NI Police Bill critics should realise radical goals Both traditions in Northern Ireland should appreciate the pain inflicted by their demands on policing, writes Adam Ingram
From IRISH TIMES August 5th, 2000
Readers of The Irish Times who are not familiar with every line of the Patten
report or every clause of the British government's Police Bill may have
become a little bemused by the series of detailed articles on policing in
Northern Ireland this week. As the Minister responsible for steering the
Bill through the House of Commons - including many hours of line-by-line
scrutiny - I know that the sheer complexity of the legislation can obscure
the wider picture. But I appreciate the detailed criticisms as a valuable
contribution to the process of refining the Bill. I understand the passion
generated on all sides. I welcome constructive criticism and I do not ignore
well-argued objections. The Bill has already changed substantially during
committee stage and more changes will follow. Before addressing the few
remaining areas of disagreement, let me describe the Bill as it currently
stands. Northern Ireland will have a policing service with a degree of accountability,
a commitment to human rights, and a level of community involvement unparalleled
in Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The new service will match
or exceed the best international policing structures, including those in
the United States. Critics of the Bill focus on a few areas of dispute.
They are unwilling to recognise the breadth of change introduced. For example,
the creation of a new Policing Board with powers unparalleled in Great Britain
or the Republic, a board which will include, as of right, members of the
Northern Ireland Assembly, including the SDLP and Sinn Fein. Also 26 new
District Policing Partnerships, including councillors from all of the political
parties, will play a crucial role in holding the police to account at local
level and in developing policing plans to meet local needs. A code of ethics
applying to all officers and a new police oath will reinforce the commitment
to human rights, in full compliance with the European Convention on Human
Rights. The root and branch restructuring of the police service, the new
provisions for training, and the radical approach to community policing
will be a model for police services worldwide. A system for dealing with
complaints which is completely independent of the police has been placed
in the hands of a powerful new ombudsman. Again, these arrangements are
unknown elsewhere in the UK or the Republic. In order to ensure an appropriate
balance of Catholics and Protestants in the new service, the Government
will implement a 50:50 recruitment scheme even more radical than that recommended
by the Patten report. We have committed ourselves to this in the face of
sustained criticism that it is discriminatory and contrary to EU law. This
is the new beginning for policing which some seem to have missed. It tends
to be ignored by those who focus on the few Patten recommendations - a handful
out of the original 175 - which are the subject of continuing discussion.
So let me respond to some of the details raised by Paddy Hillyard, Alex
Attwood, and Andrew Mackay in their articles this week. The name of the
police A comparison of Andrew Mackay's and Alex Attwood's views shows all
too graphically why the name is such a painful and difficult issue. Their
demands cannot both be satisfied. We have been persuaded by the strength
of argument in the Patten report and accept that the name must change, and
change it will, to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As The Irish
Times noted on its front page (July 12th), the RUC name will pass into history.
However, as Patten recognised, the sensitivities of those who cherish the
history of a police service which has sacrificed so much and earned our
gratitude and respect must be recognised. The Police Ombudsman The Police
Ombudsman is given powers in the Bill to report on police policies and practices
when they arise as part of a complaints investigation. However, the whole
purpose of the office is to investigate complaints. Wider reports into policies
and practices are a matter for the Policing Board. Even so, the board can
ask the Ombudsman to carry out such inquiries on its behalf. The Policing
Board The board will have the power recommended by Patten to require reports
from the Chief Constable and to initiate inquiries into the police service.
The Secretary of State has acknowledged that the original Bill went too
far in placing safeguards on these powers. After consultation with political
parties, many of these safeguards were removed in Committee Stage and further
changes will be made. Police Efficiency The Government has already said
that it will restructure the provisions on efficiency to ensure that the
Policing Board has the lead role in driving the efficiency agenda: another
example of more power being given to the board. The Oversight Commissioner
The Oversight Commissioner will oversee the process of implementation, as
Patten intended. |
