APPENDIX 10
Memorandum submitted by the Committee
on the Administration of Justice
The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ)
has already forwarded its Commentary on the Northern Ireland Policing
Board, which was first published in November 2003. The following
document repeats the various recommendations made in the Commentary
and reports what follow up, if any, CAJ believes has been given
to the various issues that were raised nearly 12 months ago. Please
note that we only have access to public sources of information,
and correspondence to and from CAJ and the Board: it may well
be that actions have been taken that we are unaware of. If this
is the case, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) may
want to explore why the Board has not sought to publicise more
generally any of the actions taken. Given the central importance
of the Board's holding the police publicly to account, we believe
that it is vitally important that the Board make its relationships
with the police and the public as transparent as possible.
RECOMMENDATION 1CAJ
recommends that the Secretary of State (or the successor body
if policing is devolved) consult widely before appointing independent
members of the Policing Board as provided for under the Police
Act 2000, and in future ensure that the composition of the Board
is fully representative, as required by the Patten Commission
and the Police Act 2000. The Committee will presumably want
to seek input from various contributors as to why Sinn Féin
has decided not to sit on the Board or the District Policing Partnerships
(DPPs), why there are so few women, and why there are so few local
community workers. Most importantly, the Committee will want to
explore how future appointments to the Board can be more representative.
RECOMMENDATION 2CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board better publicise its public
meetings and rotate its public meetings at different times of
the day and week and at different venues throughout Northern Ireland.
CAJ also recommends that the Policing Board does not reduce the
number of public meetings it holds each year.
The Board does hold a number of launches and other
such events outside Belfast. However, the focus of CAJ in this
recommendation was on the role of the Board in holding the police
publicly to account, and the value of the Chief Constable giving
his report to the Board before a variety of audiences across Northern
Ireland. CAJ is unaware of any rotation of the time of the public
meetings held in Belfast; is aware of few public meeting held
outside Belfast; and was disappointed that the Board chose to
propose changes to the legislation to reduce the obligatory number
of public meetings (from 10 to eight). RECOMMENDATION
3CAJ recommends that the Policing Board review its security
policy for public meetings and institute only such precautions
as are necessary and in a way which seeks to avoid intimidating
potential participants.
CAJ is not aware if there has been any review of
security policy but can report that, at recent meetings, the security
provided has appeared to have been of a fairly routine nature
for access to any public building.
RECOMMENDATION 4CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board debate, make decisions, set
standards for the police, and evaluate police performance as much
as possible during its public rather than its private meetings,
so that the public knows what topics the Board is addressing with
the police, what goals and timetables the Board is setting for
the police, and how and on what information the Board makes its
decisions. CAJ has attended most recent public meetings of
the Board and has found the meetings to be largely formulaic.
A brief presentation (topic unknown to the public in advance)
is followed by a series of questions from Board members. The questions
do not always seem to flow from the issues raised during the presentation,
and may be on totally unrelated topics. It is clear that most
of the work of the Board is done in the private sessions either
earlier in the day, or at various sub-committee meetings, and
the public session is intended merely to be an hour's "window"
into the ongoing police-Policing Board debate. The Board still
does not set standards, evaluate police performance, debate or
make decisions during public meetings and CAJ does not understand
this approach to comply with the intention of the Patten Commission.
RECOMMENDATION 5CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board come to an agreement with the
PSNI on a format for the Chief Constable's reports at the public
meetings which will provide adequate information to allow the
Board and the public to assess police performance. CAJ also recommends
that the PSNI's quarterly reports towards the targets of the policing
plan be presented at the public meetings, published, and widely
disseminated. CAJ is unaware of any changes to the format
of the Chief Constable's report, although on occasion the Chief
Constable delegates reporting on a particular topic to another
senior officer.
RECOMMENDATION 6CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board produce, consult on and widely
disseminate the procedure to be followed by members of the public
wishing to direct questions to the Chief Constable, and that the
Board proactively seek questions from the public. The public
are not at all clear about the procedure for asking questions
at the meetings of the Board, or for submitting questions in advance
so that questions can be directed to the Chief Constable at the
public meetings. The Board does not have an equivalent to the
Code of Practice for District Policing Partnerships, and the Board's
rules and procedures should be consulted upon and then published.
At the final public meeting of the third year of
operation of the Policing Board, the first question ever put by
a "member of the public" was recorded. Diane Dodds,
as an MLA, is hardly an "average" member of the public,
and would presumably have access to the Board in a variety of
ways. However, she took a very important initiative at the 6 October
2004 meeting, by asking the chair for permission to intervene
from the public gallery on an issue that was of concern to her
(and a number of protesters outside and inside the meeting). This
intervention led to the chair (for the first time ever to CAJ's
knowledge) explaining at the start of the public session what
the process was for getting questions asked. Obviously, no procedure
for questions has been "produced, consulted on and widely
disseminated"—still less has the Board proactively
sought questions from the public. Indeed, at the subsequent Board
meeting (held on 4 November in Armagh) the newspaper adverts announcing
the public meeting indicated explicitly that questions from the
public would not be allowed.
RECOMMENDATION 7CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board build up its internal capacity
to monitor the human rights performance of the police by attending
appropriate human rights training and developing the skills necessary
to fulfill this important function. CAJ also recommends that the
Policing Board publish its plan for monitoring police human rights
performance, consult widely on its proposals, make its assessments
public, and begin systematic monitoring of the PSNI's human rights
performance as soon as possible. CAJ is unaware what, if any,
human rights training Board members have undertaken. The Framework
document was issued subsequent to this recommendation and CAJ
commented extensively. We look forward now to the first report
on compliance. We understand that this first report has been delayed
longer than expected, but we do not know what the reasons for
this are, and suggest that NIAC may want to explore this issue.
RECOMMENDATION 8CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board actively engage with statutory
bodies, non-governmental and community organisations, and the
public to improve its ability to monitor police performance.CAJ
wrote recently to the Board expressing concern about its apparent
lack of interest in a major event we had organised for District
Policing Partnerships. Subsequent to that letter we noted that
the Board's July website indicated that a Member of the Board
had expressed concern about even the minimal involvement that
had occurred (see quotes in annex). We have subsequently written
to the Board reminding them of Patten's recommendations regarding
the importance of working with the statutory and non-statutory
sector. We have no sense that the Board has built up close working
relations with the Ombudsman, the NIHRC, the NI Children's Commissioner,
or umbrella non-governmental groups working on issues such as
race or gender, or community groups etc. We believe that their
attitude to CAJ is not unique but symptomatic of a "go it
alone" approach.RECOMMENDATION
9CAJ recommends that the Policing Board conduct more of its
business in public and publish details of its work widely so that
the public is reassured that the Policing Board is holding the
police to account.
CAJ is not aware of any changes in this regard since
this recommendation was made, other than the fact that, in addition
to the minutes of the meetings, the agendas of the public and
committee meetings and the minutes of committee meetings are now
displayed on the Board's website.
RECOMMENDATION 10CAJ
recommends that where the Police Ombudsman determines that a complaint
is outside of the remit of the Office, that it be forwarded to
the Policing Board as well as the Chief Constable under s 52(6)
of the Police Act 1998. CAJ also recommends that the Board ask
the Chief Constable to report publicly to the Board on its investigation
of any complaint referred to the Chief Constable by the Police
Ombudsman and monitor implementation of any required remedial
action. To CAJ's knowledge, the Police Ombudsman still refers
complaints it considers outside of its remit only to the Chief
Constable, not to both the Chief Constable and the Board as we
recommended. Nevertheless, this situation would not preclude the
Board from monitoring police efforts to rectify the concerns raised
in such complaints. CAJ is not aware if our recommendation that
the Chief Constable be asked to report to the Board on any complaint
referred to him by the Ombudsman for action has been complied
with, and the Board has not publicised an analysis of any such
concerns raised.
RECOMMENDATION 11CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board, in order to scrutinise police
performance in complying with the Human Rights Act, monitor PSNI
operations, policy and practice. The Board should focus on the
way in which operations are planned and whether the police carry
out adequate community impact assessments; review the advice of
the PSNI's Human Rights Legal Adviser and whether it is followed;
and determine whether a policy should be altered and whether practice
is uniformly consistent with policy. CAJ also recommends that
the Board routinely conduct random audits of PSNI operations and
make the results, its recommendations and a record of PSNI implementation
public. The Framework document is intended to give some mechanism
for scrutinising police actions, but CAJ is unaware of the extent
to which, if at all, this is used as a template by the Board.
We do not know if the Board has asked about community impact assessments;
we are unaware of the Board ever asking to be informed of the
advice provided to the Chief Constable by the PSNI's Human Rights
Legal Adviser; and we are unaware of any random audits that have
been carried out, though the latter may have occurred as part
of the Framework discussion which is yet to be put into the public
domain. CAJ and others will be in a better position to analyse
the extent to which PSNI operations, policies and practices are
scrutinised, once the Board's implementation report on the Framework
has been issued.
RECOMMENDATION 12CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board review all data on CS spray,
consult widely, make the data public, and publicly debate and
decide on the benefits of CS spray. If the eventual determination
is to purchase and deploy CS spray, this measure should then be
conditional on the Board's approval of adequate guidelines and
training. The Board, to our knowledge, has not re-visited
its decision to authorise the purchase of CS spray. Nor can CAJ
say whether the Board eventually considered the CS spray research
produced by academics and others independent of government. It
certainly has not published any study into the data it surveyed,
published that data, or encouraged any public debate of the appropriate
weaponry to be provided to the police. The Board made an ambiguous
reference to the need for guidelines and training in its initial
decision to authorise purchase, but appears not to have made usage
contingent upon it being satisfied with the guidelines and the
training. Despite the obvious public interest in any new weapon
being provided to the PSNI, the Board has not ensured that the
guidelines for the use of CS spray are placed in the public domain,
nor even raised concerns to this effect. In addition, the public
is left not knowing what examination the Board has given, or intends
to give, to the use of CS spray.
RECOMMENDATION 13CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board ensure that all recommendations
related to Special Branch made by the Patten Commission, Her Majesty's
Inspectorate of Constabulary, and Sir John Stevens be implemented
by the Police Service as expeditiously as possible. There have
been presentations to the Board on structural and personnel changes
in the PSNI that affect Special Branch, but the lack of publicity
for the scrutiny given to this area of work is very marked. The
work of Special Branch has always been a matter of public interest,
and there are particularly important human rights issues at stake
in the move to improve intelligence gathering. The Board would
be providing an important public service if it were to report
routinely on the scrutiny it accords to this area of work, and
what successes and problems are arising in the move to "normalise"
this highly contentious area of policing.
RECOMMENDATION 14:CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board respond to the Human Rights
Commission's evaluation of PSNI student officer training, monitor
PSNI implementation of the report's recommendations, and report
publicly on its own and the PSNIs progress towards implementation.
CAJ continues to have extensive concerns as to the
extent of community involvement in the design and delivery of
PSNI training, and as to the quality of the PSNI's human rights
training, and the lack of public information on what the Board
is doing in response to the various disconcerting evaluations
produced by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. CAJ
is aware that a consultant was appointed by the Board at one point
to create a plan for monitoring the PSNI's training, but is unaware
of the work done to date. If such monitoring is taking place,
should the Board not be publicising its evaluation of PSNI developments
in this area, both positive and negative, as well as recommendations
for further improvement? It would be interesting for the Committee
to question the Board closely on the extent to which this is something
the Board monitors and brings to public attention.
RECOMMENDATION 15:CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board consult statutory agencies,
non-governmental and community organisations and the public as
it develops future policing plans, so that they adequately address
the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland related not only
to policing objectives, but also appropriate performance indicators
and targets for the Police Service.
CAJ can report that it has not been consulted about
any policing plans since this recommendation was submitted. We
are unaware of any wider scale consultative process, or the intentions
of the Board in this regard. As CAJ argued in its Commentary,
the surveys the Board conducts to seek the public's opinion regarding
policing priorities, while welcome in general terms, are not as
specific or as targeted as necessary.
RECOMMENDATIONS 16
& 17:CAJ recommends that where possible, the Policing Board
set targets in the policing plans which measure actual police
performance in addition to Northern Ireland-wide public perception
of police performance, and that when utilising public opinion
targets, it considers the necessity of also evaluating the opinion
of those more directly effected by the issue being addressed;
and CAJ recommends that the Policing Board, in its policing plans,
formulate performance indicators and targets with enough detail
to allow the public to know how the Board is specifically monitoring
PSNI performance.
As is apparent from earlier comments, it is CAJ's
belief that the Board does not engage in extensive outreach to
monitor either police performance or the perception of police
performance. At our District Policing Partnership conference,
there was extensive criticism of the Board, and its limited engagement
in the work of the DPPs, so it is unlikely that even this channel
for information gathering is being effectively used.
RECOMMENDATION 18:CAJ
recommends that the Policing Board ensure that the PSNI consults
widely on a definition and system for monitoring sectarian crime/incidents
and begins such monitoring as soon as possible.
CAJ wrote to the PSNI in January 2004 about the definitions
it was using for sectarian crime. After a long delay we got a
preliminary answer (directly in response to the fact that we were
testifying to NIAC on hate crime) but we are unclear if a final
defmition has in fact been agreed upon. If it has, how is the
definition being put into practice to ensure consistent monitoring.
CAJ is also unaware what role, if any, the Board played in this
discussion.
RECOMMENDATIONS 19
& 20:CAJ recommends that the Policing Board identify the
training needs of DPP members and develop, consult on, and administer
a detailed training programme for all DPP members as soon as possible.
CAJ recommends that the Policing Board immediately
assess the way in which the District Policing Partnerships are
functioning to avoid the adoption of bad institutional habits.
As noted earlier, the conference CAJ organised in
June 2004 highlighted many concerns on the part of DPP members
regarding their training, or lack of it. Despite the fact that
several training events had been organised by the Policing Board
for DPP members, many DPP members complained that these sessions
did not give them the tools they needed to perform their work.
CAJ's contacts with Policing Board members have not reassured
us that they are clear as to how DPP members could assist in the
Monitoring Framework, in the developing of policing plans etc
and therefore what the DPP training needs might be. A report on
the DPP conference is in preparation and will be submitted to
NIAC in due course.
RECOMMENDATION 21:CAJ
recommends that the Northern Ireland Office and the Policing Board
take all necessary steps to ensure that Community Safety Partnerships
(CSPs), if they are to be maintained, do not dilute the power
of the DPPs. Urgent decisions must be taken about the appropriate
relationship between DPPs and CSPs, local funding arrangements
and how DPPs can best maintain their independence from government.
The Board has indicated that this last recommendation
is one that they did endorse. They apparently have ineffectually
challenged the Northern Ireland Office about its commitment to
quite distinct arrangements (funding, institutional and managerial)
for community safety work, as distinct to community policing.
The two initiatives arose from the separate discussions in Patten
and the Criminal Justice Review, but both of these bodies talked
about the complementary and indeed overlapping nature of community
safety work and community policing responses. It seems that the
NIO has chosen to create two distinct systems, with resultant
demands on the public purse, resultant duplication of police efforts,
and the real risk of sidelining the important role that DPPs can
play at the local level.
CAJ would urge NIAC to make a very clear statement
about the real risks that Northern Ireland runs in developing
two parallel systems of local police/community networks. The Committee
should summon the NIO to appear before it and explain why it is
necessary to maintain two distinct entities at local level, and
if it is accepted that this is necessary, require that appropriate
communication and funding arrangements be made to ensure that
they complement and do not undermine each other.
November 2004
Annex
EXTRACT FROM
JULY 2004 POLICING
BOARD MEETING
(ON WEBSITE):"A
Member expressed concern at the attendance of an official and
a number of DPP members at a conference organised by the Committee
for the Administration of Justice (CAJ). The Member reminded the
Board that the CAJ was not a statutory organisation and suggested
that the Board should give careful consideration to the endorsement
of participation in conferences organised by non-statutory groups.
The Board noted the concern expressed by the Member."
PATTEN REPORTThe
Policing Board should coordinate its work closely with other agencies
whose work touches on public safety, including education, environment,
economic development, housing and health authorities, as well
as social services, youth services and the probation service,
and with appropriate non-governmental organisations"
(CAJ emphasis). Recommendation 15.
"The title `Policing Board' is deliberate.
We see the role of the new body going beyond supervision of the
police service itself, extending to the wider issues of policing
and the contributions that people and organisations other than
the police can make towards public safety"
(para 6.10).
8 November 2004
| 
