|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 956-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Wednesday 20 October 2004 MR IRWIN MONTGOMERY, MR TERRY SPENCE, CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT WESLEY WILSON and MR RAYMOND PHILLIPS MR IAN PEARSON MP, MR NICK PERRY, MR KEN LINDSAY and MR DAVID KYLE Evidence heard in Public Questions 115 - 236
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Wednesday 20 October 2004 Members present Mr Michael Mates, in the Chair Mr Adrian Bailey Mr Roy Beggs Mr Gregory Campbell Mr Tony Clarke Mr Stephen Pound The Reverend Martin Smyth Mr Hugo Swire Mark Tami ________________ Memoranda submitted by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and Superintendents' Association of Northern Ireland Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mr Irwin Montgomery, Chairman PFNI, Mr Terry Spence, Secretary PFNI, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson, Treasurer SANI and Mr Raymond Phillips, Strategic Support SANI, examined.
Q115 Chairman: Gentlemen, welcome. I am sorry we are delayed and I am afraid we will most likely be interrupted while democracy takes its course in this rather strange way, but we will try and get on. Thank you for coming to help us with our inquiry into the functions of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Do not feel all of you have to answer every question, otherwise we will be here all night; it is perfectly satisfactory to have one on behalf of you all or, if there is a difference of opinion - which I am sure there would not be - between the two associations, then perhaps one from each side. Do not feel all four of you have to answer each time. You both support the system of independent scrutiny of complaints against the police, and the Police Ombudsman was set up to fulfil that role. Perhaps one from each side would summarise briefly for us what, in your opinion, you consider to be the deficiencies, if any, of the present arrangements. Shall we start with the Superintendents' Association? Chief Superintendent Wilson: Thank you, chairman. Q116 Chairman: The first time all of you speak would you identify yourselves for the shorthand writer and for the television. Chief Superintendent Wilson: I am Wesley Wilson, representing the Superintendents' Association of Northern Ireland. Mr Chairman, can I just endorse, as you said, that we do support the need for independent investigation of complaints against the police because society needs to have confidence in the workings of the police, and we do back that wholeheartedly. In this situation we see the stated vision of the Police Ombudsman's Office is "To strive for excellence in providing an independent impartial police complaints service in which the public and the police have confidence" and we feel that has not yet been achieved, that that excellent service that is required is not yet there. There are some reasons for that. Sometimes the officers involved in these investigations that are complained against feel that the Ombudsman's staff are blinded by a search for evidence of collusion and corruption, it is almost that they make that assumption and then try to make the links to prove it rather than investigating a complaint holistically and finding those things that prove whether the officer has done anything wrong or not. So we think that at times that over-zealous approach has led to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by some of the Ombudsman's investigators, and that obviously has an effect on the confidence of police officers in the system. We believe that everything needs to be done to increase that confidence that police officers will have in impartial investigations, and it will be a measure of the commitment of this striving for excellence of the Ombudsman what measures are taken to gain that confidence from now on. I am sure that my colleagues in the Federation would say the same thing on where they stand really, to help in any way they can in building that confidence up for the officers concerned, but it is a thing that needs to be addressed urgently. We feel that the survey on attitudes on police complaints done by the Ombudsman was flawed and we have doubts about its methodology, which I hope you are aware of in that way. What it does show is that there is a lack of confidence in my police officers in the Ombudsman's office. We feel there is a lack of oversight of the Ombudsman and the work of the Ombudsman and the investigators concerned. We feel that in the past we have brought these to the attention of both Government and other agencies and feel that that is a vital point in making sure police officers have confidence in the system. If police officers have complaints about the way an investigation is done or how it is dealt with in any way then there should be an independent person or an officer who can investigate that. We did write in the past to the Secretary of State back in 2000 about this --- Q117 Chairman: Sorry, can I be sure I have that clear: you want an independent investigator to investigate the independent investigator. Chief Superintendent Wilson: If a police officer has a complaint about the way an investigation has been dealt with, and they make a complaint about that, there should be an independent person to investigate that, to have oversight of what the Police Ombudsman was doing. It could be argued that it is who shall guard the guards type of a situation, but to have confidence in the investigations that the Ombudsman is doing there must be an independent person that the police officer can go to and say "This was not done right; I have not been done right by". There needs to be some sort of oversight. We did write back in 2000 to the Minister of State for Northern Ireland at that time, and the reply given to us was "We propose to arrange for the Secretary of State to appoint someone to investigate complaints against the Police Ombudsman on an ad hoc basis". At the time we accepted that, but it does not seem to have progressed in the four years since that reply was given, and to appoint someone on an ad hoc basis we feel is not rigorous enough for police officers to have confidence in the Police Ombudsman. Q118 Chairman: Have there been any formal complaints? Chief Superintendent Wilson: There have been formal complaints to the Ombudsman's office. The system is - and there is a leaflet published by the Ombudsman and it is on the website - that police officers who are dissatisfied with the workings of the Ombudsman's Office in any investigation complain to her first as the Ombudsman and then if not satisfied they can complain to the Secretary of State. We feel that that is too ad hoc, there should be a formal system where that is done. Q119 Chairman: Have there been any complaints to the Secretary of State? Chief Superintendent Wilson: There have been some complaints to the Secretary of State, in fact I have here an extract from a question posed to Jane Kennedy when she was the Minister of State for Northern Ireland and the question was "To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received complaints from police officers regarding the actions by officers of the Ombudsman's Office and investigations carried out by the Police Ombudsman." Jane Kennedy's reply was: "A number of officers have written to the Northern Ireland Office regarding the Ombudsman's Office; however, the Police Ombudsman's Office is operationally independent and the handling of investigations by the Ombudsman's staff is a matter for the Police Ombudsman's Office." Again, we feel that the Ombudsman investigating her own staff is not satisfactory, it is not independent or impartial. The second question in that same debate was "To ask the Secretary of State what powers he has to require explanations from the Ombudsman's Office on the actions of her investigators" and the reply was by Jane Kennedy: "The Secretary of State has no statutory powers to require explanations from the Police Ombudsman on the actions of her officers or the investigations carried out by her Office". Again, we feel that that is not satisfactory. So for a police officer to have confidence in this system, we feel there needs to be independent oversight. We are somewhat gladdened by the fact that the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland may now look at the processes in the Ombudsman's Office as part of their inspectorate role, but they cannot look at individual cases and any maladministration caused in individual cases. We feel that that does not fully satisfy what we are looking for in this case. We further think that in these cases the Ombudsman refuses to accept any wrongdoing by staff; any organisation that carries out the number of investigations that are involved here is bound to have some errors, and there needs to be admission of that because if you admit that you are fallible you show you are human in dealing with these things and everybody accepts that. We feel that that is very important, that where inaccuracies are found, factual inaccuracies are found, that these are acknowledged. Quite often some of our officers and ex-officers have been shown draft reports about investigations in which they were under investigation and they have shown factual inaccuracies. What happens subsequently is that that report is amended and published as the public document, but there is no acknowledgement in that report that the police officer who was under investigation about the complaint has actually pointed out factual inaccuracies or helped reduce those. Additionally, officers quite often who are ex-officers are not required by law to help an investigation and sometimes they feel that they do not want to do that. There are unhelpful comments in the report saying the guy who has now retired did not help with the investigation, but that just paints a sort of bland picture. What happens is that when ex-officers are dealt with in this way, the serving police officers do not feel that they have confidence in the system, it further damages that confidence from them. So we feel that there should be more acknowledgement in the Ombudsman's reports about the help given by police officers, whether serving or ex-officers. There are some cases about the wrongdoing of Police Ombudsman's investigations, I know there is the Greer and Dougan v PONI case where the magistrate actually commented on the disingenuous actions of the investigators, and the Ombudsman's response was to write to the Lord Chancellor to complain about the magistrate's comments. There was no formal view of that and no oversight available for that to be looked at, to see why it happened. Our main thing in this is we feel that the confidence of the police in the system is not only a goal that the Ombudsman has admitted, it is an essential part of it. It is all very well saying public confidence is increased by the Ombudsman's investigators, we are happy that that is so, but we feel that there must be more confidence given to police and that means action by the Ombudsman in that way. Q120 Chairman: If you agree with all that, Mr Montgomery, do not bother to say it all again. If however you have any brief differences or other nuances, then please feel free to tell us. Mr Montgomery: No, there is nothing that he has said that I can disagree with, but I have to say that there are some points that I would like to add to it in relation to the manner in which the Ombudsman has dealt with some things. I have to say that on occasions she has shown public support for the police and her reports into plastic baton rounds and on specific occasions their justified use by us was very much welcomed by our members. Her recent comments as well about referring every use of CS Spray to her office, that she really did not think that was appropriate, that is what has happened every time that we use CS Spray. There are other incidents in which officers being investigated by her office have either been exonerated by the investigators or through the courts, and no doubt you have received specific submissions from those officers. From their perspective the investigations into officers' conduct are extremely lengthy and result in officers being suspended for up to two years before the case is ended and usually, I have to add, the case collapsing. This is a massive financial drain on the public purse and there is obviously the human cost to the officer in many cases in relation to his personal circumstances, it has sometimes permanently damaged those. I have to say I am not always convinced that when the recommendation to prosecute is made, that in every instance the human consequences for those officers is taken into account. If we go back to the Omagh report, which has been extremely controversial from her office, our belief is that those officers who were criticised in that report were denied natural justice through the opportunity to comment, and police confidence, as revealed in the survey done by her own office, was almost zero at that time. We were alarmed about this failure. We hold the view that had those officers of course been given the opportunity to comment she may well have arrived at the same decision, but the fact that they were denied the natural justice of having an opportunity to comment before the report came out, we felt was inappropriate. We have, as you know, a working party formed between the Superintendents' Association and ourselves, senior officers and the Ombudsman's Office, so we are moving forward in a number of areas in that. Q121 Chairman: This is to try and improve things for the future. Mr Montgomery: Exactly. Q122 Chairman: That was to be my next question. Mr Montgomery: I have beaten you to it. Q123 Chairman: Which is fine, the proactive steps you are all taking together to try and make the process work. We have an Ombudsman now and I think you will agree it is a uniquely difficult task; what are you doing to try and work with her, to perhaps work out systems with her which will make it seem fairer in your eyes? Mr Spence: If I could just come in here, my name is Terry Spence, I am the general secretary of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. We have tried immensely over the last number of years to try and move the situation forward regarding our relationship with the Ombudsman's Office. It goes without saying that it is at an all-time low; the survey that was conducted going back last year certainly indicated and highlighted just how bad morale is insofar as the Ombudsman's Office is concerned and the manner in which she conducts her business, so notwithstanding that that was the case it was at our instigation that a joint working party was set up between the staff associations and the Ombudsman's Office. Subsequent to that because we felt things were still not moving at the speed at which they should be to improve that relationship we, back in July of this year, put forward proposals to the Ombudsman's Office that there should be a liaison officer appointed within her department at senior level so that there would be an instant point of contact by way of telephone communication or indeed by personal contact, so that if there were any problems arising, we could perhaps iron those problems out before they reached the media, or indeed politicians who on some occasions have wanted to exploit our differences. So we have moved and we have tried our best to improve the situation. At this stage I regret to say we have not actually met with the appointed liaison officer from the Ombudsman's Office but certainly I understand someone has been appointed and we want to do that as quickly as we can, we believe it will be fruitful and useful. Obviously, as my colleague Irwin has said here, when it comes to us praising her for the reports that she has already provided regarding the use of plastic baton rounds and in relation to CS Spray, we have not been behind the door in coming forward publicly and saying so. That is a matter of public record. Q124 Chairman: I am sure it is a good thing that both sides speak to each other frankly - it is probably better they speak to each other than do it through the media, but that is an aside. Are your two associations working as one in your representations and relationships with the Ombudsman's Office, or do you do it separately? Mr Spence: We have meetings. The working party that I alluded to earlier, the working party includes representatives from the Superintendents' Association, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and of course the Ombudsman's Office senior staff as well. Q125 Chairman: How often do you formally meet as a working party? Mr Spence: The last meeting was three months ago and we try to meet on a quarterly basis as often as possible. Mr Montgomery: There is one other point I would like to make and that is that one of our sub-committees, Constitution, Legislation and Discipline, the Ombudsman's Office would attend that on a bi-monthly basis, so that is ongoing as well. Very shortly her Office is embarking on various briefings around the country. One of our fulltime Federation people will be attending all of those, so we are moving forward. Q126 Chairman: With her, rather than watching. Mr Montgomery: Yes. Q127 Chairman: That is wholly admirable. So although you are not always agreed, you do have mechanisms to meet and discuss and, if necessary, differ. Mr Montgomery: Yes, we have doors that are open all the time and we will use them as best we can. Chairman: That is encouraging to hear. Mr Roy Beggs. Q128 Mr Beggs: Thank you, chairman. The first question will be to both representatives. Your organisations place criticism of the present arrangements for holding the Ombudsman to account at the forefront of your submission. Maurice Hayes' 1997 report on police complaints, A Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland? Stated that "the overwhelming message I got from all sides and from all political parties was the need for the investigation to be independent and to be seen to be independent". Do you agree with Dr Hayes about the vital importance of the Ombudsman being seen to be fully independent when investigating the police? Mr Montgomery: Very much so. If it is not seen to be independent then the Office really is not functioning properly and is not going to have confidence from either the public or the police. Chief Superintendent Wilson: The second point that Dr Hayes makes is that it is not just being independent, it is being seen to be independent; this is about people's perceptions and when the Ombudsman's officers are over-zealous or do not appear to be acting impartially, or are perceived by our officers in that way, that immediately damages the confidence in the relationship, so it is very, very important that that is managed well. Q129 Mr Beggs: How can such independence be squared with your calls for an oversight of the Ombudsman's investigations? Chief Superintendent Wilson: I think the important thing is that if there is an oversight body or an oversight Commissioner, or whatever the Government feels is appropriate, which can deal with any complaints by police officers about the Ombudsman's actions, that is a big step forward, that is the Government saying this is very, very important, it is not dealt with as in these letters here, on an ad hoc basis, someone will be appointed, it is something very formal and something very rigid that people can have confidence in, that will actively look at what the Ombudsman's investigators have done. I think that is a big step forward and it will be a big statement if that is done by the Government. Mr Montgomery: I have to say it is not our view that every action of the Ombudsman's Office should be overseen by someone else; what we are looking for here is a mechanism whereby if an officer is unhappy about the manner in which he has been dealt with he has someone to refer to. The difficulty exists at this moment in time in that he can refer it to the Secretary of State, but inevitably he refers it back to the Ombudsman's Office again, and we just find that an unsatisfactory method of organisation. Q130 Chairman: I want to be sure I have understood this - sorry, Mr Beggs. The Secretary of State gave an undertaking that he would on an ad hoc basis appoint somebody; there have been complaints to him and he has not appointed anybody on an ad hoc basis to review the Ombudsman's decision, is that the case? Chief Superintendent Wilson: It has been referred back to the Ombudsman. Q131 Chairman: It may be referred back first for the facts or whatever, but if that complaint is still extant - and there are some that are still outstanding? Mr Montgomery: Yes. Chief Superintendent Wilson: As far as we are aware, yes. Q132 Chairman: And the Secretary of State has not appointed anybody to look at them. Mr Spence: No, they are referred back to the Ombudsman. Q133 Chairman: I understand why it gets referred back first, that if you like is a procedural matter, but what you are actually saying to us is that the Secretary of State is in breach of that obligation. Chief Superintendent Wilson: The Secretary of State certainly has not as yet appointed anyone to review it. Q134 Chairman: How long have any such complaints been outstanding? Can you give me an example - not a name - of a police officer who was dissatisfied when the appeal went to the Secretary of State, and what has happened since? Are we talking weeks, are we talking months or are we talking years? Mr Spence: We are referring to months, and what normally would happen is that inevitably that complaint will be returned to the Ombudsman's Office for investigation, so in actual fact the Northern Ireland Office which should be the ultimate overseer of that complaint against an investigator from the Police Ombudsman's Office is passing that responsibility back to the Ombudsman herself. Q135 Chairman: That is what I am trying to get at. If the Secretary of State's first reaction is to pass it back to the Ombudsman, saying "I have had this complaint, please check it and give me your views", that is totally reasonable, that is not passing it back, that is filtering it through. If that complaint after that is still outstanding, that is the moment when you tell me the Secretary of State should appoint somebody to review it. Mr Spence: Yes. Q136 Chairman: How long have we been waiting for that to happen in any specific case? Mr Spence: It has not happened to date in any of the cases that we are aware of. Q137 Chairman: How many cases are there roughly? Are we talking about four or five or ten or twelve? Mr Montgomery: Somewhere in that region. Mr Spence: We are talking about a smaller number. Q138 Six months? Mr Montgomery: About six cases are involved. Q139 Chairman: I am trying to do this as neutrally as I can, because if what you are saying is right, you have got a point. What is the longest period that a complaint has been outstanding from a police officer to the Secretary of State in which, although it may have been referred to the Office - and I think we might have a difference of opinion but as a check-back that is fine - the Secretary of State has not appointed someone to oversee it or review it? Mr Montgomery: I am aware of one that has been running for the best part of two years. Q140 Chairman: Two years, that is what I want to know, and there has been nobody appointed by the Secretary of State to review it. Mr Montgomery: Certainly not that I am aware of. Q141 Chairman: And it clearly has been into the Ombudsman's Office and back out again. Thank you. Mr Spence: Can I say one other thing, chairman, if I may? One of the reasons why there is such a small number of complaints ultimately to the Secretary of State is because the members have no faith in that system and they believe that it will simply bounce from the Secretary of State back to the Ombudsman's Office so there is no point in complaining in the first place. Q142 Chairman: The Committee has got that point, I am just trying to differentiate between checking back - which is a perfectly reasonable thing for the Northern Ireland Office to do - and failing to appoint somebody, which you tell me the Secretary of State undertook to do. Mr Spence: Yes. Chairman: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Beggs. Q143 Mr Beggs: The Ombudsman has explained to us that there are various bodies which have a role in holding her to account about aspects of her work, and the Northern Ireland Office has indicated that the Department could consider an investigation in any maladministration by the Ombudsman by an independent person. Does this not all add up to sufficient accountability given the need to guard the Ombudsman's operational independence? Do you accept that any person appointed by the Department to investigate potential maladministration would fulfil your requirement for reasonable independent oversight? Mr Montgomery: As long as that was considered as part of their remit, that we would have a point to refer to, we do not have a particularly narrow view of how this should be done. If they want to appoint two people or three people who ultimately are responsible for the Ombudsman's Office that is fine by us, we are not stuck in any one particular position as to how this should be done. Q144 Mr Beggs: Finally a question, chairman, to the Federation. Would you explain to the Committee how your idea of an Office of Police Complaints would help strengthen accountability, or might the addition of yet another body in a rather crowded field not simply complicate arrangements to deal effectively with complaints about the police? Mr Montgomery: The manner in which we addressed this was we were told we could not have an Ombudsman who was overseeing an Ombudsman, so it was our suggestion if you perhaps gave it a different name and it was no longer called the Ombudsman, the Ombudsperson responsible for Northern Ireland could then look at that position. Q145 Chairman: I am sorry to labour this point, but I want to be quite clear. You acknowledge that any appeal to the Secretary of State by a dissatisfied officer would be about by maladministration by the Ombudsman's department. Chief Superintendent Wilson: That would be the only grounds of complaint for an oversight body to look at. If there was something else in that, if there was a criminal act or something ... Q146 Chairman: There is a world of difference between the Ombudsman not doing her job or the administration in her office not doing their job and somebody disagreeing with her opinion, honestly held. My understanding, having looked at the memorandum from the Northern Ireland Office, is that this business of an appeal - if one wants to use that word - is about the question of any maladministration, in other words the Ombudsman's Office did not do what they should have done according to their own statutes and their own procedures, they failed to do something; not simply that the opinion of the Ombudsman about blame was something that you disagreed with. Chief Superintendent Wilson: No, it is about maladministration, it is not about disagreeing. Q147 Chairman: We must get this right. This complaint that is two years old is about maladministration in the Ombudsman's Office? Mr Montgomery: It concerns the manner in which a complaint was dealt with. Q148 Chairman: That does not answer the question. Is it the conclusion the Ombudsman came to, or is it the fact that in carrying out her investigation she did not do what the statute or her rules says she should have done? Mr Montgomery: That is right. Q149 Chairman: It is maladministration. Mr Montgomery: Yes, it is the manner in which the investigation of this particular complaint was carried out. Q150 Chairman: In that case the Northern Ireland Office says that today, up to date, they have not considered it necessary to invoke this arrangement, which means they do not consider it is maladministration. Have they so informed you? Mr Montgomery: No. Q151 Chairman: They have not? Mr Montgomery: No. Q152 Chairman: Okay. I am just trying to get at the facts, I am not coming to any view here, the Committee will come to a view when it has heard both sides of the argument. I want to be clear that you are not asking for a referee to referee the referee's decision. Mr Montgomery: No, we are not. Chairman: Thank you. Reverend Martin Smith. Q153 Reverend Smyth: I think I have come to an understanding that both sets do not actually have great confidence in the survey carried out by the Ombudsman. Can I ask, particularly the Federation, if you have supplied us with your expert's view, how can we then rely on the results of the survey which are flawed? Mr Montgomery: I think it is going to be very difficult to rely on those results. We asked for the survey in the first place, we were to be consulted before the actual questionnaire went out, you will have read the comments that were made and the manner in which that survey was conducted, without us having sight of it at all. The manner in which the first report was produced was completely erroneous - maybe to a statistician it made a lot of sense, but I have to say that to the rest of us unfortunately it did not because it did not give a true reflection of those officers who had been in contact with the Ombudsman's Office at all. I think it is really time that there was a proper survey done; that one there - and it will remain so - is just totally unreliable. Q154 Reverend Smyth: Would you say that your understanding is affected by the fact, for example - and this is to both sets of witnesses - that 43 per cent of police officers think that members of the PSNI should be able to complain to the Ombudsman about the conduct of colleagues rather than their own line manager. What are your views of this suggestion as has come out of the survey? Mr Montgomery: We have a number of options within the service for people who are unhappy, perhaps, with some of the decisions that management or indeed their supervisors have made, and that is provided for within the service. I think the Ombudsman's Office may consider she has enough work to do without having to refer to every internal dispute. As you know, within any large organisation you are going to find that there will be personality clashes or whatever and to open that door - it is a matter for the Ombudsman's Office but I can understand that it may well lead to a very heavy workload for her. Q155 Reverend Smyth: Some of us, of course, are a little bit concerned about the whole concept of whistleblowers and how, when they come out, they then become the victims rather than people listening to what they say. Can I ask the Superintendents' Association have you any view? Chief Superintendent Wilson: I cannot remember the actual question itself in the survey so there may be a question mark about the way it was phrased to get the result that came out, but there is a difficulty and in Northern Ireland there is a particularly litigious culture where people are quick to go to the courts to have judicial reviews. The danger of this situation would be that where there is a dispute with line management or whatever, that that becomes something referred to the Ombudsman which should not be, it should be dealt with as a management issue within the organisation. So I can see where it would be hijacked and therefore if there was anything like that introduced it would have to be very, very tightly framed. Mr Montgomery: I would just make one point in that, internally anyway within our IIB branch, you can make complaints to them if you are not happy with the manner in which any officer has behaved, so internally that is more than well-provided for. Q156 Reverend Smyth: On the other hand, something like 48 per cent of police officers could be in contact with the Ombudsman's Office to express satisfaction with the way in which they have been dealt with during an investigation. Can you share with us, what are the main reasons for the dissatisfaction and what is your organisation doing in conjunction with the Ombudsman and the PSNI management to address these problems? Mr Spence: If I can answer that question, chairman, the main reason is that officers believe that the Ombudsman's Office is not even-handed and impartial in the way in which they deal with complaints against the police. Officers believe that investigators from that Office are more likely to believe the complainant every time than they are to believe what the police officer has to say. That obviously has a detrimental effect on policing in Northern Ireland. We are very concerned about the fact that some police officers have indicated to us that they feel that one arm is tied behind their back and that they are overly concerned about making a genuine procedural mistake, in which case the Ombudsman's Office may wield the big stick. They are genuinely worried, those are real concerns, it is a big concern to us. To address the problem we have raised this issue with the Chief Constable, we have raised this issue with the Ombudsman herself and we have raised this issue on many, many occasions with the Northern Ireland Office including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Security Minister. These are real problems for us. Chief Superintendent Wilson: Indeed, Mr Chairman, my colleague Irwin did outline the sort of things that we have got involved in like working parties. The Ombudsman has come to the joint conference of the Superintendents' Association and addressed them and we have had the Ombudsman at our last executive meeting to talk about things, so there is that liaison and protocols have been drawn up to address various situations. So we are trying to form some form of strategic alliance together to move things forward, but in all that it just takes one particular instance where an officer feels that they are not dealt with right, and that wrecks confidence. Q157 Reverend Smyth: One understands that, but what I cannot fully understand is, is it not part of a police mentality even to probe like that when you are investigating a case? I am thinking of a citizen who quite often may be asked questions that nearly make him believe that he is the guilty one. Mr Montgomery: That is fair enough. Chairman: Deny it. Mr Stephen Pound. Mr Pound: I have an additional one to that, just following up the point that Reverend Martin Smyth has made, particularly to you Mr Spence or Mr Montgomery; you very kindly sent us details of the case of Detective Constable Greer and Sergeant Dougan. Chairman: Saved by the bell. I am sorry about this. We will adjourn for 15 minutes if there is one vote or a little longer if there are two; I am very sorry I cannot tell you which, but if you would stay relatively close. The Committee suspended from 15.37 pm to 16.02 pm for a division in the House. Chairman: Gentleman, the possible good news is that there may be no more, but on the other hand there may be one at nine minutes past four. This is all very disturbing and I am sorry that the train of thought is getting broken all the time. Mr Pound, you were asking a question. Q158 Mr Pound: Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. I was referring to the case of Detective Constable Greer and Sergeant Dougan, a case which is included in the bundle that you submitted earlier on. The question that I wanted to ask, particularly in view of Mr Spence's comments earlier on, was do you feel that the actions of Inspector Middleditch, who investigated the case - and I have to say that during the course of which investigation any person reading the statement would conclude that Detective Constable Greer was humiliated and was treated, I think abominably would not be too strong a word - do you think that those actions arose because of the presence of the Ombudsman, do you think there was any contributing factor? I think that in view of your earlier comments it is very important that we actually get this on the record. Mr Spence: Clearly, Inspector Middleditch had attempted to show compassion to the officer concerned on that particular evening. It was a horrendous set of circumstances: the police officer concerned of course found the prisoner hanging in the cell and it was most regrettable the way the entire issue was handled. The senior investigating officer dealt with it in a very oppressive manner and I think it is clear that Inspector Middleditch did do her very best under the circumstances, but obviously felt under some pressure, and I do subscribe to the fact that that pressure came to bear and she was conducting her business in the way in which she did because she was under some pressure. Q159 Mr Pound: Inspector Middleditch was either on secondment from the MPS or was directly transferred to investigate this particular case. Do you know which one it was? Mr Spence: She was, I understand, transferred to the Ombudsman's Office and had been previously dealing with similar incidents in London as a serving officer. Q160 Mr Pound: You think that had this been an IIB investigation it would have been handled differently. Mr Spence: I am in absolutely no doubt, and even when one looks at the concluding statements and comments from the judge who dealt with this civil action, the judge in the particular case said that the superintendent in charge made no attempt to treat either the sergeant concerned or Detective Constable Greer with dignity and respect. That goes to the depths of what we are trying to point out, that we have to try and resolve these problems, we have to try and ensure that the Ombudsman's investigators deal with our members in a very compassionate manner when it comes to issues such as this and move forward from here. This was a particularly sad case because a prisoner had, obviously, committed suicide and the officers concerned were treated as suspects, as if they had been engaged in murdering him. Q161 Mr Pound: I am sorry to reiterate the point, but do you feel that this was part of the culture within the Ombudsman's Office? Mr Spence: Yes. Mr Pound: Thank you. Q162 Mr Clarke: Communication between PSNI and the Ombudsman has not perhaps been at its best, so much so that the Ombudsman requested and, with the agreement of the Chief Constable, managed to undertake a review of communications between the two bodies, and officers from the police's strategic command structure discussed and came up with a number of recommendations. What involvement did your organisations have with that review of communications between the two bodies? Were you involved? Mr Spence: The Chief Constable at the time of setting up that communication channel did not engage with us in participating in that communication. The situation, as I pointed out earlier, is such that as a staff association we believed it was important to open up channels of communication, both with the Ombudsman herself and, indeed, senior members of her staff and, as has already been alluded to, the Ombudsman and her deputy would attend our Constitution, Legislation and Discipline meetings, which are bi-monthly, so we ourselves have instigated a lot of moves. Certainly, the Chief Constable did not engage us in those lines of communication in the early days. Chief Superintendent Wilson: On behalf of the Superintendents' Association, we became aware of the review by members of strategic command when it was really too late to contribute to it, so there was a hiccup in that way. I would like to make the point that the protocols and the liaisons we are now having with the Ombudsman's Office have improved things considerably and over the period the whole thing has improved to a great degree. Hopefully it will get better as the time goes on. Mr Montgomery: There is just one point that I would like to make. The manner in which we are engaging with the Ombudsman's office, at our annual conference this year she had the opportunity to address all of our Federation representatives and take questions from the floor. So we have moved on in that respect as well, that would not have happened a number of years ago. Q163 Mr Clarke: That is good to hear and it perhaps answers one of my further questions, but another outcome of that review is the recommendation that staff from both organisations, from the police and the Ombudsman's Office, spend time on short term attachment to other organisations, yet we know to date there have only been a series of staff visits and not real attachments. Do you have any comment to make on the fact that that recommendation has not really been implemented? Do you support such short term attachments to other organisations and do you have any comments as to why, so far, we have been unsuccessful in making that recommendation become a reality? Mr Montgomery: From our perspective we would consider it a good idea that serving officers have an opportunity to work within the Ombudsman's Office. I do not know why that has not been the case, but I am aware of some of our officers who have retired who now work there. Personally speaking, I think it would be good idea if people were to have the opportunity, maybe to serve in IIB if you are from the Ombudsman's Office or whatever, for a period of time, and vice versa. Chief Superintendent Wilson: It is an important issue and it is good for the career development of the officer, but it also means that the Ombudsman's staff can learn more about our organisation through those attachments, and also when our people come back into PSNI they can then spread word about what is going on and get more understanding. So it would be a very positive thing. Q164 Mr Clarke: We also noticed from the submission notes that, to date, there have been no secondments from PSNI to the Ombudsman's Office. Would you welcome secondments? Mr Montgomery: We have no difficulty. As I say, I think it is a good idea. Q165 Mr Clarke: Do you perceive any potential conflict of interest in that, or do you think that could be managed? Mr Montgomery: Not really, I do not perceive any. Chief Superintendent Wilson: The only negative side may be a public perception that PSNI officers are in the Ombudsman's Office and therefore the independence is compromised in that way, so it would need to be handled from a public expectation and perception point of view, but other than that we would have no reservations. Q166 Chairman: Just a very short supplementary, do you think that the main lack of confidence is a lack of confidence of the public or a lack of confidence of the PSNI? Chief Superintendent Wilson: The Ombudsman has had a very positive effect on public confidence in policing and that is to the betterment of all people, including the police, but I think there is a big issue about the confidence of police officers in their dealings with the Ombudsman, and that needs to be addressed by us all probably. Chairman: Thank you. Mr Mark Tami. Q167 Mark Tami: I understand that your organisations have been involved with the Ombudsman and the management of the PSNI to come up with a way of dealing with complaints that will involve informal resolution, mediation. How is that going and are you really satisfied with that process? Chief Superintendent Wilson: Informal resolution is something that has always happened with complaints and we see it as a very positive way, it is far better if something can be resolved amicably to some degree by all the parties involved rather than going to formal, lengthy investigations, so we would see that as a very positive thing. Mediation is slightly different and we have some reservations about the mediation, but we feel it is a good way of resolving things and finding a better way forward. Q168 Mark Tami: Could you elaborate a bit? You said you have some reservations, what would they be and how would you see the role of the Ombudsman, would you like a freer role within that or not? Chief Superintendent Wilson: I think it is something that needs to have a set of protocols agreed to it so that officers, when they are involved in these investigations, feel that they have some protection if they get into a mediation situation and that their human rights will be protected and that. It is certainly something that can be progressed. Mr Montgomery: I would add our view to that. I would agree entirely with what Wesley has said and, as well as that, obviously, if you can have the complaint resolved at a very early stage there is not all the grief that is caused by going ahead, carrying it on for months and months and months, with people feeling distraught about that and ending up off sick maybe, with stress or whatever. So anything that can deal with a complaint in a short time, that is the way to go. Q169 Mark Tami: So you see that as a way of improving relations between yourself and the Ombudsman. Chief Superintendent Wilson: Yes, it is, but again there are a lot of things that are subject to rumour and misrepresentation. We have heard that if you have three complaints made against you and a fourth complaint comes in, then it cannot be informally resolved, it is like an unwritten rule in the Ombudsman's Office that that cannot go to informal resolution because you have three previous complaints. I do not know if that is true or not, but those are the sorts of rumours that get about, they need to be addressed and there needs to be better communication so that everybody understands those things. Mr Montgomery: Again, it is a matter that if we have proper protocols in place then all of this then can be put in place as to how it is going to operate, and every side has an input as to how they see it, so that somewhere in the middle we can arrive at some conclusion that everybody can sign up to. Q170 Mark Tami: What do you think about the Ombudsman's role in looking at police policies and procedures? Chief Superintendent Wilson: This might be more of a personal view than the view of the Superintendents' Association, but the independence of the Chief Constable in doing policing, I think, is a paramount tenet of British policing and many police forces across the world. If the Ombudsman then starts to look at policy and procedure that might start to water down that independence of the Chief Constable in all operational matters. So I have some concerns about it in that way. Q171 Mark Tami: Is that the view of you all? Mr Montgomery: You are looking at things through the rose-tinted glasses of hindsight, and perhaps the decisions that are made on the ground, when you have weeks and months to look at how that decision was made, it may have to be made on the hoof so to speak, and it is very difficult for the officer concerned who may have made that decision with the best of intentions to have this looked at for weeks. Q172 Chairman: That is not policies and procedures, that is a specific event where someone has to make a decision. I think Mr Tami's question is about the new role of the Ombudsman. Mr Montgomery: It could be a question of how you interpret that particular procedure, that is the point I am trying to make. Q173 Mark Tami: If I could narrow it down a bit, what type of procedures and policies do you think the Ombudsman should be looking at? Chief Superintendent Wilson: One of the things the Ombudsman does is she can advise the Chief Constable after an investigation is concluded under Regulation 20, as it is known. Regulation 20 will set out things that she has found which the police need to address, so the Chief Constable will look at those items and some of those might be procedural or policy matters that have come out of the investigation. So the chief officers will look at that and, after a period of consultation, will decide whether we need to change policies. So there is an indirect way that policies and procedures are looked at arising from complaints in that way, which is a good thing. The independence of the Chief Constable in making operational decisions and deciding operational policies I think is paramount. Q174 Mark Tami: So you see a rather narrow role. Chief Superintendent Wilson: Very much so. Q175 Chairman: The very good news is that there are no more votes today. Your Federation's submission, Mr Montgomery, said that "to date very few cases heard in the courts or at internal misconduct hearings have actually resulted in a successful prosecution" and you said "There is a perception that the ... Ombudsman places pressure upon the DPP and IIB to advance cases, even though there is little prospect of success." The evidence that we have is that from 2000 to 2003 the Ombudsman referred 374 cases to the DPP and 346 of those recommended no prosecution; it does not actually tie in with what you have alleged, does it? Mr Montgomery: We are going back again to the perceptions of people that have been before the courts, we would have felt as an organisation that most of those officers had no case to answer. Again, we are talking about perceptions within Northern Ireland. Q176 Chairman: Are you doing something then to persuade your members that their perception is wrong, if there are only 28 cases out of nearly 400 that the Ombudsman has recommended for prosecution? I am not taking one side or the other in this, but the figures do not actually bear out what you say. Mr Montgomery: Undoubtedly, the figures do not; as I say, we have gone through the various protocols and things that we are working through with the Ombudsman's Office and somewhere along the line we will have reached the conclusion to all of those, but that is some way off. Q177 Chairman: What evidence do you have for the perception that the Ombudsman places pressure on the DPP? It would seem to be the other way round. Mr Spence: If you look at the case of McLeer, which has been alluded to in our report - that is the case of Norman McLeer and Stephen John Nicholl - in that particular case the magistrate made certain comments which were a matter of public record, and he stated in their particular case that he came to the conclusion that the investigators involved in that case had a distinct animus towards the defendants, i.e. the two police officers. That is a matter of public record and that is the type of comment that causes grave concern to our members, that if they make a genuine procedural mistake the Ombudsman will be out to nail them. That is a perception on their part. There are comments such as this and indeed in the other case that was alluded to earlier in relation to Dougan and Greer, where the judge made certain comments as well. Q178 Chairman: Excuse me, this is another matter from your allegation - which is a serious one - that the Ombudsman places pressure on the DPP, not that investigations have been carried out in a way that may not be entirely satisfactory, which is the view of the magistrate, but the Ombudsman whose whole raison d'etre is to be independent has placed pressure on the DPP. What evidence have you got for that? Mr Spence: The evidence comes from the perceptions. Q179 Chairman: Perceptions are not evidence. I accept that you say that that is the perception of your members. Mr Spence: Yes. Q180 Chairman: What evidence have you got to back that perception up? Mr Spence: Of course, there will never be any specific, detailed written evidence because we do not have sight of any documentation that goes from the Ombudsman's Office to the Director of Public Prosecutions. These figures that you have quoted to us today are news to me personally and I was not aware of those figures until today. We do not get sight of what the DPP receives from the Ombudsman's office, whether by way of prosecution or recommendations for no prosecution, we do not get sight of that. Mr Montgomery: Perhaps if these figures were more widely available the perception would not exist. Chairman: Then perhaps one of the services we can provide to you all is to make them more widely available. I did not know that they were not available to you. Mr Adrian Bailey. Q181 Mr Bailey: Thanks, Chairman. This is to the Federation. You instance in section 3 of your submission that 42 per cent of complaints were closed in 2002-2003 because of "non-co-operation" on the part of complainants with the Ombudsman. You indicate that this means the Ombudsman does not enjoy public support and say that "A body independent of police should be able to substantially reduce non-co-operation figures." Do you accept that the figure of 42 per cent was an improvement over the figure of 53 per cent in 2001-2002 and that the improvement may indicate at least some increase in complainant confidence in the Ombudsman? Mr Montgomery: Obviously, we have to accept the statistics, we cannot argue with those, if there has been a drop we cannot argue with that. Q182 Mr Bailey: The Ombudsman is researching why there should be a significant level of non-co-operation. Her research is not yet finished but she shared some reasons with us which might cause a complainant to fail to carry through with a complaint, including a reluctance to take a medical examination, or to have third parties questioned as potential witnesses. Do you accept that the causes of a complainant's non-co-operation are likely to be quite complex and may have little directly to do with lack of confidence in the Ombudsman, and that the approach being adopted by the Ombudsman to research these issues is sensible and constructive? Mr Montgomery: I know from my own experience there can be a myriad reasons why someone would withdrew a complaint; some people just do not want to pursue it any more, think it is not going anywhere or whatever. Q183 Mr Bailey: If that is so, then using the argument that the fact that 42 per cent of people close the complaint is therefore an indication of a lack of confidence, those two comments do not necessarily stack up. If there are all sorts of legitimate reasons or complex reasons why that is the case, which may have nothing to do with their confidence in the procedure, then that argument surely is not valid? Mr Montgomery: You need to see a breakdown of those figures to know exactly why those complaints were withdrawn. Q184 Mr Bailey: This comes back to doing the research, does it not, so would you accept that that is a reasonable way forward? Mr Montgomery: To do the research? Yes, we would accept that is a reasonable way forward. Q185 Chairman: Gentlemen, that comes to the end of the evidence session. Thank you for being as frank as you have. If I may just finish up with a thought or two, it is said so many times that perception is everything in Northern Ireland and I have known that from long experience of affairs in that troubled part of the United Kingdom. We hear what you say about your legitimate worries; you have very fairly acknowledged that most of those are worries from the past and I hope - and I have said exactly the same to the Ombudsman - that you will consider it part of your duty to try and allay unwarranted suspicions so that a system, of which you approve in principle, which has had quite a difficult birth gets on and is able to serve your officers, the police service, the Ombudsman and the general public in increasing confidence, because it is confidence in your new service that everybody is seeking to achieve in their various ways. If we all work positively towards that, with less of a them and us - and I do not address this at you, I address it at all concerned and I have no doubt my colleagues and I will be reporting on this aspect of this matter - then I think Northern Ireland will be a better place and the people will be better served by their police force. Thank you very much for your evidence. Chief Superintendent Wilson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Chairman: A short pause, please, while we change the cast as quickly as possible. Witnesses: Mr Ian Pearson, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Nick Perry, Head of Security and Policing Directorate, Mr Ken Lindsay, Head of Policing Division, and Mr David Kyle, Police Division, Northern Ireland Office, examined. Q186 Chairman: Good afternoon. We have been hearing evidence from all sides about the functions of the Ombudsman's Office. It will not surprise you to know there are various nuances of views about how it is all working. How do you see it? The first two aims the government has set out for the Ombudsman are that the public and the police should both have confidence in the complaints system. Do you think this has been achieved yet? What is your evidence which tells you either that it has or that it has some way to go? Mr Pearson: Firstly, thanks very much for inviting me to meet with the Committee. Let me say, before answering your question directly, something by way of context which I am sure you are probably familiar with anyway. I think it is important to recognise that, at the time of its establishment, the Police Ombudsman's Office was one of the first anywhere to provide a completely independent civilian arrangement for handling and investigating complaints against the police. It was a new area of work and we need to bear in mind all our comments in that context. The fact that it was up and running so quickly is a tribute to the staff there. With regard directly to public confidence, you will probably be aware of some of the figures. Certainly the surveys that have been done indicate a high level of public recognition of the Ombudsman's Office. Something in the region of 85 per cent of people, it is estimated in Northern Ireland, are aware of the Office and there is growing public confidence in its impartiality going up from 61 per cent to 76 per cent. I do however recognise that some police officers do have concerns about the role and operation of the Ombudsman's Office and no doubt they have been bringing those to your attention in previous sessions. They have to get on with it and work together with the Ombudsman's Office. I am pleased that a working group has been established to look at issues of mutual concern and I really think the way forward is for that working group to be allowed to do its work and for everyone to go into it with an open, positive frame of mind. Q187 Chairman: The Institute of Conflict Research has concluded that there is a need to promote greater awareness among young people of the Ombudsman's work. Do you think the Ombudsman is doing enough in that regard, is there more you could do to help or is there more she should be doing? Mr Pearson: I think the Ombudsman has been doing quite a lot of work in this regard. The most recent annual report to March 2004 has a section on working with young people. From memory, it says there have been visits with more than 70 community groups and organisations. Staff are visiting schools across the province and I think there is an active level of engagement. Obviously, the Ombudsman's Office is independent and it is up to Nula to decide how much time and resource to devote to this area but certainly from what I see they are doing quite a lot to work with young people. Q188 Chairman: Again, according to the Ombudsman's surveys, only 16 per cent of respondents who had experienced unacceptable behaviour by the police said they had complained about it. 55 per cent either thought nothing would be done if they did complain or they would not be taken seriously. Are you concerned about these figures? Mr Pearson: I understand the argument that some people make when they say that it is not worthwhile complaining because our complaints will not be taken seriously, but I want to assure people that complaints are taken seriously when they are made. The fact that some 3,000 complaints a year are made and investigated indicates the seriousness with which the Ombudsman's Office performs its duties. Q189 Chairman: If 84 per cent think it is not worthwhile, is that not a matter for concern? Mr Pearson: I do agree it is a matter for concern and that is why I think it is important that we do more to increase public perception of the Ombudsman's Office, the Ombudsman's role, and give assurance to the public that any complaints against the police will be fully and properly investigated. I am not aware how that figure would compare with a figure for England or Wales, for instance, but clearly if people have complaints about the police they should make them through the appropriate complaints mechanisms. Q190 Chairman: We have just heard from the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation of Northern Ireland and we were talking to them about the system whereby, if a police officer is dissatisfied with the way his or her complaint has been handled, there is an informal mechanism which the Secretary of State has accepted whereby it is referred to him and if there is any question of any maladministration by the Ombudsman's Office somebody will be appointed on an ad hoc basis to look at that allegation. We have also heard in a Northern Ireland Office memorandum that no such case has yet come up; whereas the police officers we spoke to representing those associations said that there were a number of cases where a police officer had expressed dissatisfaction and all that had happened within the NIO was that it was referred back to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then stood by what they did, which is what you would expect, and nothing further has happened. One allegation was that there was a case that was maybe two years old. You may not know the answer to this question now but it is important, is it not, that if the Secretary of State has given an undertaking it is kept and it is a little surprising, in view of what those officers said, that this situation has not so far arisen? Mr Pearson: As far as I am aware, there are no outstanding complaints from police officers with regard to maladministration that have been referred to the Secretary of State. Five complaints over the total period of the Ombudsman's Office's to date relating to maladministration have been received by the Secretary of State and all were indeed referred to the Ombudsman for her comments and explanation. The explanations that we received from her seemed satisfactory to us. Those responses were then forwarded to the complainants and no further representations were received back to us. As far as we believe, those maladministration cases have been dealt with satisfactorily. Q191 Chairman: I can see where there might be a misunderstanding here as to the status of these things. If a police officer says, "I was not fairly treated. My case was not properly handled" and appeals to the Secretary of State, I fully understand that the Secretary of State will want to refer that back to the Ombudsman in the first instance in order to make sure that there has not been a factual error or a page missing from something or whatever. Having got it back again, is it enough for the Secretary of State simply to say, "I have checked with the Ombudsman and it is okay"? Do you think that that carries out the undertaking? This is the Ombudsman repeating what the Ombudsman has already said to the police officer. In what way does the Secretary of State's office or maybe you on his behalf look at this and assure yourselves that you are in full agreement with the Ombudsman before so informing the police officer? Otherwise, I can see them saying, "There is no point in doing this because it just goes back and of course she will say what she said before." Mr Pearson: I fully understand the point you are making and I do not think it is the case that something simply gets copied to the complainant in the end. It is right in any complaints procedure that you refer the matter to the organisation that is being complained about and ask for an explanation. After that, you have to take a view. It is the role of the Secretary of State or the responsible minister at the time to take a view on whether the explanation you have received from the Ombudsman is sufficient or whether it requires future questions and comments. I have not had any of these maladministration cases referred to me but that is pretty much the way that I would do it and it is my understanding of how the procedure works. Q192 Chairman: You say you have had none referred to you. Is this because the Secretary of State takes them himself? Do allow one of your officials to answer if you do not know. It is quite reasonable if you do not know as you have not had any. Mr Perry: No ministerial representations have been received since the Minister took up office. Q193 Chairman: That is why it is very fair to ask you because you were there before he was. Mr Pearson: I would imagine it would be the security minister who would look at these. Q194 Chairman: It is Mr Pearson's predecessors, not the Secretary of State, who handle this? Is that what you are saying? Mr Kyle: They are looked at at official level. Unless there was some evidence, they would not normally go up to the minister for final decision. Mr Pearson: In that case, I do not think it is satisfactory. Q195 Chairman: I am very glad to hear you say that because if the Secretary of State gave the undertaking that he would look at things that means he will or one of his ministers. Are you saying that within the Northern Ireland Office none of these cases has been referred to ministers? Mr Kyle: On maladministration complaints, no. We get a reply from the Ombudsman to be considered at official level. Mr Pearson: That is the first time this has been brought to my attention. I do not regard it as satisfactory and I do not think we are dealing with a sufficiently large number of complaints that these things cannot be looked at by ministers and a submission and advice be received from officials by us and considered properly. I will certainly undertake to do that while I am Security Minister. Chairman: I am pleased and gratified that you have said this and I think so too will be the police officers concerned, because if they simply feel - this is no discredit to officials, but sometimes someone has to take a policy decision about these matters - it is being batted back to the Ombudsman and it comes back again the same as it was before, I agree with you. I will not flog the point. We have made the point. Q196 Reverend Smyth: I would just make the point that the Minister did honestly answer the question but it was repeated that no minister came back. Can I ask the officials: did they go back to the police officers concerned and respond accordingly? Mr Kyle: Yes. There are no outstanding replies due to any police officer. Q197 Reverend Smyth: The gestation period for the Office was from October 1999. The Ombudsman was put in place at that time but the responsibilities were designated to her in April 2000 and then it was November 2000 before the legislation was passed. Since that time, there seem to have been changes. Evidence to us suggests that there have been some 15 or so changes in the legislation. Does this suggest that the original legislation was deeply flawed, especially in the light of questions and requests from the Ombudsman herself that there might be changes and of course the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission? Mr Pearson: I do not recognise the figure of 15 legislative changes and I would be very interested to hear some of the detail about how those have come about. I think the government substantially got it right in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. There have been a few legislative changes since then. The Police Act 2000 introduced the Ombudsman's power to report on police practices and policies and the Police Act 2003 widened powers to investigate complaints against designated support staff, but that is it in terms of legislative changes as far as I am aware. A lot of those changes were pattern driven over a period of time so I do not recognise the figure of 15 that has been quoted. Q198 Reverend Smyth: As I understand it from the Ombudsman's Office there has been a request that her powers of mediation be strengthened and she considers that this will require further legislation. Will the government be supporting this request? Mr Pearson: I understand that the Ombudsman has produced alternative mediation proposals and I can quite understand why she wants to do this. It is important that any alternative mediation arrangements and new conciliation proposals have the agreement of all parties, but we are certainly considering any legislation that will be required to implement these. If all parties are agreed that this is a sensible way forward, this is something that we would like to facilitate as a government. As always, these will be subject to allocation of parliamentary time. Q199 Reverend Smyth: I understand the answer that has been given. The powers are already there, as I understand it. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 changes can be made. Specifically, the Secretary of State was to consult with the Ombudsman on setting long term policing objectives and the chief constable, on the other hand, was to do likewise on the formulation of codes of practice. It is in the Ombudsman's own evidence that there have been some 15 legislative changes to which her office has been subject during the three years of its existence, so it would be helpful for you to have a look at that. Mr Pearson: I understand the point you are making. There is a difference between legislative changes affecting the Ombudsman's Office and legislative changes affecting the police. Q200 Mr Clarke: Minister, you have already been very helpful to the Committee, clearing up some of the ad hoc arrangements as to how some of these maladministration claims are answered. I wonder if I could take you back in time a little bit to the appointment of Mrs O'Loan. That appointment took place in October 1999 and she took up her designated responsibilities in April 2000. The Office was established on 6 November 2000 and yet it was not until May 2001 that the government issued formal guidance as to how the Ombudsman should operate. There has always been some confusion as to how the Ombudsman should operate, what the arrangements are between various different bodies. Do you not think it is unusual that we should appoint the Ombudsman, that the Ombudsman should be up and running for a period of five months before the government issues the guidance to the Ombudsman and to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable about how they should operate? Mr Pearson: I am tempted to say that it did not happen on my watch. Q201 Chairman: That is why you can answer so freely. Mr Pearson: I appreciate the guidance may not have been in place in November, but I understand that all the necessary powers were. I am not aware of any difficulties that arose because of administrative delay but clearly obviously it would have been preferable if the guidance had been there in a more timely manner. Q202 Mr Clarke: Would it be fair to say we have probably identified one difficulty this afternoon and that is that, in the case of who polices or who looks at complaints against the Ombudsman, the system perhaps was not as robust as it should be? Would that be fair comment? Mr Pearson: Can you say that again and I will tell you whether I agree with you. Q203 Mr Clarke: I believe that some of the confusion as to why judgments were not released quicker, or why the police service itself felt that officers who had complained about maladministration were not being given the seriousness they should have been, was that nobody understood the system. Here we had a situation where the body responsible for policing the police did not have any guidance itself when it was first set up as to how it should do its job. The Chief Constable, the Policing Board and the Ombudsman were operating without proper guidance and that could have led to the type of error that you have so clearly identified and so courageously acted upon this afternoon. Are there other errors within the operational procedures that could come to light because of that gap between the guidance and the setting up of the Ombudsman's service and the guidance? Mr Pearson: On the latter point, I hope not, but clearly it would have been better if guidance had been available in a more timely way. I fully accept that. Again, the point I made in the introduction is valid. We were creating a completely new body, something that was pretty much unique - that is clearly a contradiction - but certainly we were breaking new ground here. Maybe the fact that the guidance was not there directly on side was partly attributable to that but I am sure that we have learned lessons from it since. Q204 Reverend Smyth: I understand the Minister's point. As I understand it, investigation must come before mediation whereas the Ombudsman believes it would be much better if mediation came before people started getting into these issues. Would it not be wiser to change the legislation and allow mediation to take place rather than investigation or are we saying we must investigate before we can mediate? Mr Pearson: I understand the point made by the Ombudsman and I do have a great deal of sympathy with it. I understand that it is an agreement that has been reached by everyone that we ought to be looking to go down this route. As a government, we will be happy to facilitate the necessary legislation should parliamentary time allow but it will require primary legislation, as I understand it. Q205 Mr Pound: While there are some people who are seeking a diminution of the Ombudsman's role and responsibilities, there are others who are seeking to extend it. One of the pieces of evidence we have received has been a communication from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission who are calling for the role of the Ombudsman to be enlarged in three particular ways. Could I ask you for an opinion, either personal or ex-catheter or whatever is convenient, on the three proposals which are the investigation of complaints against retired police officers, to investigate the British Army when acting in support of the civil power and to place the Ombudsman under duty to investigate allegations of criminal conduct raised against police officers by persons other than members of the public, the obvious example being police officers. Mr Pearson: Retired police officers, the Army and the third one was? Mr Pound: Other police officers. Chairman: Criminal conduct allegations against other police officers. Mr Pound: At the moment you have to be a member of the public. You cannot be a police officer and take a case against another police officer. Q206 Chairman: This is just the view of one body, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Mr Pearson: I believe the title gives it away. This is a Police Ombudsman and the responsibilities of the Police Ombudsman should be to investigate police complaints. I am not persuaded therefore that looking at complaints made against members of the armed forces would be appropriate. There are separate arrangements through the MoD for a completely different complaints procedure. In those circumstances, what it is right is for there to be appropriate protocols where there might be cross over between police and the Army being involved in a particular complaint. Q207 Mr Pound: Do you feel there is any grey area in which the Army may be under temporary operational control of the police, as may happen in an emergency situation? Do you feel that a protocol or the protocol could always apply? Mr Pearson: I am sure I could contemplate cases where complaints might be made that relate to both the Army and to the police jointly. In those circumstances, the Police Ombudsman would investigate the complaint against the police officer or officers and it would be for the Army complaints procedure to deal with the complaints against Army personnel. In those circumstances, it is important that you have good working protocols between the two bodies. We have encouraged the Ombudsman's Office to do that. With regard to the situation of investigations against the police, I am not particularly well sighted on what the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are saying in this respect. Q208 Chairman: What they are saying is quite simple. They are saying a police officer ought to be able to go to the Ombudsman and say that another police officer is behaving in a criminal way and the Ombudsman at the moment cannot receive that information. The argument is that it ought to go up through the line of command of the police but there are two views and I wonder what the government's view is. Mr Pearson: My view is that the police should be investigating allegations of criminal behaviour by members of the police and that will be the sensible, logical thing to do. I have no reason to doubt that they would do that in anything other than a proper, rigorous, effective way. Q209 Chairman: I have just been reminded that anyway they have the power to call in another force to do it. Mr Pearson: That is right. Q210 Mr Pound: For the record, Minister, you are not persuaded by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's three proposals? Mr Pearson: The other proposal is retired police officers? No. I look to officials to tell me some of the detail on this, but there are grounds on which the Police Ombudsman can investigate past complaints where there are issues of grave concern and new evidence has been brought to light. I am not sure whether this would allow an investigation of police officers who have now retired. Mr Perry: Retired officers cannot be compelled to cooperate. Mr Pearson: They can be investigated? Mr Perry: They can be interviewed if they wish to be. They are in the same position as civilians. Q211 Mr Clarke: I took you back in time on my last question and now I want to take you forward and ask your opinion on comments that were made by Dr Maurice Hayes in his report A Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland when he said that the Police Ombudsman should come under the jurisdiction of a general Northern Ireland Assembly Ombudsman, should the Assembly be up and running. Do you have any views as to whether or not that would be favourable or are the government happy that the Police Ombudsman would operate separately from a general body that operated under the auspices of the Assembly? Mr Pearson: What I would like to see is the Assembly back up and running, the end of all paramilitary activity, the devolution of policing to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly making that decision as to whether the Assembly Ombudsman should have a role. While policing remains a reserved matter, we have I believe an effective accountability framework. As you know, the Ombudsman will produce a report through the Secretary of State to Parliament. A lot of the operations of the Ombudsman's Office are scrutinised. Budgets will have to be agreed by government. The Comptroller and Auditor General will look at the accounts and operation of the Ombudsman's Office so there is an accountability framework there at the moment. I do not think while policing is a reserved matter it would be appropriate to have some link in with the Assembly Ombudsman. Q212 Mr Swire: In a response to a parliamentary question to Lady Hermon back in May this year, the Secretary of State was asked how many formal meetings he had had with the Ombudsman to date. Although he said he intended to have a further meeting soon, he said that he had only ever had one. Is a single, formal meeting sufficient, do you believe, to fulfil his responsibilities to the Ombudsman and has he met her formally since May as he indicated he was going to in that answer? Mr Pearson: There are no fixed meetings. The Secretary of State and ministers meet the Ombudsman to discuss matters of interest as necessary. I visited the Office last week and saw at first hand its work and discussed some of its activities with is staff. Through the Management Statement there are provisions for regular meetings at an official level and NIO officials have quarterly meetings with the Chief Executive. Other senior, non-NIO officials will meet with the Ombudsman's staff as necessary as well. There is a level of engagement there, while also recognising that the Office of the Ombudsman is independent from government. Q213 Mr Swire: Can I ask, Minister, since your appointment how many times you have formally met with the Ombudsman? Mr Pearson: I have met with the Ombudsman once formally in terms of going to the Office and some other times as well in and around meetings where we will both have attended. I think it is good practice not just to have meetings for the sake of it but to have meetings for a purpose when there are issues and matters to be discussed. Q214 Mr Swire: You referred to the Management Statement. It is my understanding that the Management Statement was going to be formally reviewed in 2003 as planned, three years after it first appeared. Has this happened? Mr Pearson: It is my understanding that it is being reviewed now. Q215 Chairman: It is not 2003 now. Mr Pearson: I am very well aware of that. Q216 Mr Swire: Is there any reason why it was not reviewed at the time it was planned to be and it is now nearly 2005? Mr Pearson: I do not have any explanation as to why it has not been reviewed before now. I do not see it as being a particularly defective document but no doubt it can be improved on and looked at. I gather that is happening at the moment. Q217 Chairman: Did it just slip or was there a conscious decision not to do it in 2003? Mr Kyle: It just slipped. There is a Treasury template out for the Management Statement now and that is the document we are now looking at with the Ombudsman's Office. Q218 Mr Swire: Was there any pressure from the Ombudsman to look at the Management Statement again before now? Mr Kyle: Not that I am aware of. Mr Perry: The Management Statement has been redesigned by the Treasury bringing together both financial and management issues over the last 12 to 18 months. Q219 Chairman: The Treasury? That is why it has slipped then. All is explained. Mr Pearson: The current one is perfectly adequate if not entirely interesting to read. Q220 Mr Swire: What input do you and your officials have in the setting and monitoring of performance targets for the Police Ombudsman and does the Department have concerns about any aspects of the performance of the Ombudsman? Mr Pearson: At an official level through some of the regular meetings that take place, the setting of performance targets will be discussed and those conversations will be reported back to ministers. Ultimately, however, it is for the Ombudsman's Office as an independent body to set its own targets. Clearly, we will express views if we think targets are not sufficiently stretching or indeed appropriate. I am comfortable with the targets that the Ombudsman's Office has set for itself and, as I keep stressing, it is an independent body and needs to be treated as such. Q221 Mr Swire: Are those targets to which you refer in the public domain and whose decision was it to drop the performance targets from the current annual report to 2003/4 when they had been in the Ombudsman's 2002/3 annual report? Is your Department satisfied that the current format is fully transparent and could not be improved upon? Mr Pearson: The main performance measures are set out in the Management Statement which was agreed by the Secretary of State. I am not aware of the reasons why certain performance information did not appear in the 2003/4 annual report. Mr Perry: I do not think the content of the annual report is a matter for the Ombudsman. Chairman: But you are nevertheless free to comment on it. Q222 Mr Swire: Do you think it would have been more helpful if the performance targets had been continued to be included in a public document which was readily accessible to anyone who was interested? Mr Pearson: Ultimately, this is a matter for decision by the Ombudsman's Office as to what it puts in its report. Having read the report, I believe that it is a very informative document. You however make a point and I will take it away and consider it. Mr Swire: Perhaps in the next Management Statement. Q223 Chairman: Turning to police confidence in the Ombudsman which is not everything but it is a very important part of the perception of how the Office works, in the survey of police attitudes to the Ombudsman and the new complaints system published earlier this year, 48 per cent of police officers who had been in contact with the Ombudsman's Office said that they were dissatisfied with the way they had been dealt with. 37 per cent said the Ombudsman was doing a poor job and 42 per cent thought that the Ombudsman was out to get them. Both the police associations that we saw report that their members do not have confidence in the present arrangements and it is fair to say that, towards the end of our session, they were both careful to point out that that was mostly a thing of the past and they hoped they were putting most of this behind them. What is your view of how the Ombudsman has gone about developing relations with the police and what is your view about the police reactions to the establishment of her Office? Mr Pearson: First and foremost, the role of the Ombudsman's Office is to be impartial, to be independent and to investigate complaints. It is always going to be the case that there is going to be a degree of tension between a body that has been set up to investigate complaints and a complainant organisation. There are bound to be tensions but I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Ombudsman's Office has been anything other than completely impartial and independent in the way that it has investigated those complaints. I do recognise that some police officers have concerns. I think those concerns are fewer than they were when the Office was first set up and I believe that the fact that there have been positive developments such as the working group that has been set up which we discussed earlier to raise and look at issues of mutual concern shows that there has been some recognition by members of the police service that the Ombudsman's Office is an organisation that they have to work with, they should work with and that they have nothing to be afraid of. Q224 Chairman: Would you encourage the Ombudsman's Office to go on holding and publishing these regular surveys so we can keep track of what these perceptions are? Mr Pearson: I do believe it is important to have monitoring information. It is an issue of confidence. We want both the public and the police to have confidence in the Ombudsman's Office and I think we need to survey both the public and the police to assess whether those confidence levels are rising or not. Q225 Mr Beggs: One of the government's aims for the Office as set out in the Management Statement is that it should be affordable. How does the Department determine affordability? Mr Pearson: We will discuss and agree a budget with the Ombudsman's Office that, as a government, we believe is reasonable when looking at all the other priorities that there are for public spending. I am not aware that the Ombudsman herself is asking for more funds. We set a budget that we think is realistic and sufficient to meet the needs of running an efficient and effective Ombudsman's Office. Q226 Mr Beggs: The Northern Ireland Office submission indicates that the Ombudsman was given an additional 250,000 in 2003/4 in response to pressures on the Office, but that this was unused at the time and your agreement was given for it to be carried over into 2004/5. What were the pressures on the Office that caused the additional funding requirement? Why was it not spent within the originally agreed timescale and what will it now be used for? Mr Pearson: I think those are questions that are best directed at the Ombudsman herself as they are matters of her operational budget. Q227 Mr Beggs: Has the Ombudsman bid for any additional resources over and above the 250,000? Mr Pearson: I am not aware that the Ombudsman has bid for any other additional resources, other than the agreement we reached recently on the complaints handling system. Q228 Mr Beggs: You say that it is also important to recognise that, with the independence of the Office, it is for the Ombudsman to decide how best to make use of these resources, whatever their level, provided by the NIO. Can you confirm that the Ombudsman is required to give the Department a business case for any additional public funds it receives which requires the NIO to take a view on the purpose for which the funding is required? Surely such a process does not compromise the Ombudsman's independence in investigative matters? Mr Pearson: My understanding is that in any organisation that receives public funds in the way that the Ombudsman's Office does or, for that matter, the DPP, major items of expenditure will be required to submit for approval in a business case. That is standard practice. Q229 Mr Beggs: We have had a suggestion that the Northern Ireland Office is withholding resources for the Ombudsman to carry out retrospective investigations. Can you offer any comment on that, please? Mr Pearson: No, we are not. The Ombudsman has not given us any request for additional resources to look at retrospective cases. Clearly, she will have to make a decision on how she prioritises her resources when looking at current cases and when looking at retrospective cases that she wants to investigate. She has not been saying to us that she thinks her budget is woefully inadequate and we believe that the amount we allocate at the moment is sufficient for the purposes for which we set up the Ombudsman's Office and the legislation. Q230 Mr Bailey: Mrs O'Loan has sought more contact with the Policing Board than has appeared possible to date. She told us that on two occasions the Police Ombudsman has been permitted to address the full board and that there is in addition a six monthly sharing of information and report but "this could be improved." When Professor Rea, the chairman of the board, gave evidence to us, he indicated that he was aware that the Ombudsman had "problems with the board." We know that there are other channels of communication between the two bodies -- for example, the Human Rights and Professional Standards Committee of the Policing Board - but the current position would appear to be less than satisfactory. What steps do you think as a minister you can take to improve on this? Mr Pearson: I am not aware of any particular difficulties in this area. If both the Policing Board and the Ombudsman's Office however are saying that there are tensions and difficulties there, then I would encourage both of them to work them out. There has been cooperation between the two. We were discussing young people earlier. There was a jointly commissioned report, Policing Accountability and Young People, so there has been a cooperative relationship between the Policing Board and the Office of the Ombudsman. Certainly I want to do all that I can to encourage them to have good dialogue with each other and to make sure that they have effective working relationships. Q231 Chairman: We are coming up, as your memorandum reminds us, to the statutory five year review which happens to all non-governmental departments. That is due in 2005. What will the scope of that review comprise and who is going to conduct it? Mr Pearson: I have some confusion here as to whether you are referring to what I might call the traditional, quinquennial review or whether you are referring to section 61(4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Q232 Chairman: For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the quinquennial review. I am not quite familiar with section 61(4) of the Police Act. Maybe you have to do both things but let us talk about the quinquennial review which is firmly in your lap, or somebody's lap. Mr Pearson: I can talk to you a lot more about the other one. Q233 Chairman: Have you to do both? Do they both cover the same ground? Mr Pearson: Let me tell you what I know and then confess to what I do not know. What I do know is that under section 61(4) of the Police Act the Ombudsman shall at least once every five years make a report on it - i.e., police complaints and disciplinary proceedings - to the Secretary of State. We expect the Police Ombudsman will, as part of this undertaking, review the working of her Office as well as the complaints system and make a report and it will then be for the Secretary of State to consider that report. Q234 Chairman: That was exactly the question I did not ask you. The question is whether all non-departmental bodies have a quinquennial review done by the department concerned. This is coming up next year. Mr Pearson: Let me confess to what I do not know. I do not know the answer to that. I have a feeling in the back of my mind somewhere that as a government across the piece we said that would not do quinquennial reviews any more and there would not be an automatic requirement to do that, but that is something that does not come from Northern Ireland. It just comes from some peripheral knowledge. Q235 Chairman: I would be surprised because I think it is in your most recent memorandum that it is due. Mr Pearson: There might be some confusion. I think we were referring in our memorandum to section 61. Mr Perry: It is my understanding also that quinquennial reviews have been discontinued and the five year review we may have been referring to in our memorandum was this one. Q236 Chairman: They are two distinct things. For the Ombudsman to report how she thinks she has been going is one thing; for you to review the way her Office has been operating is another. What you are saying is that you are not going to conduct a review yourselves? Mr Perry: My understanding is that quinquennial reviews are not now done in the way they used to be. Chairman: It is we who have it wrong. There will not be a quinquennial review. Thank you very much, Minister, for the honest answers to your questions, even the ones where you said, "I do not know." |