Mandelson leaves key issues of police reform unresolved

MPs at Westminster last night approved the second reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill by 329 votes to 14

MPs at Westminster last night approved the second reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill by 329 votes to 14. In a surprise move, all three SDLP MPs, Mr John Hume, Mr Seamus Mallon and Mr Eddie McGrady, voted for the Bill. A Conservative amendment rejecting the Bill for not retaining the RUC name was defeated.

While talks are continuing, official sources have confirmed there was still no agreement between London and Dublin on the title for the new police service, on the emblems or insignia to be associated with it, on the flying of the Union flag over police stations, or on the crucial question of the power of the new Policing Board to order inquiries.

Opening the debate, Mr Peter Mandelson signalled likely concessions to Mr Seamus Mallon, Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister, on a range of issues of concern to nationalists when the Bill moves into its Committee Stage later this month.

Under mounting pressure from the SDLP, as well as Sinn Fein and the Irish Government, Mr Mandelson indicated likely amendments to the Bill in sections dealing with the oath and code of ethics for members of the new police service; human rights training; proposals for 50-50 recruitment; the role of the Oversight Commissioner and powers of the Police Ombudsman; and the future functions of the District Police Partnership Boards.

READ MORE

The Patten Commission had proposed that the Policing Board should have the power to initiate an inquiry into any aspect of the police service, and that this power was needed if the board was effectively to hold the Chief Constable to account.

Responding to nationalist and republican complaints that the Bill greatly restricted the powers of the board while increasing those of the Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson told MPs: "I am prepared to strike a different balance on this, but I will be concerned to protect the police from the risk of vexatious, repetitive or capricious behaviour by the board in initiating inquiries and reports."

However, Mr Mandelson did not intervene during Mr Mallon's speech to provide any further detail on how this "different balance" would be achieved.

Angered by comments by Mr Andrew Mackay, the Conservative spokesman, expressing disappointment that nationalist politicians had not yet called on young Catholics to join the police, Mr Mallon told the House: "Get this [the Bill] right, and I'll go into the hardest parts of Northern Ireland and ask people to join it. That's what we'll do."

But he warned Mr Mandelson: "Get this wrong and the objectives of Patten cannot be achieved."

Mr Mallon said the SDLP had welcomed the Patten report and indicated that in the context of its full and faithful implementation they would participate in the "new and powerful" Policing Board it envisaged.

Rejecting Mr Mandelson's decision to postpone decisions on the title to be given to the new service and the question of a badge, Mr Mallon quoted Patten's conclusions: that "the Royal Ulster Constabulary should . . . henceforth be named the Northern Ireland Police Service"; that the new service "adopt a new badge and symbols entirely free from any association with either the British or Irish states"; and that "the Union flag should no longer be flown from police buildings."

Mr Mandelson maintained silence on the government front bench, too, when Mr Peter Robinson, the East Belfast MP and deputy leader of the DUP, pressed the government to say what assurances, if any, it had given Mr John Taylor, the UUP deputy leader, on the question of title, badge and flying of the Union flag.

Managing to raise the temperature slightly in what was otherwise a low-key debate, never attended by more than 40 MPs, Mr Robinson declared: "This is a rotten Bill, and future generations will rise up and curse the Secretary of State" for introducing it.

Mr Mandelson's only definitive response to nationalist demands at this point was his agreement that the Office of Oversight Commissioner should be put on a statutory basis in the Bill.