House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Seventh Report

4 Other Issues

56. In March 2003, DPPs were set up in 25 of the 26 district council areas of Northern Ireland.[98] Their role is to provide views to the district commander on any matter concerning the policing of a district, monitor the performance of the police in carrying out the local policing plan, and to discuss and consult on matters affecting the policing of a district.

57. The Board has responsibility for appointing independent members of the DPPs from among persons nominated by the district councils.[99] It also has responsibility for assessing the effectiveness of the DPPs, the level of public satisfaction with their performance, and the measures taken by them to obtain the views of the public on policing matters.[100] Mr Denis Bradley, Vice Chairman of the Board, told us that the DPPs have helped "transform the culture of policing in Northern Ireland", and that the level of public engagement with DPPs was increasing.[101] Mr Paul Leighton, Deputy Chief Constable of the PSNI, believed that the DPPs were "a tremendous leap forward" because "people are now questioning the police about local policing issues".[102] Mr Ken Williams, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for the North of England and Northern Ireland, felt that the manner in which the Board had supported the introduction of the DPPs demonstrated that the "Board is determined to deliver the services that are wanted".[103]

Appointment of independent members

58. The Board told us that in March 2003, it appointed 207 independent members to 25 DPPs at a cost of £920,000.[104] We were also told that the next round of appointments would be held in 2005 at a "marginally higher" projected cost of £950,000, for which the Board had no provision in its base budget.[105] Funding for the 2005 appointments process had been sought, and a business case submitted to the NIO.[106] The Department told us that it had recently notified the Board of its funding settlement which will cover the costs of the 2005 appointments.[107]

59. When we asked the Board about the reason for the high cost of the 2003 process, Sir Desmond Rea explained that the cost reflected the "complexity of the task" and that while it had organised a "unified appointment competition", 26 individual competitions "were run under the one umbrella".[108] He also explained that the Board had received advice from the Central Purchasing Unit of the NIO about how best value could be established "throughout the appointment project".[109] A total of £386,000 was spent on advertising and Sir Desmond Rea told us that this was because the DPPs were new "and the political environment was not totally supportive".[110]

60. Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, told us that it was important to bear in mind that the appointments process "was the biggest appointment exercise across all 26 district councils in Northern Ireland".[111] His view was that the scale of the process and the advertising that took place had helped "establish the DPPs in the mind of the public".[112] He was satisfied that value for money had been achieved and that "normal methods of sanctioning public expenditure" had been followed "quite rigorously in this case".[113] He also informed us that the Board had decided to review its approach to the recruitment process and that this "should have a resultant lower cost". He said that projected figures were not yet available, but that the Board would be submitting a revised business case which he would "carefully scrutinise to ensure that it provides value for money".[114]

61. While we appreciate fully the scale and complexity of the appointments process for independent members of the District Policing Partnerships (DPPs), we were alarmed by the extremely high cost of the 2003 process and, in particular, by the projected higher cost for 2005. There will be approximately 226 independent members of DPPs appointed in 2005 at an estimated cost of £950,000. We were assured by the Minister that value for money had been achieved in 2003, and that the normal rigorous checks on public expenditure had been followed. However, we welcome the Board's decision to review its approach to the recruitment process, and expect that now the DPPs are established, membership appointment costs will fall. We expect the government to support the Board in achieving this good value for money goal.

Concerns of DPPs

Budgets

62. A number of the DPPs expressed concerns that the Board had not settled their budgets in a timely manner. Limavady DPP told us in October 2004 that its budget for 2004 had not yet been agreed and that budget decisions "change regularly with information disseminated ad hoc".[115] Ballymoney DPP was concerned that the Board had not agreed budgets "in a timely fashion", but acknowledged that the Board had taken steps to address this.[116]

63. Mr Trevor Reaney accepted that DPPs' budgets had been problematic and in particular, that the Board had difficulties in establishing what constituted a reasonable level of funding that would allow DPPs to carry out their functions effectively.[117] He also explained that changes to the Board's staffing had delayed the process, but that it had also taken district councils "some months" to confirm their acceptance of funding offers.[118] He said that the Board had committed itself to agreeing the budgets more speedily in 2005. Mr Ian Pearson's "understanding" was that the problem was unlikely to recur in the future.[119]

Training

64. Concerns were also expressed by DPPs about the lack of training which the Board provided their members. Cookstown DPP told us that its members "required more focused training on their role and what they are expected to achieve during their term in office".[120] They believed that members should receive training in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, "PSNI structures, community safety and the context in which policing currently operates".[121] Limavady DPP shared this view.[122] Mr Reaney was satisfied that the Board had provided DPPs with support and "a range of training" in strategic planning, PSNI's human resources strategy, and local policing plans. Mr Leighton believed that members of DPPs were "becoming more knowledgeable by the day" and that the PSNI had participated in joint training activities with them.[123]

65. The DPPs are an integral part of local policing accountability structures and it is particularly important at this early stage that the Board provides them with full support. We were concerned to learn about the delay by the Board in settling DPPs' budgets, and the perception among some DPPs that the training provided by the Board was inadequate. We hope that these problems are 'teething difficulties' only, but, in any case, we expect the Board to ensure that there is no recurrence. We therefore welcome the Board's commitment to ensuring that the DPPs' budgets for 2005 are settled in a more efficient manner, and we shall follow this up to monitor any increases in efficiency.

Community Safety Partnerships

66. In March 2003, Community Safety Partnerships (CSP) were set up in each council area in Northern Ireland to tackle crime, the fear of crime, and anti-social behaviour. The partnerships bring together representatives from local bodies, including the Housing Executive, the PSNI, health organisations, Education and Library Boards, and voluntary and community bodies.

67. Mr Bradley told us that the existence of both CSPs and DPPs was "wasteful" and confusing.[124] Sir Desmond Rea believed that having both structures resulted in duplication of work and inefficient use of resources. He argued for the functions of DPPs and CSPs "to be rationalised into one structure or at the very least to have a common secretariat".[125] Mr Leighton argued that there was a need for a more "cohesive structure" at the local level to deal with crime and disorder and community safety, "working in one direction with one funding and one membership".[126] The view of the NIHRC was that the "demarcation of work" between CSPs and DPPs was unclear, and having both structures had led to a "fracturing of communication and fatigue for community representatives".[127]

68. The Minister appeared not to be persuaded by these arguments. Mr Pearson's view was that DPPs and CSPs perform distinct and separate roles:

"It is important to recognise that DPP's role is very much one of holding the local police commander to account. That is essentially a different role from that of the Community Safety Partnerships, which is about a broad-based partnership which involved the police, but a range of other organisations on issues of improving community safety".[128]

69. There is significant overlap between the functions of CSPs and DPPs which has led to a duplication of work and wasted resources. This may be because the roles of the two networks are insufficiently defined, or because there has been a failure to publicise their roles clearly. There must be no confusion in this area. The government needs to give further consideration to the functions of CSPs and DPPs, whether there is scope for rationalisation, and, if not, how best to ensure that the roles of these organisations are presented effectively to dispel perceived duplication.

The Criminal Justice Inspectorate

70. The Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland (2000) recommended that an independent Criminal Justice Inspectorate should be set up in Northern Ireland. In August 2003, a Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice was appointed by the government. The aim of the Inspectorate is to contribute to the government's overall aim for peace and stability in Northern Ireland by helping to improve confidence in the criminal justice system. The Chief Inspector has power to conduct inspections into a range of agencies, including the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. However, his remit does not extend to the Policing Board.

71. The Minister told us that the Policing Board did not come within the Inspector's remit because "it does not have an executive function in the criminal justice system" and that it neither had an investigatory nor prosecution function.[129] He explained that the Chief Inspector is able to inspect the Board where it forms part of a cross-cutting "thematic inspection".[130]

72. We were surprised that the remit of the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice does not extend to cover the Policing Board. The Policing Board is the disciplinary authority for senior officers of the PSNI and, as a result, examines public complaints against such officers. This appears to us to be an executive function, and we recommend, therefore, that the government gives further consideration to extending the Chief Inspector's remit to include the Policing Board.

Complaints against the Policing Board

73. We queried whether there was any formal provision within the Policing Board's Complaints Policy for appeals from the Board. The Chief Executive gave us his view that complainants did have the opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State.[131] However, the Minister clarified later that there is no formal right of appeal set out in the Board's policy.[132]

74. It is important that individuals who have a complaint against the Policing Board, and remain dissatisfied with remedies arising from approaches to the Board itself, understand clearly what further scope for appeal exists. There is a formal structure in place for appeals from the Police Ombudsman and, in our view, there should be similar arrangements for appeals from Policing Board decisions. We recommend that the government and the Board bring forward appropriate proposals quickly.

98 The DPP for Dungannon and South Tyrone was not set up until December 2004 Back

99 See para 19 above Back

100 See para 14 Back

101 Qq 28, 29 Back

102 Q 69 Back

103 Q 99 Back

104 Ev 5 Back

105 Ev 5 Back

106 Ev 14 Back

107 Ev 90 Back

108 Ev 14 Back

109 Ev 90 Back