HL Deb 22 July 1998 vol 592 cc976-90

9.45 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 24 [Attestation of constables]:

Baroness Park of Monmouth moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 11, line 30, at end insert ("(which reproduces the form of declaration set out in Schedule 4 to the Police Act 1996)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 3.

At Second Reading the Minister told the House that the Bill changes the declaration of office to be made by RUC constables to one broadly similar to that used in Scotland, adding that it was in line with other changes in recent years to oaths and declarations throughout England and Wales. He said: Outdated and … complex language has been eliminated and clear, simple wording used".—[Official Report, 18/5/98; col. 1358.] He quoted the declaration given at Schedule 2 to the Bill and said that it was clear, simple wording. The note to that schedule repeats it with the important addition that it, does not contain any reference to the Sovereign or any reference to Her Majesty's subjects. This formulation goes some way to meeting nationalist concerns. At the same time, the fact that it is copied from another UK jurisdiction should soften the impact for Unionists".—[Official Report, 18/5/98; col. 1362.]

I shall not rehearse at this stage the arguments advanced against the proposal nor the Minister's replies at Second Reading except to say again that Catholics rather than nationalists have not been deterred so far from joining the RUC by the need to swear allegiance to the Queen, who is, after all, the head of state in Northern Ireland, any more than members of the Armed Forces or of the other place. If they are fewer than we and the RUC would wish, it is because to join is to become with one's family a lifelong target of the IRA. However, I recognise that there may be much to be said for a simple clear affirmation. So, instead of using the form of oath used, it seems, in Scotland, I merely propose the use in Northern Ireland of the form of declaration used in England, and revised as recently as 1996. Policemen in Wales also use either the English version or some Welsh version which contains exactly the same commitment to our Sovereign Lady the Queen.

The participants in the Belfast agreement acknowledged that the present wish of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland is to maintain the Union and accordingly that Northern Ireland status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish. Unless the Government's chief concern is for those nationalists who do not accept the statement in Annex A to the Belfast agreement—that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom, rather than for those both Catholics and Unionists who do—there should be no difficulty in using the form of declaration which is already acceptable in two rather than one of the other three jurisdictions in the UK. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I am pleased to rise in support of the noble Baroness. Although it is wearying to have to consider two important and contentious Northern Ireland Bills on the same day, with an extremely important and even more contentious matter concerning the welfare of 16 and 17 year-olds sandwiched in between, it does at least enable us to adopt a balanced approach.

Those of us who wish to modify—or as we would describe it "improve"—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, are constantly frustrated at being reminded that almost any change would run counter to the Good Friday agreement. No such inhibitions apply to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which has nothing at all to do with the Good Friday agreement.

The Bill which we debated earlier today is widely perceived, not only in the Province, as favouring men of violence on both sides, although loyalist terrorists enjoy little support from the unionist community at large. Most other aspects of the Good Friday agreement are perceived as favouring the republican/nationalist community in particular. Voting patterns in the referendum bear that out. Whereas 99 per cent. of the broadly nationalist community voted for the agreement, barely 50 per cent. of the broadly unionist community did so. Even that 50 per cent. was heavily influenced by a lavishly financed campaign of propaganda and spin doctoring.

Although the violence at Drumcree cannot be excused, it can perhaps be partially explained by a growing fear that the dice are increasingly loaded against the broadly unionist culture, tradition and ethos. This amendment gives us the chance to redress the balance somewhat and give heart to those who support the Union, irrespective of religion. It also fulfils the requirement of "parity of esteem", which has been much talked about recently in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic, in that the political minority in the north—that is to say, the non-unionists—will be treated in exactly the same way as the political minority in the south—that is to say, the non-nationalists—who when they join the police in the south have to swear allegiance to the Irish Republic, whatever their innermost feelings may be.

The revised wording meets the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that the existing 19th century loyal oath is out of date. Therefore, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will feel able to support these excellent and fair amendments.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I wish to support the group of amendments, in particular Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. In view of the established fact that the oath required of policemen in the Irish Police Force pledges loyalty to the state and to the government, which is rather unusual and might not have been accepted in total by many members of, for example, the Metropolitan Police during the previous parliament, it is odd that a change which was designed to give confidence to terrorists—who, incidentally, murdered around 300 RUC men—departs from the much proclaimed desire for uniformity within what is referred to usually in the Good Friday agreement as "the island of Ireland".

No doubt the Irish Government played their part in removing yet another manifestation of Britishness which, after all—and we have to face this fact—is the main objective of the Good Friday agreement. It is said that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have no particular view one way or the other, so the question then arises: what need is there for the declaration, not the oath, which terminates with the words, I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable"? Why would a young recruit for the RUC apply for an application form, fill in the form, collect references, undergo a series of medical examinations, complete the various other forms and attend at least several interviews, if he did not intend to, discharge the duties of the office of constable"? Would it not be fair to assume that, having gone through all that difficulty and having undertaken all those onerous duties, he had every intention of discharging the duties of a constable?

Are such words not implicit at, for example, the conclusion of a Sainsbury's interview panel? Would it not be assumed that such an applicant for a post in a Sainsbury's store would discharge his duties at the checkout point in the supermarket as an unspoken understanding that he would want to retain his job, which surely would be his main consideration? So, if necessary, he could cheerfully repeat that phrase as regards discharging his duties as a Sainsbury's employee. With that rather cynical comment, I wonder whether it is too late to suggest the deletion of Schedule 2 on the grounds that it is completely unnecessary, irrelevant and inapplicable.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I was interested in the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth in Amendments Nos. 1 and 3; namely, to replace the present proposed Northern Ireland declaration in the Bill with the present English declaration. However, I have ventured to put forward an alternative which appears on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 4. I have attempted to use up-to-date language as we were urged to do by the Minister, though I hesitate to suggest that it is a modernisation. I am beginning to think of that as a derogatory term rather than anything else, as it is used so frequently these days to describe all kinds of things.

My alternative draft seems to me to have several advantages. In the first place, it contains a reference to "Her Majesty the Queen" because she is the constitutional head of state and because, in this United Kingdom, the Crown is above party, above government, above opposition and above every other division in our society; indeed, it is the focus of loyalty for all. However, at the same time, I recognise that some citizens of Northern Ireland hope for a change in the status of the Province so that it can become part of the Republic at some stage. Of course, that is an entirely legitimate hope for people to cherish.

The Belfast agreement and the Bill, which is now before another place, make provision for this to occur if the majority in the future should wish for such a change. That is why my draft amendment refers to the, Queen and her legal successors". I have not put forward the phrase which is used, for example, in your Lordships' House—indeed, as we have heard this afternoon when we had more Introductions—namely: Her heirs and successors according to law", Instead, my amendment refers to "her legal successors". Of course, I hope that her legal successors in Northern Ireland will in due course be her heirs. But it may be that her legal successors become—under the legislation being considered—the Republic of Ireland.

As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, indicated, the Garda are much more answerable to Ministers than we in the United Kingdom think desirable for impartiality. There is a big difference as regards philosophies relating to how to control the police. But be that as it may, the phrase "her legal successors" seems to me to cover the different eventualities and therefore to take out of the declaration, as modified, the idea that it is a totally unionist affair.

The other, perhaps novel, word in my draft is "impartiality". I think that every new constable should have the necessity for impartiality impressed on him on his first day in the force. The RUC is exceptionally impartial in the way it has carried out its duties over many years. I worked closely with it when I was a Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland and therefore I know that is the case. However, that is obvious to anyone. The most recent example of that has been Drumcree, where the RUC upheld the law and the decisions which had to be taken. But that is only the most recent example. Over a longer timescale one can consider the successes it has had in bringing to justice loyalist terrorists. It has achieved greater success in that regard than in bringing republican terrorists to justice. I think therefore that the RUC is extremely impartial, but I also think it is no bad thing that a constable should affirm that impartiality on starting his career. The RUC is an extremely effective and staunch force. We should take every opportunity to pay tribute to it. I pay it that tribute.

As regards duties, I have slightly adapted the words of Clause 18. It seems to me that a draft along the lines I have suggested might serve the Minister's purpose of using up-to-date words, and at the same time fulfil the other purposes which other noble Lords have suggested in the course of our earlier debates and this evening.

10 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, on this Third Reading it may be appropriate to look back at the events of the past few weeks and to consider the activities of the RUC. These amendments may appear technical but noble Lords should give their opinions of the RUC.

For many years in Northern Ireland the RUC has been a bone of contention between nationalists and unionists. I speak as one with a nationalist background. There have been occasions in the past when the RUC has appeared to carry out the instructions of a unionist Minister of Home Affairs. Whether that was the case is open to argument. I lived in Northern Ireland for many years and fought many elections in which the RUC was asked to carry out the edict of a unionist Minister of Home Affairs. In so doing it engendered the hostility of the nationalist community.

On the question of the oath, I do not think that many members of the RUC—over many years I have known many of them personally—will lose any sleep about swearing an oath of loyalty to the Queen or to the sovereign. For many years the unionist government in Northern Ireland deliberately inserted the oath of loyalty to the Queen. I remember, as a member of the Belfast Corporation many years ago, that before anyone obtained a job as a dustbin man in the city of Belfast he had to sign an attestation that he swore loyalty to the Queen. To obtain many other menial jobs an oath of fidelity to the Queen had to be sworn. It was not because the authorities wanted a person's fidelity to the Queen; it was meant to prevent people of a nationalist background applying or being given a job, because many refused to sign an oath of loyalty in order to get such jobs. That went right through the Civil Service in Northern Ireland and the police.

We have heard a great deal today in relation to the sentences Bill about the new agreement. The Good Friday agreement, as it is called, was essentially an agreement between nationalist Northern Ireland and unionist Northern Ireland. Had it not been for the agreement between the majority nationalist party—the SDLP—Sinn Fein and the majority unionist party, there would not have been any agreement.

I had some difficulty in restraining my remarks in relation to the sentences Bill. The Secretary of State has been handed a very hot potato in relation to Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. The decision that she will have to take will be purely political. Nationalist Ireland, from every Catholic viewpoint and perspective, from leaders in the Irish Times, from the Catholic Church and the SDLP to Sinn Fein all believe that Guardsmen Fisher and Wright were guilty. This is a balancing act. If the Secretary of State decides, on a response from the Queen, that the guardsmen should be released, it will infuriate one community. If she does not release them, it will infuriate the other. Again, the question of the oath comes into that balancing act.

Is it necessary for the oath to be taken by members of the RUC? I honestly do not believe that it is. For many years, but recently in the public mind in relation to Drumcree, the RUC has proven beyond all possible doubt that it is acting in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. No longer can members of the nationalist community condemn the RUC as a sectarian force. No longer can members of they say that it is acting in a biased way against the minority nationalist community. The RUC will have to overcome some hurdles, perhaps in days, perhaps in weeks, in order again to assure the people of Northern Ireland that it is the impartial force that I know it to be.

I have in front of me an extract from yesterday's edition of the Irish Times reporting a statement by the RUC that this year there were 122 paramilitary shootings in Northern Ireland, both by those in the loyalist community and the IRA. Anyone who has any contact with Northern Ireland knows that those alleged punishment shootings have led to deaths. They have been carried out by loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA. Not only have those organisations been welcomed into the Assembly. Some have won seats. On the New Lodge Road the other day, a young man named Kearney was cruelly and brutally murdered by the IRA. Under the terms of the agreement those who support such terrible atrocities should not be given ready access to the newly established Assembly.

I understand that on Monday evening in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that she will have to find out for certain who was responsible for carrying out that dreadful murder. I understand that from the New Lodge Road, North Queen Street area where the murder took place, the police who were on the spot saw the life blood drain from that young man. They are in no doubt that the murder was carried out by the IRA. They will give their report to the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable will consider what his experts saw on the New Lodge Road that night. He will then tell the Secretary of State that he is in no doubt that it was the activities of the IRA.

What then will the Secretary of State do? Will she accept the word of the Chief Constable with all the evidence that he has at his disposal and take steps to prevent members who represent the IRA from taking their full place in the Assembly? Or will she try to rejig the whole situation? From her point of view, she does not want anyone to be thrown out of the Assembly. She wants to keep the Assembly on an even keel and in that we may have the beginnings of conflict.

I sincerely hope that we do not face that conflict. I believe that the RUC, as has been proven conclusively over these past weeks, is acting in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. It should have the full and absolute support of every Government Minister in Northern Ireland. That is why I say that it is not necessary to have the RUC swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. That would give those who are opposed to the RUC a reason for objecting to it and saying that it should not give an oath of loyalty outside of Northern Ireland.

The only oath that may be necessary is for RUC men to swear their allegiance, if that is necessary, to the people of the state of Northern Ireland. That should be sufficient. It would take away another stick which could be used by the opponents of the RUC to try to depict its members as being openly sectarian. I do not believe that the RUC is sectarian. I believe that its activities over these past weeks prove that conclusively. I do not want to hear ever again any criticism from the nationalist community that the RUC is a bipartisan force.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fitt in what he said in relation to the RUC; about its bravery over many years and the way in which in recent weeks it has demonstrated its even-handedness and impartiality. It has done so in difficult circumstances when its members have been shot at, threatened with blast bombs and generally been abused by one group of people. It demonstrated its wish and willingness to apply the law in an even-handed manner. The way it has behaved is to its credit.

As noble Lords will be aware, this Bill seeks to bring the declaration of office made by RUC constables to a form broadly similar to that used to affirm constables in office in Scotland. The effect of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, would be to replace that wording with the English version. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would introduce a hybrid version, an expanded, extended Scottish version or a somewhat modernised English one. I think that is a fair way of describing it.

However, the Government's position has been carefully considered and is firmly based on four key points. First, the change spells out, simply and clearly, that a person taking up the office of constable will faithfully discharge its duties. Simplicity and clarity in such a context are important. Secondly, the wording follows that in use in Scotland, as has been mentioned. The Scots wording has been used from time immemorial. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, with cultural features shared with Northern Ireland but not with England or Wales.

Thirdly, the Policy Authority for Northern Ireland, the body charged with representing the views of the community there on policing, itself recommended, after long and detailed consultation, debate and consideration, a move to the Scots formulation.

Fourthly, this change is in line with recent changes to other declarations across the criminal justice system in England and Wales, as well as in Northern Ireland—for example, to the juror's declaration and to the QC's declaration. Perhaps I may give an example. The oath (or affirmation/declaration) taken by jurors has been changed to read: I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to evidence. The previous version included a reference to, our Sovereign Lady the Queen". It seems to me that this is a sensible change that introduces an element of clarity to something that was complicated and perhaps old-fashioned.

As noble Lords may also be aware, the Belfast agreement, accepted by the majority of Northern Ireland political parties and subsequently endorsed by the people, introduces the idea of a pledge of office for Assembly members. Again, the pledge is written in simple but none the less effective terms. It requires Assembly members to, discharge in good faith all the duties of the office", and, among other things, promotes the idea of service to the community.

To move at this time, and at this stage in the life of the Bill, against the arguments of clarity and simplicity, against the Police Authority's carefully considered and expressed view, and against the trend of changes to declarations elsewhere in the criminal justice system, would, I suggest, be bordering on the perverse.

I have listened to the views of those noble Lords who say we are removing the reference to "Her Majesty" as part of a drive to remove the unionists' British heritage. I do not believe that that is the case. It would be nonsensical to believe that changing the wording of a declaration used in Northern Ireland to one used in Scotland attacks a "British" heritage. It would be naive to believe that dropping a few references to our Sovereign would buy out deeply held political beliefs in the nationalist community.

The Government believe that the new form of declaration represents a sensible change and remains the most appropriate form of wording presented to date for Northern Ireland's circumstances at this time and for the future.

Perhaps I may briefly touch on some of the points that were made in the short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to the oath in England and Wales and suggested that it had been revisited in the Police Act 1996. That was not the case. The Police Act 1996 was merely a consolidation Act and could not have been used to change the oath. The noble Baroness will appreciate that point. It is not true to say that the oath was revisited in 1996 so far as England and Wales is concerned. That may be a technical point, but I make it for the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked a question by analogy with a Sainsbury employee. Constables are not employees and the Sainsbury example is not, therefore, a correct comparison. A constable must make a declaration before he can hold the office of constable. This concept is of ancient origin and applies throughout the UK. All constables have to be attested; they would not be constables if they were not. That is the difference. That is why we have the form of wording that we are now suggesting.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I come back to the necessity for what I call the Sainsbury arrangement. The constable would have had to sign his application form, which would surely commit him, at the end of the process of appointment, interviews, and so forth, coming back to the only meaningful phrase in the declaration—not the oath—to discharge the duties satisfactorily. That is the same as the Sainsbury employee would do. It is implicit, once he signs his application form, has the interview and complies with all the other regulations, that he is prepared to discharge honourably whatever duties may be required of him.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am not sure I quite followed all the intricacies of the noble Lord's argument. A constable must make a declaration because that has to go with the office of constable. It is different from being the employee of another organisation, where it does not have that relative importance. The declaration is taken at the end of training and it shows that the recruit has taken on the office of constable and assumed the statutory responsibilities attached to that office. That goes quite a long way towards meeting the noble Lord's point.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

Yes, it is broadly unnecessary; that is right.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I did not say that.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested including the concept of impartiality in the oath. There is a difficulty with that. Impartiality is an important concept but it may not be appropriate in the declaration. Constables have to use an element of discretion. If one puts the word "impartiality" into the oath one might have the unintended effect of overriding the constable's declaration. Perhaps I may give an example of that. We would not wish a constable to deal with an elderly person who might have been inadvertently shoplifting in the same way as we would wish him to deal with a professional shoplifter. So we have to give the constable an element of discretion which, to a limited extent, might be seen to be overriding the concept of impartiality if that were put into the oath.

I think that we are moving in a sensible direction. As we approach the next millennium it is our wish to underpin the aim of the police service in Northern Ireland with a straightforward declaration in keeping with those in the rest of the criminal justice system and appropriate for Northern Ireland circumstances. That is what Schedule 2 to the Bill seeks to do. Accordingly, I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported me in this amendment. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his great knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland. I very much respect him. But I really do believe that many in the RUC, like the majority, Catholic and Protestant, who want to stay in the UK, do attach importance to belonging and to having a unifying symbol. They have joined a service. When you join a service, you normally expect to have a central point to which to look. I accept that, maybe one day, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland government may prove to be that unifying factor. But I believe that it does need to exist.

However, in the light of the Minister's usual careful and courteous reply, I realise that I have failed to persuade him. I urge the Government at least to consider leaving the decision on the question of the form of the affirmation to the Patten Commission. Incidentally, there will be no reason why it should not be taken in Irish. The form of the oath means quite as much to the RUC as it does to any putative nationalist recruit; and indeed far more. I urge that the matter might be reconsidered by the Patten Commission in the whole context of the needs of a most admirable force which deserves the very best. We are all agreed on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 [Commencement]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 39, line 21, at end insert ("but there shall not be appointed under this section, except as necessary to bring Part VII into operation, any day less than six months after the publication by Her Majesty's Government of the report of the Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, appointed under the agreement set out in Command Paper 3883.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment attempts to postpone the coming into operation of most of the Bill—not the part dealing with the ombudsman but the rest of the Bill—until after the Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland—the Patten Commission—has had the opportunity to report and its report has been considered. When the Bill started its course through Parliament, the situation was different. That was before the agreement was reached and before the decision had been taken to set up the Patten Commission, let alone before it had actually been put in place, as it now has been.

It seems to me that some aspects of the Bill should not be pursued at this stage until the Patten Commission has had an opportunity to report and suggest what it believes should be the way forward. When the responsibilities of an organisation like the RUC and bodies such as the Police Authority and others are reorganised, the cost is enormous both in time and money. It is a great distraction to all concerned when there is great organisational upheaval.

In the case of the RUC that is at a time when it has to continue to deal with all kinds of incredibly difficult situations such as we have seen recently, as well as dealing with the most vicious terrorists. Much as we would like to hope that those will be modified as time goes on, as the agreement and the Assembly begin to do their work, there will be a considerable amount of terrorism, violence and difficulty for the RUC to deal with for quite a long time. Some terrorists have not accepted the agreement and will continue to pursue violence for political reasons. In addition, the rackets continue, which also involve violence.

When the RUC has such a difficult and vital job to do it is unwise to subject it to long periods of continuous reorganisation and change. It can be damaging to morale. Without necessarily urging every detail of this particular amendment on the Government, I suggest that when considering which parts of the Bill should be brought into effect and at which stage, Ministers think carefully about the effect on the work of the Patten Commission because it is very important for the future acceptability and work of the RUC that the commission is able to give the matter proper consideration and to make recommendations which can then be considered and put into effect. But those recommendations may well mean further upheaval.

First of all, the Patten Commission will have to undertake its considerations during one period of upheaval, and that may be followed fairly quickly by more upheaval following the recommendations of the commission. That is why in putting this Bill into effect the Government should think carefully about its various sections and the timing. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, in Committee some of us expressed unease over the possibility that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said, we might have to return to the proposals in this Bill after the Patten Commission reports in perhaps a year's time. That remains a valid consideration. It would make good sense to avoid something like a repeal of this Bill, or large portions of it, after Patten reports.

It may be that the commission's work can be accelerated so that the report may be completed and published in perhaps six months rather than the 12 months originally envisaged. It will have been accelerated in its work because of recent events. It has to be recognised, if not officially admitted, that the appointment of the commission was a gesture to those who demanded confidence-building measures or sending signals—which I suppose is the Northern Ireland equivalent of "Cool Britannia"—to various terrorist groupings to keep them on board the circus.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of what is likely to happen to the known IRA gang which murdered a Catholic republican, a former neighbour of his, in north Belfast. Perhaps I may venture to inform the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the procedure is not quite what he envisaged. The chief constable will receive all the forensic and evidential reports and he will make a judgment. He will report that judgment to the Secretary of State and probably—although one cannot forejudge—as the noble Lord envisaged, it will be found to be the work of the IRA. That has broadly been admitted by those in the know on the republican side.

Having reported, the chief constable's job is finished, but the Secretary of State does not then direct the offending organisation—in this case, the IRA—to move out of the Assembly. She invites the Assembly, by cross-community consent, to assent to the expulsion of the offending organisation. It would be well nigh impossible to get the required cross-community consent within the membership of the Assembly. Therefore, I am afraid that the provision is almost null and void. I would not like the noble Lord to be too encouraged by the possibility of any of that happening.

I am sufficiently cynical to believe that the premature publication of probable scales of salary and allowances for some Assembly members worked wonders in terms of confidence-building even before the referendum—and certainly in advance of the Assembly elections!

More seriously, a second reason for the establishment of the Patten commission was the clamour for a wide assortment of local or community police services, as opposed to the one monolithic structure that we have at the moment. The law and order crisis of the past few weeks demonstrates the wisdom of the retention of a unified structure for Northern Ireland, all over the Province.

It is widely recognised that the Army and my old regiment, the Royal Air Force Regiment, provided the Royal Ulster Constabulary with indispensable back-up. All those elements, through close co-operation, upheld the civil power in Northern Ireland in a way which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I might not have envisaged being so successful even three or four years ago. That could not have been achieved had the General Officer Commanding had to consult and relate to a multitude of what one might call a "do-it-yourself" grouping of community police services. A complete breakdown was avoided by reason of the chief constable and the GOC, their respective staffs and their men on the ground participating in a command structure for which there will be a continuing requirement in view of the regrettable resurgence of terrorism in the past 10 days or so by groups mistakenly referred to in the news industry as "dissident groups", but which are really terrorist subcontractors, supplying the muscle which has been so rewarding in wringing concessions from successive governments.

Finally, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will quietly whisper to Mr. Patten that events have dramatically altered his job specification and the terms of reference of his commission. It might also be prudent to consider whether control of intelligence-gathering in Northern Ireland should be restored to the chief constable. In Great Britain, with its multiplicity of constabularies, it may be that the role of M15 may be successful and may still be required, but that would not be of advantage except where we have a single, compact police force working with the Army in support of the civil power.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I feel compelled to support many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. That may seem strange, given our respective political backgrounds. The noble Lord referred to some rumours which have abounded in Northern Ireland recently, that we are to have what is called community policing. Those rumours have circulated, particularly from the nationalist areas, and particularly from West Belfast and, on some occasions, from Derry. The rumours are that some released terrorists who have given up terrorism may now want to take part in the legitimate policing of their own areas. All I can say to my noble friend is that, if the activities the other day on the New Lodge Road and the knee-cappings and brutal beatings that have taken place over the past few years are an indication of the way that these people would carry out community policing, it leaves all of us in a state of great despair.

My noble friend may not have all the answers because these matters will be referred to the Patten Commission, but recently organisations representing the police force had a meeting with the Prime Minister at Downing Street. What he said indicated that he had full confidence in the RUC as at present constituted. I take succour from what he said at the conclusion of that meeting.

What my noble friend can say this afternoon is that there is absolutely no validity in the rumours abounding in Northern Ireland of any attempt to set up community policing, because if it is done in West Belfast it will be done in East Belfast and Portadown. If one imagines what community policemen with paramilitary records would have done at Drumcree only last week given their activities in the past, that would rule out any chance of such people having any part to play in the legitimate police service in Northern Ireland.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to delay, with the exception of the provisions of Part VII, the commencement of this Bill. That is clearly the noble Lord's intention. While I accept that many of the key features of this Bill are identified in the principles set out in the Belfast agreement and in the terms of reference for the independent commission, I do not agree that it is either prudent or necessary to delay commencement pending the outcome of Patten. The commission will be considering the essential ingredients of sound, effective and widely supported policing arrangements for Northern Ireland. I believe that this Bill will be a cornerstone of those considerations.

As I have said many times before, this Bill is a building block on which other improvements to policing can be made. Noble Lords will be aware that this Bill contains key reforms on police structures. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Police Authority. It introduces significant planning and objective-setting mechanisms, and it introduces reforms on police ethos which are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. In essence it puts into statute structural changes upon which, should it consider further change necessary, the commission can build.

This Bill also introduces important financial reforms. The Chief Constable is to be given day-to-day control of finance so that he can manage his resources and devolve responsibility to local commanders. This is the current practice in Great Britain. It will allow for better local services while at the same time introducing proper managerial and financial accountability. These provisions were arrived at after extensive consultation and there is widespread support for many of them.

I am sure that when the commission considers these reforms it will take account of the debates that we have had in this House and those that have taken place in another place.

In reply to a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I shall ensure that Mr. Patten's attention is drawn to the deliberations of this House so that he understands the concerns that have been expressed today and on previous occasions when the Bill has been before noble Lords. I am confident that the commission will take account of the positive comments made on the Bill on Third Reading and at Report stage in another place.

The people of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible policing services. I am confident that the Bill will improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability and as a result increase confidence across the whole community.

I should like to deal briefly with some of the specific questions that have been asked. I believe that the implication of my noble friend's remarks was that paramilitaries might serve with the RUC. As the Prime Minister said in an article for the Newsletter on 18th April, There is no question of ending up with a police force that is at a local level run by ad hoc bodies of terrorists of paramilitaries". The Government have said that they will not ignore the basic standards and principles of policing to which they as a government are committed. Those convicted of serious offences (whether scheduled or otherwise) are not to fit to be in the police. This is foreign to our thinking. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that as an emphatic reassurance.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, asked about intelligence gathering. It is my understanding that intelligence gathering is under the control of the RUC and that there is no intention to change that. Of course, the Patten Commission may have other views, but that is the position at the moment.

There are important reforms in this Bill that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary has endorsed. It would be a retrograde step to put all the reforms on ice and say "Let us wait for Patten." These are important changes which perhaps seem overdue. They will increase the efficiency of the police in Northern Ireland and, as such, are to be welcomed. Delay on the basis proposed is unnecessary and I invite the House to reject this amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the Minister has been his usual courteous self in responding to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to tonight's debate and to the debates at the earlier stages of the Bill. We have had a good chance to scrutinise the Bill and policing in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have played their part in those debates.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I endorse what the Minister has said. I thank him for the way that he has conducted the debates. I also thank his officials for the support that they have obviously given him to enable him to give such excellent replies.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord has said by way of thanks for and appreciation of the understanding that the Minister has shown, particularly in the light of some of my facetious contributions.

On Question, Bill passed.