Press Releases - 1999

9th September 1999

STATEMENT BY THE PFNI - RESPONSE TO PATTEN

The Patten Report is meant to be a framework for a new beginning for policing. The maximising of the acceptability of the police and access to the police is an important objective in the overall pursuit of a lasting and more comprehensive peace for Northern Ireland.

Like Patten, the Federation had believed that the Report would be the best opportunity to settle the debate on policing for the foreseeable future and certainly for the opening decades of the new millennium.

We believed that the Report would be a vindication of the proud history and effectiveness of the RUC.

Indeed there is much in this Report that we are happy to welcome. The proposals on the expansion of the part-time reserve, the setting up of a new training college, the civilianisation of recruitment and equal opportunities units, the financial packages to create vacancies for a balanced composition in the police service, the emphasis on community policing: these recommendations if not in the letter are certainly in the spirit of our submission.

I therefore congratulate the Commission on these very specific points.

But the Commission has made two very fundamental mistakes in its conclusions – one which is desperately dispiriting for members of this force and our wider police family and the second, an error which may well jeopardise the ability of any police force of whatever name to deliver an effective unitary service evenhandedly across all the people of Northern Ireland.

First, we have made it clear all along that we do not believe there is any substantive argument for the name to be abandoned. Its loss amounts to a repudiation of the professionalism, courage and sacrifice of our police officers.

Indeed, in any other country we would be rewarded with a reaffirmation of the Royal prefix in our name. Here in Northern Ireland we are being stripped of it.

There is no evidence that a change of name is sought by any significant numbers of people; nor do we believe that it will stimulate additional applications from the minority community to join.

It is not just our name the extremists hate, it is the substance of what civilised policing stands for: the protection of the community without fear or favour, the prevention of crime and the elimination of the cancer of terrorism. It is not a name change which will bring forward minority recruits, it is a peace without intimidation.

The second flaw in the Report is even more fundamental for it offends against key principles of policing concerning the independence of the Chief Constable from political direction and the preservation of his integrity of command. We are seriously disturbed by the implications of the capacity of the district councils to supplement the police service through buying in services including the private sector. All the examples quoted by Mr Patten this morning of what could be done by the councils are already within their remit. The introduction of a new and unregulated dimension into a role in policing, if not into the actual police service is a potential act of folly. If it is as unimportant as Mr Patten claims, he should have no difficulty in withdrawing this particular recommendation.

We have an urgent need to eradicate the vigilantism, which while masquerading as policing terrorises whole communities. To regularise the activities of these people into officially supplementing the police service through district council control will be to deliver these communities irretrievably into the clutches of evil people. In effect the terrorists are walking out of the front door of the prisons and into our police stations through the back door.

There is a common struggle by the loyalist and republican extremists for power over their communities: it would be unforgivable if we were to actually to facilitate this takeover beyond the reach of the proper authorities.

We also need urgent clarification of the implications of the Report of the role of the police board. This body can clearly only come into being when all its members are demonstrably committed to the democratic process and have no overt or covert links with paramilitaries. We cannot support or tolerate any recommendations for a Board whose composition would threaten the operational independence or responsibility of the Chief Constable or which would compromise the security of the people of Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom.

Until there is political progress in Northern Ireland, on a seismic scale, then this part of Patten must remain fanciful and should be shelved.

Lastly, at this time, I want to draw attention to the recommendations as they affect our colleagues in the full-time reserve. Of the 302 officers murdered over the past 30 years 49 were full-time reservists.

They joined on three-year contracts, turning their back on ordinary civilian careers for the uncertain and dangerous job of an RUC officer. Three-year contracts have turned into 27 year careers for many and murder and maiming for others.

The abolition of the full-time reserve places two obvious and inescapable obligations on Government. First, the strength of the Force must not be reduced without full consideration of the security situation, prevailing and anticipated, a judgement which can be made only by the Chief Constable. I would have no confidence that we are placed to make any reduction for the foreseeable future.

Secondly, the retirement of these officers, when eventually justified, must be rewarded with the generous recompense that Government over the years has promised. The number one priority of my Federation will be to insist on these promises being honoured.

 

Let me emphasise the point that I made at the beginning. We made 44 recommendations to Patten. Many of them have been taken on board; this is a matter of no small satisfaction to my Federation and reflects our support for change. Patten has made 175 recommendations, a majority of those have our support; some need further consideration by my Federation and a few as you have just heard we reject.

As well as fighting for our full-time reserve colleagues we will also now lobby against two of the Commission’s other key points until we win: the unwarranted loss of the name and symbolism, and the possible introduction of unregulated police support. Should we fail in the second of these objectives it would not be worth achieving the first.