devon) | Wilkinson, John |
| Syms, Robert | Young, rh Sir George |
| Taylor, John (Solihull) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Taylor, Sir Teddy | Mr. Mark Hoban and |
| Tredinnick, David | Mr. Laurence Robertson |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.