Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-180)
19 JANUARY 2005
MR IAN
PEARSON MP, MR
KEN LINDSAY
AND MS
GILLIAN ARDIS
Q160 Mr Beggs: But would
it not be your own view that this does affect the Board's overall
credibility and ability to make decisions?
Mr Pearson: The
best answer that I can give is that these are matters for the
Board and for PSNI to iron out themselves. The Board is independent
of Government and it is not something that we should be interfering
in.
Q161 Chairman: But would
you agree with the view that in order for the Board to function
properly, and to be credible, it needs to have divulged to it
as much information as it needs to do its job, and that if the
Chief Constable or anyone else is prevented from doing this by
constant leaks that affects the Board's credibility and ability
to command respect and to do its job properly? Therefore, it is
entirely in the Board's hands to make arrangements within its
own members that confidences are kept confident. Have I said anything
from which you would dissent?
Mr Pearson: I was
just about to say that I listened carefully to what you said,
as I always do, and I would not disagree with one single word
of that.
Chairman: It is very nice
to have that said by a Minister of the Crown.
Q162 Mr Swire: Minister,
you will know on page 41, maybe you will not know it is on page
41 but you will no doubt recall in the Patten Report it envisaged
mechanisms whereby the community can express its concerns and
priorities to the police. The Board when originally constituted
was required to hold 10 meetings a year, this has already been
reduced to eight meetings a year. It was envisaged that some of
these meetings would both involve the public, to a great extent,
and matters of public interest would be discussed at these boards,
and that these board meetings would be held all around Northern
Ireland. I am aware that you are planning in the current year
to hold some outside Belfast, one in Newry for instance. How do
you address the criticism that the Board meetings more often than
not take place in Belfast and that matters of public interest
are perhaps discussed more often than not behind closed doors
than during the meeting?
Mr Pearson: These
are essentially matters for the Board itself.
Q163 Mr Swire: Are they
of concern to you?
Mr Pearson: I am
aware that it holds eight meetings a year in public. What is of
concern to me is that the Policing Board is carrying out its functions
in the appropriate manner. As I said earlier, I am confident that
the Policing Board is discharging those functions properly and
has been, indeed, a success during its time of existence. I am
aware that the Board has held two meetings outside Belfast in
Armagh and in Omagh and that undoubtedly future meetings are planned.
They are always advertised well in advance. Some people would
be surprised by the level of attendance at Board meetings because
there is a high degree of interest in the policing issue in Northern
Ireland.
Q164 Mr Swire: Minister,
in 2003 the Committee on the Administration of Justice commented
that the Board: "better publicised its public meetings and
rotate its public meetings at different times of the day and week
and at different venues throughout Northern Ireland". You
say that these meetings are now better publicised, is that as
a result of that recommendation in the Review or is it very much
business as usual?
Mr Pearson: I do
not know the specific answer to that question, but certainly my
understanding is that there is a good level of public awareness
of when Board meetings are taking place at the moment. They are
advertised in a range of local media.
Q165 Mr Bailey: May I
move on to the full-time reserve issue? Patten recommended there
should be no full-time reserve. In the light of that, what view
do you have about the Chief Constable's decision to retain a full-time
reserve of 680 officers on a three year contract from 1 April
this year?
Mr Pearson: I support
the Chief Constable's decision and the Government very much clearly
supports the Chief Constable's decision. As I said previously,
he is the Secretary of State's senior adviser on security matters.
He set out in his statement a very full explanation of the factors
that he took into account when making his decision. I want to
stress to the Committee that this was not a political decision.
It was a decision made by the Chief Constable and his senior management
team. He took it based on his professional judgment of the prevailing
security situation.
Q166 Mr Tynan: The Criminal
Justice Inspectorate of Northern Ireland has developed a comprehensive
list of bodies which come under its remit, including the Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the PSNI. The Policing Board
of Northern Ireland is a notable omission. Why does the Board
not come under the Inspectorate's remit?
Mr Pearson: The
main reason why the Policing Board does not come under the remit
for inspection of the Chief Inspector is that unlike the other
organisations that are on the list that you are referring to it
does not have an executive function in the criminal justice system.
It does not investigate or prosecute. As you will be aware, it
is essentially an accountability mechanism, and so it is of a
different kind from the other organisations listed in that report.
Q167 Mr Tynan: The Government
has no intention of adding the Board to the Inspector's remit?
Mr Pearson: We
do not have any current intention. We are certainly as always
open to any representations that the Criminal Justice Inspectorate
might wish to make to us. At the moment, the CJI is able to inspect
the Policing Board in circumstances where an aspect of the criminal
justice system might cut across a number of organisations, a thematic
inspection. If that touched on the responsibilities and the activities
of the Board, then the Inspectorate would be able to go in, but
not on a routine basis as an organisation to inspect, for the
reason that it does not have executive authority and executive
functions.
Q168 Mr Tynan: If the
representation was made, would you consider that?
Mr Pearson: If
it was persuasive enough, but at the moment the principle we have
is that if there is an executive function then this is something
that would naturally come within the remit for inspection by the
Criminal Justice Inspectorate. If it is essentially an accountability
mechanism, which is what the Policing Board is, I am always open
to arguments, but I think there is a persuasive logic to the position
we are in at the moment which is.
Q169 Chairman: Before
you move on, Mr Tynan, what would trigger a referral of this to
the Criminal Justice Inspectorate since it is not within their
remit? In what circumstances would they be able to say: okay,
this is now within our remit and we are going to bring it into
our purview? Does it not take action from Government to do that?
Mr Pearson: What
I can say is: the CJI can inspect the Policing Board under section
47(4) of the Justice Act Northern Ireland 2002. This is the provision
enabling the Secretary of State to order an inspection of some
aspect of the criminal justice system which might cut across a
number of organisations. At the moment, that is the only circumstance
in which the CJI could inspect an aspect of the Policing Board.
Q170 Chairman: It does
seem a little strange, Minister, that the Northern Ireland Tourist
Board comes under their purview but not the Policing Board. Is
there any logic in that?
Mr Pearson: Yes,
there is.
Q171 Chairman: I would
be delighted to hear it.
Mr Pearson: It
might seem surprising at first glance, but the Northern Ireland
Tourist Board does have an investigatory and I believe also prosecutorial
role, so clearly it has executive functions of the type I was
describing to Mr Tynan.
Q172 Mr Tynan: The Policing
Board told us in evidence that where complainants are not satisfied
with the outcome of an internal investigation of a complaint there
is the opportunity to take that to the Secretary of State; can
you explain that process?
Mr Pearson: If
I can maybe ask officials to say something about that. I am not
quite sure what you are referring to.
Q173 Mr Tynan: The Policing
Board told us that complainants where they are not satisfied with
the outcome of an internal investigation, where people have been
subject to an internal investigation of a complaint, they had
the opportunity to take that to the Secretary of State. There
is a process there as far as we understand from the Policing Board.
Mr Pearson: This
is without going to the policing ombudsman?
Q174 Mr Tynan: It would
appear that way.
Mr Pearson: I am
not aware of the circumstances.
Q175 Chairman: Would the
Policing Board be wrong when they tell us this?
Mr Pearson: I am
sure the Policing Board would not be wrong in that they may well
have an issue. I think the best thing to do, Chairman, is for
me to look into that and to write to you.
Q176 Mr Tynan: It is surprising
that they tell us that they have the opportunity to go to the
Secretary of State and you are not aware of that process.
Mr Pearson: Yes.
Q177 Chairman: We are
just going to check the provenance of that statement and maybe
we will return to it in a moment. It was only really a little
tease. You pray in aid the Northern Ireland Tourist Board as having
an investigatory role, but so of course does the Policing Board,
which leads us on to the next question. They have a role as a
disciplinary authority for officers up to Chief Constable. Given
the inevitable frequent contact between the senior officers and
the Board, do you think that is appropriate?
Mr Pearson: Yes,
I do. The statutory provisions of the Board in this respect mirror
those in section 11 of the Police Act 1996 which permit police
authorities in England and Wales to require a senior officer to
retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness of the
force. This is something that has worked in England and Wales
and provisions are essentially similar. I do not believe that
there is a conflict of interest here.
Q178 Chairman: Just to
conclude then: Mr Reaney, the Chief Executive, told us on 8 December:
"There are a number of checks and balances within the Board
which I trust would never see a complaint go beyond that . . ."
the complainant not being satisfied, ". . . but we do have
the opportunity for someone to take that to the Secretary of State."
Mr Pearson: This
is a complaint about the Board itself?
Q179 Chairman: The complainant
not satisfied with what the Board has done as a result of an approach
to them, in other words I suppose an appeal, but you do not know
about that? Perhaps you or your officials could check with Mr
Reaney when you get home and let us know. There does seem to be
a slight dilemma here. One of you is right and one of you is wrong.
Of course, the Minister is right, is he not, otherwise the officials
get fired!
Mr Pearson: I think
that was helpful clarification, Chairman, in terms of the situation.
Let me just say on that: if somebody is complaining about the
Policing Board to the Policing Board and the Policing Board cannot
satisfy that complainant, I do not think it unreasonable that
they feel they should have an avenue to be able to complain to
a higher authority. That would normally be, I would imagine, the
Secretary of State or myself as the Security Minister. I am not
aware of any such complaints about the Policing Board.
Q180 Chairman: If it is
further help to you I think Mr Reaney said to us: "We have
recently advised our complainants . . . my understanding is there
have been two in relation to our handling of our cases to do with
medical retirements from duty. These complaints ultimately are
referred to the Human Rights Professional Standards Committee".
Then he went on to say, "There is an opportunity for it to
go further". We just need to clear that up so we know what
we are talking about when we report.
Mr Pearson: It
would be helpful if I write to the Committee having investigated
the matter.
Chairman: That would be
very helpful indeed. If they could consult Mr Reaney to make sure
we have it all clear.
| 
