Republican News · Thursday 11 July 2002

Acceptable policing

National and democratic consensus is the key

---

In the second of two articles, GERRY KELLY, Sinn Féin spokesperson on policing, says that reduced to its essence, the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) requires a 'new beginning' to policing in a police service that is acceptable to the whole community. Here, he argues that the British government's policing 'review' will not work because there is no will to go back to what was set out in the GFA. It is time, he argues, to go back to the drawing board and the starting point needs to be a nationalist and democratic consensus.

---

Acceptable criteria

The criteria for acceptability is a police service that is accountable, free from partisan political control and representative of the community it polices.

The Patten recommendations were intended to give effect to this. They have not been implemented in full. The GFA has been seriously undermined on this issue of central importance.

Those who foolishly advised the SDLP to make West Tyrone their 'Stalingrad' also advised the party to join the Policing Board. So seized were some members of the SDLP with putting clear blue water between themselves and Sinn Féin in the wake of the election that they opted to support the British proposals on policing

National and democratic consensus

The British government have announced a 'review' of their arrangements for policing. They gave no indication to suggest they will do more than they are publicly committed to. This is not enough. There is no intention to bridge the gap to meet the GFA requirements.

Sinn Féin will be challenging that intention. In doing so we are being realistic. That means being totally candid about this 'review'. That is, there is not the remotest possibility that the British government will face up to their responsibilities under the terms of the Agreement on this central issue in the absence of an Irish national and democratic consensus demanding that they do so.

While the review is an acknowledgement that Patten has not been implemented in full, it does not follow that the British government will put things right. It isn't that the British government don't know what needs to be done. The problem is that they are not under any pressure to do it.

In February 2001, after an intensive round of negotiations, which had commenced in December 2000 and involved the Sinn Féin leadership and senior representatives of both governments, the British government agreed that the Police Act would be amended. Albeit reluctantly, they had been nudged onto a track that could and should have taken them down the right road.

Once the principle of legislative amendment had been established, Sinn Féin's negotiations logically focused on the changes required to the Police Act and the timetable to give effect to this. That phase of negotiations, however, was not successfully concluded. Instead, the British government changed tack and turned their attention to breaking down the nationalist consensus.

From their perspective, that was very understandable. Firstly, they did not want to effect the change required. Secondly, the finality the British government sought to impart on the policing issue with the enactment of their Police Act had previously been accepted in some quarters. For some, this meant giving up the demand for amending legislation.

Sinn Féin's persistence, however, through the winter of 2000 into spring 2001, resurrected the broad national and democratic demands. But in the aftermath of the June 2001 Westminster and local government election results, those who foolishly advised the SDLP to make West Tyrone their 'Stalingrad' also advised the party to join the Policing Board.

So seized were some members of the SDLP with putting clear blue water, as they saw it, between themselves and Sinn Féin in the wake of these election results, that they opted to support the British proposals on policing as a means to this end. These were publicised in August after Weston Park. These proposals did not change one word of the inadequate Police Act. They would not result in Patten being fully implemented. And no one, not even thos who joined the Policing Board, claimed that a new beginning to policing had been won.

The SDLP, in publicly explaining their move, however, pointed to the proposed review of the Police Act and a commitment by the British government to refine the Act with 14 points of legislative amendment "to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations". These were available months before and were assessed as insufficient to implement Patten in full.

For instance, one of these proposed amendments copperfastens the impunity with which Special Branch Agents like Tommy Lyttle and William Stobie and their handlers have acted in the past. That is the freedom to conspire to kill with no fear of prosecution and conviction and no danger of being held democratically accountable.

The PSNI is a filter for the recruitment and protection of such Special Branch agents. They cannot arrest or chase anyone without getting the nod from Special Branch.

Despite this, the SDLP opted to join the Policing Board.

Board subverts Patten

Eddie McGrady MP was one of the SDLP's nominees to the Policing Board.

Up to that point, his position and the position of his party were crystal clear. He said, "Patten was the compromise. You cannot compromise the compromise". That comment probably reflected the core of the nationalist consensus at the time. But the Policing Board has compromised on the compromise, much to the delight of those whose agenda on policing has been to suck the SDLP in as they spit Patten out.

For instance, the Board:

• approved a new badge which retains the British crown, betraying Patten's demand for neutrality;
• has overseen the induction of new recruits who swear a new human rights oath, while the vast majority of the PSNI who transferred from the RUC do not. Patten required that all officers take the new oath;
• agreed to retain the RUC Full-Time Reserve for the PSNI, although Patten required that the Full Time Reserve be disbanded. Now, many of that Reserve are also slipping in among the new recruits to the full-time regular PSNI;
• has maintained militarised RUC forts across the Six Counties and has supplied and serviced the spy cameras that hang off them. And it is the Board that owns the helicopters and spy planes that hover over nationalist homes and schools.

Turning it around

Events on the ground involving the PSNI over the past several months need no great elaboration here. The Policing Board has been unable to do anything about any of this.

Individually and cumulatively, these events and individuals add up to unacceptable policing which cannot be cured unless we go back to the drawing board - the clear and unambiguous parameters set out in the Good Friday Agreement. For unless these are legislated for in unambiguous terms, the issue of policing is going to plague our future.

Otherwise, the Special Branch and Special Branch agents will continue to do what they have always done. The PSNI will remain overwhelmingly Protestant and wholly unionist. The scenes we recently witnessed in the Short Strand will be a regular feature of this 'back to the future' scenario.

Giving effect to this substantive change requires an unshakable nationalist and democratic consensus that prevails over those who want to resist or minimise change. This is a matter of national and democratic interest of central importance to society and to the peace process. We have no option but to be successful.