---

Police

The hon. Gentleman’s reference to me as the humble Member precludes my accepting the accolades that he has thrown in my direction, but I will do so on behalf of other people—perhaps not so much the Policing Board members, who, as elected representatives, took a decision and accepted the risk and the profile that went with it, but, once more, the ordinary DPP members, both elected and independent, who, to be quite blunt about it, suffered greatly at the hands of Sinn Fein in particular. My colleagues in the SDLP—both elected and non-elected—had their homes bombed, got bullets in the post, were physically threatened and sometimes physically assaulted. It is so easily forgotten that they made those sacrifices, and I am very proud to be associated with them. However, progress has been made, things move on, history is rewritten, and revisionism is the order of the day in Northern Ireland in many respects, including the devolution of powers to the new Government. A member of the Patten commission said that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has"““more accountability than any police agency that I am aware of””" in the world. Such tremendous accolades from people with worldwide experience of policing give great satisfaction, but much more important is the fact that members of the community, particularly those who found the old regime hostile and in no way representative of their views, have now come, almost with enthusiasm at long last, to embrace policing simply as a profession, with the aspiration, one hopes, of doing good for their own community. That is evolving, and the district policing partnerships are a great example of how that has happened. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked some extremely interesting questions, although I assume some were tongue in check, because he knows, as I do, that a blind eye will be turned to all sorts of things to achieve the ultimate theoretical position on all those boards. To take one example—I hope that the Minister will reply to this as well—if the reconstruction of the district policing partnerships follows the reconstruction of the Policing Board by the Northern Ireland Office, there will be great disparities in the broad scope of representation. To put it bluntly, moderate nationalist opinion, which fought in the heat of the day and worked in the heat of the afternoon, has been virtually obliterated from the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I would like to think that the same philosophy—it is a mystery to me why it was used—will not be visited on the new district policing partnerships through the new board in this new composition. The order is fairly straightforward and simple. It relates to section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, on the declaration against terrorism. I hope that the interpretation of ““terrorism”” will be expanded to cover involvement in any quasi-political activity such as intimidation, extortion and blackmail. Elected Sinn Fein councillors who signed up to this process many years ago were still engaged in such activities in their own communities; for all I know, some of them might still be. I would like officials, including representatives of the board and the NIO, to keep a close eye on what is happening in respect of the undertaking to oppose terrorism and all aspects of what the paramilitary machines have been engaged in over the past 10 years since the so-called ceasefire—at least by republican Sinn Fein. I make that final point as there has been no ceasefire by the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. Paradoxically, the chairperson of the political wing of the UVF, the Progressive Unionist party, was appointed to be a member of the Policing Board some time ago despite the fact that the organisation her party represents is not on ceasefire and will not commit to any form of decommissioning. The NIO should attempt to explain that paradox. Mention has been made of section 16 and the issue of convictions after five years. I will not rehearse the questions posed by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, but let me venture a layman’s point of view. How can a policing board, a council or any other body making selections take cognisance of something in someone’s history or current circumstances that has not gone through the process of a court of law? I cannot see how that could happen, because if it were to do so, it would immediately raise the possibility of there being allegations of slander and libel in respect of unproven facts. However, if there are ways of addressing this matter, they should be done. Section 19 addresses Belfast sub-groups. I have some misgivings—““fears”” is too strong a word—as to what might be the ultimate effect. A possible disastrous outcome is the ghettoisation of the democratic interface with the police in Belfast city. It will clearly be difficult to have the kind of representation that we desire in certain areas of west, east, north and south Belfast. It might have been better to have been more cautious and to have kept things as they were in respect of Belfast DPPs and how sub-groups might contribute. The Police Service of Northern Ireland reconstruction of its command structure has brought together several district councils. However, its undertaking to maintain the original 26 or so DPPs retains local contact, local democracy, local accountability and, most important, local knowledge and interface. That might be the best way to move forward. I wish to ask a question that has frequently been posed by me and other members of my party. Why have the Government and the NIO turned their face so strongly against the obvious case for rationalisation in respect of DPPs and community safety partnerships? They overlap in some of their functions. They are supported and part-personneled by district councils and they have duplication in officers and secretariats. I cannot see any rational argument why the functions of the DPPs should not be combined with those of the community safety partnerships so that they form one body. There is an historical aspect to this issue, which the NIO has never admitted. When Sinn Fein could muscle in big time on community safety locally—it could never be seen to participate in community policing—that was the origin, I think, of the split thinking in the NIO. Presumably, all that has gone now that Sinn Fein in particular has embraced so fully the PSNI and that its members right down the line are going to participate in the district policing partnerships. However, one query remains. Just this week in my Down district local paper, I read that Sinn Fein councillors cannot yet participate in district policing partnerships—or, indeed, in district safeguard committees—because of police attendance. That raises the question of just how deep the conviction is to sustain independent, impartial and accountable policing. However, I will leave that question hanging. As I said, I would like to know why district policing partnerships are being kept divorced from community safety partnerships, given that they perform a like service from a like source. When schedule 8 to the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 comes into play, perhaps it will round off the advances in policing. I would like to think that the double-speak that has taken place in our communities on policing for so long is over at long last, and that all the communities will truly—truly—give service and allegiance to policing, while at the same time holding the police forcefully and totally to account for their actions. The attitude towards, and the support of moderate opinion—particularly moderate nationalist opinion—for the process of justice and, thereby, of policing has taken a severe dent lately. The Public Prosecution Service failed to take any court action—or any action at all—against those who were involved in the murder of Pat Finucane. According to the Stevens report and other police inquiries, there was prima facie evidence that those people were involved in his murder, and that the state played a complicit role. The NIO and the PSNI do not recognise how damaging that decision was to the community.