Examination of Witnesses (Questions 85-99)
8 DECEMBER 2004
MR KEN
WILLIAMS AND
MR DAVID
KENDALL
Q85 Chairman: Mr Williams
and Mr Kendall, thank you for coming to help us. How much contact
do you have with the Police Board?
Mr Williams: I
probably get over to Northern Ireland about three times a month.
I make it my business to see the Chief or his Deputy, the Chairman
or Deputy Chairman, the Chief Executive or those in the Northern
Ireland Office who have significant roles.
Q86 Chairman: That is
every time you go over?
Mr Williams: Not
every time but my game plan is to try to target those individuals.
Q87 Chairman: Given that
at least part of your job is to ensure that the PSNI is operating
effectively and efficiently, is there any significant overlap
between your role and that of the Board?
Mr Williams: I
am there to support the Board. I would not see my role at all
in conflict but wholly complementary. Indeed, there are areas
where the skills that are available through HMIC, which does not
just include the small office of which I am in charge but those
who work from Queen Anne's Gate as well, can be particularly useful
to the Board. I heard the Chairman talking about that in relation
to the question you asked, sir, about Crompton, Blakey and Stevens.
So I see my role, first of all, as inspecting the PSNI. I cannot
inspect the Board, although the White Paper, as you are probably
aware, as far as England and Wales are concerned, is suggesting
that police authorities are inspected and the natural body to
do that, we would argue, would be HMIC. Indeed, we have started
to do that on a voluntary basis in North Yorkshire. I think I
mention that in my brief. That, of course, means that I cannot
inspect the DPPs and other areas that are wholly the responsibility
of the Policing Board. That might change in the future, I hope.
Q88 Chairman: You would
like it to change?
Mr Williams: I
think it would give me a better picture of the whole corporate
problem, rather than just the delivery of services for which the
Chief Constable is responsible.
Q89 Chairman: That really
leads on to the next question. How would you say this unique organisation
in Northern Ireland, the PSNI and the Policing Board, compares,
in terms of function and powers of the traditional model of a
police authority from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Williams: The
trouble with these arenas is that, of course, you get quoted,
I guess. The answer is: very well indeed. There are lots of examples
I can bring to your where I would argue they do better, even though
some police authorities have been around in their current state
for a long time. I would give you the example of the way in which
they conduct their interviews for Chief Officers. There is an
adviser, as you know, and I have a role in terms of briefing the
Northern Ireland Office as a consequence of the nature of the
process. It is tight, it is thorough, it is extremely professional,
and very good indeed. I do not know of any other authority—using
the term generally—that would use HMIC in the way the Policing
Board has done in terms of the Blakey Report and the Stevens Report.
Of course, those problems are unique to Northern Ireland. Other
constabularies in my experience in the north of England do not
have anything like the challenges that the Board and the Chief
Constable have.
Q90 Chairman: In talking
about inspections, you have drawn attention to specific examples.
I suppose we had better get everybody's view of this, and that
is the high level of absenteeism. What do you think they should
be doing to address that problem more effectively?
Mr Williams: The
way in which they handle the ill health pension process, the medicals,
is too lengthy, too bureaucratic, and they should prioritise better.
If you could hit that major issue effectively, then the overall
picture would be reduced considerably because those people off
long-term sick of course seriously distort the overall picture.
Q91 Chairman: You have
told them that?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q92 Chairman: Do you think
the Board should help the PSNI solve those problems?
Mr Williams: I
think it is very much part of their responsibility to hold the
Chief Constable to account and, in holding him to account, those
issues are suggested and directed, but it is not just about that.
It is also about the culture.
Q93 Chairman: Do you think
the Board is not doing as much as it should to hold him to account
for that? Are you able to hold the Chief Constable to account
for that?
Mr Williams: I
can certainly work behind the scenes and I do. One of my roles
is to spread best practice, and there are lots of examples elsewhere
in the United Kingdom where sickness is being handled vigorously.
There is a special history here that we have to take into account.
There is more they could do. Some things are about the culture.
Commanders can hold individuals to account by bringing the person
in when they have been off sick, pointing questions about what
the issues were, and, perhaps more intrusive, examinations into
the nature of the sickness. I think I heard the Deputy talk about
investigations almost when you have individuals who are on long-term
sick and they are seen carrying hods of bricks at building sites.
There are examples I can quote from England and Wales where it
may seem a bit distasteful, but these people have been caught
on camera and yet they have been claiming sick leave. I am not
suggesting for one minute that officers in Northern Ireland would
undertake such a risky occupation. The general point is that once
you create the atmosphere that sloppiness in sickness attitudes
is put to one side and will not be tolerated, you will see improvements.
Significant improvements have been seen, as the Deputy quoted
to you, but there is more room for that.
Q94 Reverend Smyth: Can
I draw your attention to your baseline report of April 2004 where,
for example, on page 39, you note that the Board structures and
arrangements do not provide an opportunity for it effectively
to monitor and scrutinise best value processes, reviews, and so
on. You also note that the Board has actually appointed best value
officers to provide contact between the Board and the PSNI and
the Board has no direct involvement in selecting areas of activity
suitable for review. Can you explain your concerns?
Mr Williams: My
concern is in the area where the Board now can get deeper into
the workings of the PSNI. There are lots of examples in the England
and Wales police forces as to how police authorities have been
able to engage at a tactical level as well as at a strategic level.
This is a real opportunity for the Board. They picked a couple
of issues to deal with, which are not particularly significant
in my perspective. They need to be outward looking, to look at
the delivery of the policing service, and subject those things
to best value. I now know, from recent conversations with the
Board and the Chairman, that they intend to look at patrol and
not just the bobby on the beat, the bigger picture of how the
service delivers its policing style to the communities. That is
a good move. A lovely one for me to inspect in the future is how
they have undertaken that best value responsibility. They have
put in place also, since the writing of that report, a body that
includes the Northern Ireland Office; it includes Kit Chivers,
who is the Chief Inspector Criminal Justice, which is an unusual
arrangement to Northern Ireland alone, although that will be aped
soon in England and Wales as well. Those people are going to be
part of the decision-making about those areas of the business
that should be submitted to best value. One of my staff, as I
mention in my brief, is on that group. This is looking a lot better,
but in the early days they did not engage, they did not use the
example as powerfully as they could, and this is a real opportunity
to get into the business of policing.
Q95 Reverend Smyth: Then
they can, of course, take credit for the achievements of the PSNI
which they report as their objectives?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Interestingly, you will notice that the Chairman now does the
appraisal of the Chief Constable and I advise on that. It is one
of the objectives on the Chief Constable's PDR.
Mr Kendall: Another
important element is that the evidence base upon which that report
was written was something like 12 months out of date before the
report was actually published. Indeed, just to reinforce what
Mr Williams has said, the recent refresher has confirmed that
the Board in that sense has moved on at a pace.
Mr Williams: I
apologise for that. We have just refreshed that but the document
is still in draft form. It would have been really handy for you,
and I will make sure that you receive it, Chairman.
Chairman: That would be
helpful.
Q96 Reverend Smyth: We
live, of course, with that problem of reports being long outdated.
Mr Williams: You
do.
Q97 Reverend Smyth: Can
I raise a question on which we have already received evidence,
that the Board's committee structure should be aligned with the
operational and departmental structure within the PSNI? You would
agree with that?
Mr Williams: That
would make sense. Yes, I would.
Q98 Mr Beggs: In the 2002
inspection of PSNI you noted that, as a whole, the PSNI was largely
failing to deliver the community policing service articulated
within the Patten Report. Are the police any closer to achieving
a community policing service?
Mr Williams: They
are moving on at a stride. There is absolute commitment from the
Board and this new Chief Constable about the way in which budgets
have been devolved to Divisional Commanders, the introduction
of local policing teams, and the reorganisation of the criminal
investigation arm, which is much more effective, user friendly
and responsive to the needs of communities. There is a whole raft
of issues that point in the right direction, but there are still,
and I do not know Northern Ireland anything like as much as I
would like, clearly some areas and some communities where the
work is going to be harder, longer and more difficult to achieve
those objectives. I am really very pleased with the way the top
team, the Divisional Commanders and the Constables have responded
to having responsibility given to them so that they have real
ownership and they are not being directed from the centre all
the time and waiting for Godot to tell them what to do.
Q99 Mr Beggs: Has the
Board's monitoring role helped the police work towards achieving
that goal?
Mr Williams: Yes.
First of all, there is not a razor blade between the Board and
the constabulary in terms of wanting to make sure that the policing
that is delivered to the community in Northern Ireland is absolutely
contemporary policing and the sort of policing that we would all
want to see. I think the way in which they have supported the
introduction of DPPs—and there may be some tidying up to
do in relation to how they relate to Divisional Commanders and
how they can handle the information, the intelligence that is
provided to them—and those models that they have in place
at the moment demonstrate that the Policing Board is determined
to deliver the services that are wanted. If I may stray from your
question, I heard a question earlier about the role of the two
accountable bodies at a local level. I would agree with the general
point that it does seem a bit of a nonsense that you have two
organisations trying to achieve the same thing. Why can they not
be brought together under one cap?
| 
