Patten and the Government's Police
Bill:
What Do you Think?
Article published in the Belfast News Letter
4 Oct 2000 and the the Irish News 5/Oct/00
Introduction
It looks like high noon again: another stand-off
in the peace process. The Government says its Police
Bill implements the Patten Report. Others see a great
difference between the two. Here we outline some of
the issues.
As always we ask:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
1. Continuity with the Past
A. Symbols
The Patten Report said the name of the police should
be changed to the `Northern Ireland Police Service'.
There should be a new badge and symbols not associated
with the British or Irish states. The Union flag should
not be flown from police buildings. Police memorials
should be retained in buildings.
Under the Government's bill `The Body of Constables
known as the RUC shall continue in being as THE POLICE
SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND (incorporating the Royal
Ulster Constabulary)'.
Unionist views:
Changing the name would be an insult to the 302
RUC members who were murdered, to the thousands injured
by terrorists, and to their families.
The Agreement accepted that Northern Ireland would
remain part of the UK as long as the majority, North
and South, so chose. The police force will therefore
remain British and its symbols should recognise this.
Many working-class Unionists have no great love
for the RUC but they would see a name change as a
defeat for Unionists and another victory for Nationalists.
Patten was asked to come up with a police service
acceptable to the whole community. He has forgotten
about Unionists.
Nationalist/Republican views
The name has to change. To fail in this would suggest
continuity with the past. We suffered too much from
the RUC. There has to be new beginning.
The people are both Irish and British. The symbols
of the police have to reflect this reality.
Patten was a compromise reached by an independent
commission after extensive consultation. We accepted
it – with difficulty – for the sake of peace. We can't
be expected to compromise further on what is already
a compromise.
B. Recruiting
Patten recommended an equal number of Protestants
and Catholics be drawn from a pool of recruits who
have met a required standard.
Many Unionists see this as discriminatory. Many
Nationalists might agree but then ask: by what other
means will the proportion of Catholics in the police
be increased within ten years?
2. Operational Issues
A. Accountability
Patten recommended setting up a new Police Board
with increased powers. Some of these would be:
The Secretary of State would no longer be able to
issue guide lines to the police about their activity.
The Chief Constable would have to fulfil the plan
drawn up by the new Police Board.
After any incident the new Police Board could require
the Chief Constable to show how police performance
fitted in with the Board's plan.
The Board could require the Chief Constable to respond
to a request for a report. The Chief Constable could
refuse only on grounds such as national security.
If the Board and the Chief Constable disagreed about
the need for a report the Chief Constable could ask
the Secretary of State to make a decision. Under the
Government's police bill:
The Secretary of State sets objectives for policing
and the new Police Board have to make their own objectives
fit in with these.
The Chief Constable draws up an annual policing
plan which he or she submits to the Police Board for
approval, but the Board must consult the Secretary
of State before publishing it.
The Secretary of State must sets police priorities
for a 3-5 year period. If he or she is unhappy with
the way the Board fulfills their duties he or
she can direct them to take appropriate action.
The Secretary of State can issue codes of practice
to the Board and oblige the Board to follow these.
The Chief Constable can refuse to give a report
to the Board on wider grounds than under Patten.
Inquiries
Under Patten the new Police Board could set
up inquiries into police conduct.
Under the Government's Police Bill:
The Secretary of State can block the new Police
Board from setting up an inquiry if the incident in
question took before it was set up, or if the Secretary
of State believes it will not serve a useful purpose.
The Secretary of State has to approve the person
appointed to head an inquiry.
The Board must meet the costs of any inquiry.
It is clear that under the Government's bill many
powers are taken away from the Police Board and
given to the Secretary of State. This is one reason
why the current Police Authority has criticised
the new bill.
Questions
A. For Unionists
Can you understand why Nationalists and Republicans
see the name change as important?
Are there other ways to remember RUC officers killed
in the Troubles than by keeping the name of the RUC?
If we return to Direct Rule, with an extensive in-put
from the Dublin Government, will the British Government:
- Keep the RUC as it
is? Or
- Implement Patten?
Or
- Implement the Government's
current proposals?
How would you bring about a police service acceptable
both to you and to Nationalists?
B. For Nationalists
Can you understand why Unionists and Nationalists
oppose the name change?
If the British Government adopted Patten's proposals
for accountability but kept the name of the RUC, would
you accept this on the grounds that it is the
substance of change that matters and not the name?
Would it be a problem if Unionists called the new
police service the RUC and Nationalists called it
the Police Service for Northern Ireland? Would this
be similar to the Derry/Londonderry situation?
Do you accept that under the Agreement the British
Government was required to set up the Patten Commission
but not explicitly required to implement its findings?
Should the SDLP and/or Sinn Fein leave the Executive
or refuse to support the new Police Board if Patten
is not implemented in full? Would this lead to
the collapse of the Executive?
If the Patten report is implemented will you encourage
Catholics to join the Police?
How would you bring about a police acceptable both
to you and to Unionists?
C. For both Unionists and Nationalists
Is there a danger of making too much of difficulties
about symbols and overlooking some of the operational
issues?
