A New Policing Service
On Friday, 5 May, Sinn Féin released its detailed assessment and
criticism of the Blair/Mandelson Policing Bill and set out the
necessary areas of change if the Bill is to reflect the Patten
report. The material released includes a letter from Party
President Gerry Adams, which is being sent to TDs, MPs, MEPs, US
Congress Members and Senators, as well as the South African
government and other governments and politicians around the
world. The following is the text of the letter:
A Chara,
Policing, like democratic structures of government, justice and
equality, lies at the heart of conflict resolution in Ireland.
The RUC is not a police service. Its history, behaviour, make-up
and ethos make it unacceptable to nationalists and republicans.
Reform is not an option. The Good Friday Agreement is clear. What
is required is a `new beginning to policing' which is `capable of
attracting and sustaining' support from all sections of our
people.
The nationalist people like all sections of our people are
law-abiding, decent people who want a policing service they can
trust and respect.
Nationalists and republicans will judge the potential of this
peace process to remove the causes of conflict by the way it
tackles issues like policing. The report of the Patten Commission
into policing contained over 170 recommendations.
The Joint Letter issued by the two governments on 5 May committed
the British government to `implement the Patten report'. In what
became known as the Hillsborough initiative, the IRA leadership
responded positively to this and other commitments in the Joint
Statement by the two governments and the letter they sent to
party leaders.
The Policing Bill produced 11 days later by the British
government bears no resemblance to Patten. The Patten report is
emasculated by this legislation.
Consequently, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Irish government, the
Catholic Church, and a host of community groups in nationalist
areas have rejected the legislation.
We need therefore to persuade the British government to honour
its commitments under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and
the deal that was hammered out at Hillsborough on 5 May.
To achieve that goal we need your help. We need you to lobby and
exert pressure on the British government on this matter in
whatever way you can.
Specifically, I am sending you a memo that outlines the gaps
between the legislation and Patten. These are the issues that
must be resolved if the goal of a proper and acceptable policing
service is to be achieved.
The recently published Policing Bill does not advance this
objective and there is no way that I, or Sinn Féin, could
recommend to nationalists and republicans that they should
consider joining or supporting the police force as described in
that legislation.
Thank you for whatever help and assistance you can give on this
matter.
Is mise le meas
Gerry Adams MP
A New Beginning?
Background:
The parties to the Good Friday Agreement two years ago agreed
that that it represented; ``a unique opportunity to bring about a
new political dispensation which will recognise the full and
equal legitimacy and worth of the identities, sense of allegiance
and ethos of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.''
One litmus test, which will determine the credibility of that
belief, is policing.
In order to ensure the success of the Agreement, it is crucial
that the new police service which is created, affords full and
equal legitimacy to all.
Those who signed the Agreement agreed that it is essential that
the new police service be:
``professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free
from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law
for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of
the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and
co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with human
rights norms''.
With regard to all of these criteria the RUC and the legal system
in the North have patently failed.
Throughout its violent history the RUC has been seen, and has
seen itself as the armed guardians of the Union; and for most of
that time the paramilitary wing of the Unionist government and
party.
The RUC has routinely violated, often on a massive scale, the
rights of nationalists. It has never been held to effective
account for these actions either by the law or any democratic
mechanism. It has always been and remains completely
unrepresentative of the community as a whole and both it, and the
criminal justice system within which it operates, have been found
to have violated the most basic international human rights
standards.
The Good Friday Agreement established a Commission to bring
forward proposals for a new beginning to policing. This was
itself an indictment of the RUC and previous arrangements for
policing. An independent mechanism was needed to provide
assurances that we could have a new beginning for policing and
that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated.
The Patten Commission report did not go far enough for
republicans. Its failure to recommend a ban on the use of plastic
bullets, the immediate establishment of an unarmed police
service, the immediate scrapping of emergency legislation and
banning members of the RUC guilty of human rights abuse from
membership of a new service, were missed opportunities to provide
the nationalist community with tangible assurances that the Good
Friday Agreement promise of a new beginning to policing would be
realised.
Other elements of Patten were positive and more hopeful and Sinn
Féin welcomed this.
Policing Bill:
While other political parties chose to immediately endorse the
Patten report Sinn Féin took the view that we wanted to see the
legislation and in particular the Parliamentary Act, before
coming to a judgement on the policing issue.
In their Joint Letter on May 5th to the political leaders the two
governments committed themselves to implementing the Patten
Report. In what became known as the Hillsborough initiative the
IRA leadership responded positively to this and other commitments
in the Joint Statement by the two governments and the letter they
sent to party leaders.
On May 16th the British government published the Policing Bill to
a resounding chorus of criticism from nationalists, republicans
and others.
It is clear that the fight-back against the Patten
recommendations from within the securocrats, from the NIO, and
from the RUC insiders has succeeded in removing the substance of
Patten from the legislation.
Under the Bill the British Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson,
will become the sole arbiter of change on a number of crucial
areas. This runs contrary to the Good Friday Agreement and to
Patten's proposals to depoliticise the policing issue.
The Policing Bill clearly dilutes many of the important
recommendations of the Patten report, including those on key
issues such as the name, symbols and structures of the new
policing service, human rights protection provisions and
accountability mechanisms.
Patten recommended that the new policing service should have a
new title and that its symbols and emblems should have no
association with either the British or Irish state.
The unionist demand for the retention of the name, symbols and
emblems are an attempt to reshape the new policing service in the
form of the old. Rather than deal with these key issues in the
way recommended by Patten the legislation leaves the power to
decide these crucial matters with Peter Mandelson and opens the
way for further dilution.
Tens of thousands of nationalists have suffered human rights
abuses at the hands of the RUC. Many have had family members
killed directly by the RUC or indirectly through collusion with
loyalist death squads.
The exemption for present members of the RUC from any requirement
to take the new human rights oath if they take up their option
for membership of the new policing service is also of major
concern.
Other glaring failures of the legislation to reflect key
recommendations of Patten include:
The recommendations on the name, badge, flag and accountability
all depart from Patten.
The Policing Board is seriously restricted in its powers.
The Ombudsman is seriously restricted in his/her powers.
The power of the District Policing Partnerships are restricted
and there is no mention of four sub-groups for Belfast
The oath is only taken on appointment by new recruits.
The code of ethics is left solely in the hands of the police
themselves.
There is no assurance that there will be an independent
recruitment agency.
The Oversight Commissioner is not in the new legislation but an
RUC foundation is.
There is no assurance that the Patten recommendations on plastic
bullets, the Special Branch, community representation and new
policing practices will be carried through.
The definition of policing with the community stands the aim of
Patten on its head.
Appointments to the Policing Board and DPPs must be open to all.
Proposed Changes to Bill:
The issue of policing is a touchstone issue for nationalists and
republicans.
For republicans to even consider a Six-County policing service is
a huge step which would require a massive shift in our approach.
Many republicans and nationalists are extremely uncomfortable
with this concept.
So Sinn Féin can only approach this issue in the context of the
Good Friday Agreement, which clearly requires a new beginning to
policing and the establishment of a policing service capable of
attracting support from the community as a whole.
The changes we are proposing only deal with those aspects of the
Patten recommendations that require legislative force. There are
other aspects of Patten which do not require legislation and
which should be implemented.
Proposed changes:
Amendments required to bring this legislation into line with the
recommendations of the Patten Report include the following:
Oath
All members should take the new human rights observance oath, as
Patten recommended. This should not be restricted to new recruits
only, as is the case with the present legislation.
New human rights observance oath has been altered in legislation
to remove the need for equal respect for traditions and beliefs.
This should be redressed.
Policing Board
The British Secretary of State should not have the power to halt
a Policing Board inquiry on grounds which go beyond Patten.
There should be no obstacles to the Policing Board's ability to
initiate inquiries, such as the requirement for a weighted
majority.
There should be no time limits placed on the ability of the
Policing Board and the Ombudsman to initiate inquiries; no
empowerment of the SoS to prevent this.
Restrictions on the powers of the Policing Board in the
legislation should be removed. These powers should be as
recommended by Patten.
Disqualification from the Policing Board under Schedule 1
paragraph 10 (1)(c) should be deleted.
The new beginning should be reflected in the staff of the
Policing Board and the NIO Policing division.
The Policing Board and not the Secretary of State should have the
power to decide on the deployment of public order equipment.
The Policing Board should have the power to draw up the education
and training strategy, working with the police service and
civilian experts, particularly human rights experts.
Powers of the Secretary of State to remove people from the
Policing Board under Schedule 1 paragraph 9(1)(c) should be
deleted.
References to `has been convicted' with regard to both the
Policing Board, Schedule 1, paragraph 9(1)(a) and the DPPs,
Schedule 3, paragraph 7(a) should read `is convicted' (in line
with the legislation on implementation bodies).
The first Chairperson of the Policing Board should be appointed
with the agreement of the First Minister and Deputy First
Minister, not merely following consultation with them.
The Policing Board should be obliged in law to meet in public.
District Policing Partnerships
No mention of four sub groups of Belfast District Police
Partnership. Peter Mandelson suggested this be left to the
Belfast partnership to be decided - this is contrary to Patten.
Exclusion of ex-prisoners from District Policing Partnerships
should be removed.
Restrictions on the powers of District Policing Partnerships in
the legislation should be removed. These powers should be as
recommended by Patten.
References to `has been convicted' with regard to both the
Policing Board, Schedule 1, paragraph 9(1)(a) and the DPPs,
Schedule 3, paragraph 7(a) should read `is convicted' (in line
with the legislation on implementation bodies.)
The District Policing Partnerships should be obliged in law to
meet in public.
Recruitment
Clause 41 in relation to the appointment of an independent
recruitment agency should read `shall' and not `may'.
The Bill should provide the necessary legal arrangements to allow
for lateral entry as recommended by Patten.
The special recruitment arrangements (50/50) should last for a
minimum of 10 years rather than requiring to be renewed after 3
years.
Miscellaneous
The formulation in the legislation at Clause 30 (5), with regard
to community policing, stands the aim of Patten in this regard on
its head. This Clause should be re-written to reflect Patten.
No mention of disbanding the full-time reserve. Peter Mandelson
has suggested publicly that this be `subject to the security
situation'. This is contrary to Patten.
The Code of Ethics should appear on the face of the Bill.
The Chief Constable should be obliged in law to draw up a
register of interests and to provide this information to the
Ombudsman. It remains our view that membership of the loyal
orders and similar institutions is incompatible with membership
of the new policing service.
There should be no reference in legislation to an RUC Foundation.
Such a foundation should have no role in future policing.
Name, Badge, flag etc
Secretary of State's power re. name, badge and flag should be
removed and the legislation should reflect Patten in these
matters.
Patten's recommendation of creating a neutral working environment
should be reflected in legislation.
`Police force' and `Body of constables'
All references to police `force' in the Bill should be replaced
by reference to a police `service'.
Schedule 6, paragraph 2(1) and (2) form no part of Patten and
should be deleted.
Ombudsman
There should be no time limits placed on the ability of the
Policing Board and the Ombudsman to initiate inquiries; no
empowerment of the SoS to prevent this.
The powers of the Omudsman to investigate police policies and
practices needs to be included in legislation. The power at
Clause 58 of the Bill should provide a power for the Ombudsman to
investigate as well as report.
The powers of the Ombudsman to examine trends in relation to
individual officers should be included in legislation.
The Ombudsman should be obliged in law to pass this information
to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable and to work with
the police to address any issues emerging from the data.
Oversight Commissioner
Oversight Commissioner should be given statutory powers in
relation to his or her duties.
Oversight Commissioner should be obliged in law to make public
reports on the implementation of the Patten Report.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)