US PRESSURE ON POLICING GROWS
By Gregory O'Loughlin
In Washington, DC
Political leaders in the United States, this month, have held the
spotlight firmly on the failure of the British government to
implement the Patten Report, as the calls for its full
implementation grow louder.
| |
As Chris Patten has said on numerous occasions, what did
the politicians think we would do? If there was to be an
Independent Commission that looked at the best practices
throughout the world and come up with a blueprint for a new
beginning, would we simply continue the present situation with
some modifications?
|
On 22 September, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (The Helsinki Commission), made up of senators,
representatives, administrative appointees, and others held
hearings entitled, ``Protecting Human Rights and Securing Peace in
Northern Ireland: The Vital Role of Police Reform''
Chairman Chris Smith informed the hearings that the Chairman of
the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and a witness
recommended by the UUP were invited to testify at the hearings
but declined the offer. The Chair of the Human Rights Commission
was also invited.
In attendance were Congressman Donald Payne, International
Relations Committee Chief Investigator, John Mackey and the point
person for Human Rights and Democracy for the Administration,
Harold Kho, who came to express the Executive Branch's continuing
``concern for the need to fully internalize, into the ongoing work
of the police, the recommendations of the Patten Report.''
| |
I want to make clear my position on the Patten Commission's
recommendations for police reform in Northern Ireland. I urge the
British government to fully and expeditiously implement these
recommendations
- Al Gore
|
Congressman Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the House International
Relations Committee, was unable to appear in person, but did
address the Commission via a teleconferenced phone call. Gilman
said that ``there exists, for the first time, the opportunity to
create a Police Force that is acceptable to both sides of the
divide in Northern Ireland. The Policing Bill, as drafted, sadly
undermines the Patten Report and the Good Friday Agreement. The
chance for change can be lost, but ought not to be. Let us hope
Parliament can still get it right.
``I have urged President Clinton to encourage and work closely
with the British government to ensure the full and complete
implementation of the Patten commission policing reforms. The
President responded to these calls on the 27th of June, 2000, by
letter, in which he made clear to me that both Tony Blair and
Bertie Ahern, of the British and Irish governments respectively,
are aware of his strong interest in this issue of the full
implementation of the of the Patten report recommendations.
``The President assured me that once the legislation at
Westminster has been adopted and its impact evaluated he will
assess whether he can make the certification on Patten's
implementation as we required in last years State Department
Authorization Bill. If not, there will be no FBI training for any
new police service in the north of Ireland.''
First to testify was Gerry Lynch, a member of the Patten
Commission. He began by expressing Chris Patten's approval of his
appearance at the hearings. Lynch stated that ``the
Recommendations of the Patten Commission were unanimous. It is
crucial that the recommendations not be cherry picked, but be
implemented in a cohesive and constructive manner. It was clear
that the politicians could not solve the issues of policing, the
Independent Commission was approved in order to implement the
Good Friday Agreement. As Chris Patten has said on numerous
occasions, what did the politicians think we would do? If there
was to be an Independent Commission that looked at the best
practices throughout the world and come up with a blueprint for a
new beginning, would we simply continue the present situation
with some modifications? Of course the answer was resoundingly,
`No'. The people of Northern Ireland deserve no less than this
new beginning to policing. Any significant modifications will
deprive them of their long awaited Police Service, which is
capable of sustaining support from the community as a whole.''
Lynch was joined by Brendan O'Leary, Professor of Political
Science at the London School of Economics, Martin O'Brien,
Director of the Committee on Administration of Justice, and Elisa
Massimino, Director of the Washington Office of the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights.
Prof O'Leary informed the Commission that while the Patten
Commission's Report, ``did not and could not meet the hopes or
match the fears of all,'' it ``undoubtedly met its explicit terms
of reference,'' as prescribed by the Good Friday Agreement. ``The
UK government welcomed the Patten Report and promised to
implement it. However, the Bill presented to Parliament in the
spring of 2000 was an evisceration of Patten, and was condemned
as such by the SDLP, Sinn Féin, The Women's Coalition, the
Catholic Church, non-governmental human rights organizations, and
CAJ. It was also criticized by the Irish government, the US House
of Representatives, and a range of Irish Americans, including,
apparently President Clinton.''
Prof. O'Leary continued his testimony by highlighting some of the
most obvious examples of the departures from the Patten Report in
the Policing Legislation, including symbols, disbanding of the
Police Reserve, and the lack of a commitment to basic Human
Rights. He labelled the bill as a `parody' of the Report.
``Patten recommended a Policing Board to hold the Police to
account, and to initiate inquiries into police conduct and
practices. Mr Mandelson has prevented the board from inquiring
into any act or omission arising before the eventual act applies.
I believe this is tantamount to an undeclared amnesty for past
police misconduct, not proposed by Patten. As you have emphasized
yourself, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State will now have the
extraordinary power to prevent inquiries by the board, because
they would, `serve no useful purpose,' a power added at the
report stage in the Commons, and needless to say, not in Patten.
``The Secretary of State will additionally have the authority to
approve or veto the person appointed to conduct any inquiry. The
UK government's line is roughly the following, in nature - `look
how much we've done to implement Patten, look how radical Patten
is by comparison with elsewhere.' This spin is utterly
unconvincing. The proposed arrangements effectively seal off
past, present and future avenues through which the police might
be held accountable for misconduct. And Patten is not radical.
Canada and America have long made their police democratically
accountable and socially representative. Patten is only radical
by the past standards of Northern Ireland.''
Addressing the issue of the Ombudsman, the Professor said,
``Patten recommended that the Ombudsman should have significant
powers and should exercise the right to investigate and comment
on police policies and practices, whereas in the modified Bill,
the Ombudsman may make reports, but not investigate. The
Ombudsman is additionally restricted in their retrospective
powers, once again circumscribing the police accountability for
past misconduct.''
Martin O'Brien, Director of the Committee on Administration of
Justice spoke next, bringing another issue to the Commission's
attention - the delay in the appointment of an oversight
Commissioner.
``This recommendation was accepted by the (British) government,
but Tom Constantine (the appointed oversight Commissioner) was
not appointed until the 31st of May, 2000 - almost nine months
after the Patten Report was published. This tardy appointment
meant that the Commissioner was excluded from scrutinizing the
draft legislation, played no part in the detailed implementation
plan prepared by the existing policing establishment, and has
still to take on public profile and produce his first report.
Given this delay, any change that has taken place to date has
been dictated by those who have been responsible for policing
over the last thirty years, and who have resisted change in the
past,'' O'Brien said.
``If government does want to implement Patten, as it says it does,
why is it still resistant to a whole range of important
safeguards which Patten called for? Why is it impossible to get
government agreement to include explicit reference in the
legislation to a broad range of international human rights norms
and standards? What reason can there be for the government
denying any role to the NI Human Rights Commission in advising on
the police use of plastic bullets? Why are effective inquiry
powers for the Policing Board consistently opposed? Why is the
Secretary of State so adamant that the Police Ombudsperson cannot
have the powers to investigate police policies and practices that
Patten called for? Why was the appointment of the Oversight
Commissioner so long delayed, and why is his term of office so
curtailed in the legislation?''
Elisa Massimino was the last to testify, raising with the
commission the lack of reference to International Human Rights
guidelines in the Policing Legislation
``Although the British Government has repeatedly asserted that it
`recognizes the importance of human rights','' she said, ``its
ongoing resistance to inserting reference to international human
rights standards into the language of the Police Bill raises
serious questions. The conduct of police in Northern Ireland has
been the subject of numerous reports by non-governmental human
rights organisations and UN bodies, including by Dato' Param
Cumaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of
Judges and Lawyers. Many of these reports have concluded that
police conduct in Northern Ireland violates internationally
recognized human rights standards. Chairman Patten, in his
statement accompanying the release of the Commission's report,
highlighted the central importance of human rights standards to
the Commission's approach to police reform: ``We recommend a
comprehensive program of action to focus on policing in Northern
Ireland on a human rights-based approach. We see the upholding of
fundamental human rights as the very purpose of policing, and we
propose that it should be instilled in all officers from the
start - in the oath they take, in their training, and in their
codes of practice and in their performance appraisal system.
Massimino concluded her testimony by providing the Commission
with updates on the investigations into the murders of Patrick
Finucane and Rosemary Nelson.
Chairman Smith announced that this hearing would not be the last
on this issue. It was the sixth hearing Chaired by Congressman
Smith on human rights in the north of Ireland. It also pre-empted
the vote that took place on the policing issue, in the US House
of Representatives.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)