Ruairí Quinn
Question:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on his meeting on 31 May 2000 with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Mandelson. [15893/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 31 May 2000 with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Mandelson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15931/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
I met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, on Wednesday last, 31 May. We reviewed the recent positive developments in Northern Ireland and looked forward to all the institutions, including the Executive and North-South Bodies, returning to full operational effectiveness. At the meeting, I also emphasised the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the Patten report recommendations and I referred to the concerns expressed by nationalist parties on the Police Bill.
As I stated in the House previously, I believe that the opportunity is there, within the legislative process, to resolve the issues satisfactorily. It is vital that we do so in order to achieve the overriding objective which must be to have a police service which is representative of both communities and is accepted across all of Northern Ireland.
I have two questions. Is the Taoiseach satisfied in light of recent developments at Westminster and the announcement regarding the amendments that the Secretary of State proposes to table on Committee Stage of the Police Bill that he will be able to recommend to young Nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland that they should join the new police force if those amendments are accepted?
My second question is one to which I return and with which the Taoiseach is familiar. Did he discuss with the Secretary of State the issue of a parliamentary tier under the Council of the Isles and whether such a tier would subsume the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body?
I will reply to the latter question first. I followed up on our exchanges in the House and spoke to the joint chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and asked him to communicate with his counterpart. I hope that we can try to have a proposal. The management group will meet prior to the summer break but a full plenary session will not be held until the autumn. I restated my views, which the Deputy shares. I have stated, perhaps to get over the sovereign Parliament issue, which is the only issue, that the management group could still be the sovereign Parliament and that the plenary groups would be all other Parliaments.
With regard to the Deputy's first question, the Government's position on the Patten report has been clear from the beginning. We welcome the report and its recommendations and all our effort has been focused on ensuring the full and faithful implementation of the report. While I welcome the proposed changes to the Bill signalled by the Secretary of State yesterday, there is still much work to be done. This has been pointed out strongly to me, particularly by the SDLP. Our objective must be to have a police service which is representative of both communities and accepted throughout Northern Ireland. This means that the new police service must be capable of attracting the support of both communities, including young Nationalists and republicans. The SDLP and Sinn Féin have made it clear that further changes are required. We strongly support that view.
I will have an opportunity to review all aspects of the Northern Ireland situation, particularly the police Bill, when I meet the Prime Minister Mr. Blair tonight in London. Our discussion will be primarily on that issue. As on decommissioning, there is a strong level of feeling about this issue among political movements, church groups, educational and cultural groups. We must get a handle on it to ensure that we do not allow it sour very positive developments. I will try to do that today.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the concessions which the SDLP appear to have won are very positive? Does he also accept that the fact that the SDLP MPs voted on Second Stage for the Bill at Westminster is a positive indication that they believe this is the way forward and that a reformed police force is a possibility?
We must get this right, no matter what it takes in terms of time and effort. It is no harm for everybody to be reminded that the Patten commission was established because there was no possibility of achieving agreement during the negotiations on the Good Friday Agreement. It was agreed that the British Government would establish a commission and that its members would be discussed with the Government. We were lucky to get international and local senior figures involved who were prepared to give their time and commitment to this. They did that through an enormously extensive process.
Without exaggerating, many of those involved in the Patten commission feel their good work is being rowed back. It is very important we clear up the misunderstanding, whether factual or not. We should do it in a cool way, because for people to be involved in upping the ante one way or the other will not resolve the problem.
I understand Seámus Mallon's strongly held views on this issue. In fairness to him, he has warned about this from day one. His life's work has been in this area and he believes that policing is fundamental to the success of the Good Friday Agreement.
We must get it right. I agree that last night's developments at Westminster were positive. We must listen to those who were involved in the commission. The fundamental issue, which has been put to me by everybody, even over the past week, concerns the line between the policing boards – this is the central issue that, if resolved, would solve most of the other issues – the NIO, the security section and inquiries, investigations etc. It must be transparent. If it is not then, because of the history – I do not want to criticise anything the RUC does – it will not work. We must get that issue right. I have a job to do tonight to emphasise that people are not merely expressing concern on this but are adamant that the police board must be independent of the Secretary of State and the NIO. Otherwise it will not be trusted by all of the Nationalist community. That is the central issue.
Does the Taoiseach see any risk that the parliamentary timetable for dealing with the police Bill will carry it forward into the marching season and that there could be an unhelpful conjunction of emotions around policing and the marching issue operating together to create more difficulty than might otherwise occur?
Committee Stage of the Bill will take a long time. The central issues are getting the Patten recommendations on the policing boards and the district policing boards included on an open and equal basis and getting clarification on the planning power of the boards and the ombudsman. While Deputies Bruton and Quinn ask questions and are familiar with this area, perhaps people in the South do not clearly understand what it means. However, the issue of transparency is deeply held by everybody in the North. It will continue to be a festering sore if there is not clarity on the matter.
I will say tonight that this has not been an issue for Unionists or loyalists since the Patten report was published last September. Therefore, why are we rowing back on fundamental aspects now? Other issues such as flags, emblems and the title arose, but this matter is fundamental to the structure. I want to do as Deputy Quinn asked. I want to be able to say that young Nationalists and republicans should join. I want to hear the SDLP and Sinn Féin say that also.
Sinn Féin will not say it in respect of the Garda Síochána so it will not say it in respect of the North.
Is it not the case that the objections to the arrangements are coming, not so much from the Unionist community, but from the policing community? Its argument may be that some of the arrangements create difficulty for the type of professional police work it would want to do but for which it feels it could not account as well as it should on an ongoing basis regarding continuing operations. Is this the problem that is emerging or is it another problem?
That is part of it, but the problem which must be resolved is that the Patten report stated that the membership of the police boards and the district police partnerships should be open to all on an equal basis, that there should be clear lines of demarcation between the NIO, the Secretary of State and the Security Minister, that investigations, examinations or reports should be clear and the police board should have power.
If the independence, functions and powers of the police board are pulled out, the collective view of everybody on the Nationalist side – I have spoken to all the key players, political, religious and others – is that it will not work. I will not convince them that it will work because they have long experience of it not working over six or seven decades. The Patten report was clear on this point. It emphasised this and people signed up to it on that basis. Therefore, there must be clear lines of demarcation with regard to the local policing boards. Otherwise, and this would be the unhelpful end which we do not wish to consider, the Nationalist community will not participate. If Nationalist groups do not participate, the boards cannot operate effectively. We must return to the starting point on this issue. I do not hold that view with regard to all 44 or, as some say, 70 issues. However, this matter is fundamental and we must stick absolutely to the Patten report.
I agree with the Taoiseach regarding the need to ensure there is transparency in these arrangements. Perhaps it would be helpful, in persuading those who are reluctant to accept these arrangements and who consider them politically motivated rather than motivated by the best interests of effective policing, if this jurisdiction were to consider the implications of introducing similar transparency with regard to the operations of the Garda Síochána. It is difficult for us to say that things should be done with regard to transparency of policing in one part of the island if we are unwilling or unable to do them here given that we do not even have a police authority.
Does the Taoiseach agree in light of a recent "Prime Time" programme that the 1986 legislation in this State with regard to the appeals procedure for citizens in relation to the Garda Síochána needs to be revamped? As Deputy Bruton indicated, does the Taoiseach agree it would be a way of reassuring those in Northern Ireland who feel the professional levels of policing might be in some way undermined if that fear was to be contradicted by bringing forward the level of transparency and accountability outlined in the Patten report?
In an interview after I read the Patten report, I stated there were many aspects of it which would be good practice in any jurisdiction and I have not changed my view on that. There has been a move in recent years to involve people more. We must remember where some aspects of the Patten report came from. They came from people involved in international policing who looked at best practice in the United States and in parts of Europe, not to mention here. They did not come from a model adopted for Northern Ireland but from a model taken from where there is crime, racial tensions, poverty, deprivation and ethnic differences. They are not bad from that point of view.
While I will try to resolve some of these issues tonight, the Secretary of State also published the implementation plan yesterday. It sets out how each of the Patten recommendations will be implemented. I have already said to the parties in the North today that it should be read and assessed in conjunction with the police Bill. It deals with the legislative changes required.