House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Fifth Report

3 Progress by the Office of the Police Ombudsman

18. Mrs O'Loan told us of the "significant pressure" to establish the Office and that a project implementation team had been convened to oversee its establishment.[40] She explained that the Office established its working processes in its first months of operation, but that government guidance to the Office, the Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Policing Board was not received until May 2001, six months after the Office was established. When we asked Mr Ian Pearson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for security and policing, why the government had failed to provide guidance in time, he said that "it would have been preferable if guidance had been available in a more timely manner", but that he was not aware of any difficulties that arose because of the "administrative delay".[41]

19. For six months after the establishment of the Office, the Ombudsman had to operate without formal guidance from the government. Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, said that he was not aware of difficulties which had arisen as a result, but the Ombudsman noted the absence of the guidance in her evidence to us. At the point at which maximum support was required to ensure the successful launch of a key part of the new policing framework for Northern Ireland, the government should have had formal guidance in place. In its response to this report we would like the government to explain why the guidance was not available to the Ombudsman on time

Progress of the Office

20. The evidence we received indicates that the Office has made significant progress in establishing its role since it was set up in November 2000. Mrs O'Loan identified a number of positive trends that had emerged. She told us that the number of complaints received by the Office had dropped from 3590 in 2001 to 2954 in 2003.[42] She acknowledged that this was in part due to a fall in the numbers of serving police officers, from 13,000 in 2000 to 9,200 in 2004.[43] Mr Sam Pollock, Chief Executive of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, told us that the seriousness of allegations made about police conduct had changed and that between 2001 and 2004 there had been a decline in so-called "oppressive behaviour" complaints.[44] Mrs O'Loan explained that this represented "a major shift in the pattern and nature of complaints" and that it had been achieved through the Office's work with the PSNI and by "identifying problems during investigations, and making specific recommendations for improvement".[45]

21. However, Mrs O' Loan accepted that the volume of allegations contained in complaints had shown a 5% decline only. She argued that the slower rate of decline in allegations about police conduct reflected a trend in which "single complaints were increasingly containing more than one allegation".[46] Although the PSNI considered that the decline in the level of complaints since 2001 was a "tremendous achievement",[47] they felt that the difference in the rates of decline of complaints and allegations was a matter "of some concern".[48] Nonetheless they emphasised that the Ombudsman had developed an "independent and robust investigation system" and that it was having an effect on police officers' behaviour.[49] They also pointed to the fact that their training system for officers was improving because it was being informed directly about the nature of the complaints being made.[50]

22. While Mrs O'Loan did not argue that the decline in complaints was the result of the Ombudsman's establishment, she believed that the Office had contributed to improvements in policing policy and practice.[51] For example, she told us that there had been a decline in the number of instances where police officers have misused batons which had dropped from 419 in 2001 to 148 in 2003.[52] She also pointed to a decline in the number of occasions on which police officers have used live fire.[53] In her view, these developments represented "progress towards normalisation of policing" in Northern Ireland.[54]

23. While the number of complaints against the police and recorded by the Ombudsman has decreased markedly, by 17% since 2001/2002, the number of separate allegations within these complaints has fallen much more slowly over the same period by 5%.[55] When seeking an accurate picture of the quality of policing over time it is important to look at both sets of figures for complaints and allegations.

24. The view of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) was that "the establishment and operation to date of PONI has contributed positively to the new beginning in policing".[56] The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for England and Wales told us that it had seen at "first hand" the Office's handling of casework and investigations, and was "impressed" with the efficiency of its case handling, the professionalism of its staff and its "customer service ethos".[57]

25. According to Mrs O'Loan, the Office had developed a constructive working relationship with the PSNI. She argued that there had been a need to "articulate clearly the independence of the Office", but that "close working relationships have been, and remain, vital to the effective functioning of both organisations".[58] The Ombudsman has also held meetings, and maintained communications with, the Police Federation, the Superintendents Association and Chief Officer Associations. Mr Paul Leighton, Deputy Chief Constable of the PSNI, said that in March 2003 he would have described PSNI's relationship with the Ombudsman as "adequate", but since then, the PSNI "has sought to build that relationship, develop protocols and work on a more personal basis, both formal and informal to improve the way that we learn from complaints".[59]

26. The Northern Ireland Policing Board welcomed the positive relationship that has evolved between the Ombudsman and the PSNI.[60] The Board also felt that its engagement with the Ombudsman "at all levels, formal and informal" had led to an improvement in their relationship.[61] However, Mrs O'Loan told us that she had asked the Policing Board for more regular contact on "issues of mutual interest in relation to complaints, conduct and policy and practice issues in order to improve the effectiveness of both organisations".[62] She explained that there is a "six monthly sharing of information, but that this could be improved".

27. The Office of the Police Ombudsman has made significant progress in consolidating its role, and its contribution to developing policing policy and practice has been positive. We were told about improvements in the PSNI's working practices, including reductions in police use of batons, and live fire. This has been achieved within a relatively short period of time and in difficult political circumstances. We welcome the constructive working relationship that has developed between the top managements of the PSNI and the Ombudsman.

28. The Ombudsman and the Northern Ireland Policing Board must ensure that they are taking all steps necessary to maintain full cooperation at all levels. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Board and the Ombudsman over what constitutes appropriate frequency of contact. The Board said that the present frequency of meetings appears sufficient, although it made clear that this would be kept under review. However, such fundamental differences ought never to occur. We expect to see a structure of communication put in place quickly which is fully acceptable to both the Ombudsman and the Board.

Case management system

29. In the course of setting up the Office, the project implementation team procured a case management IT system at a cost of £90,000.[63] The system records complaints electronically and provides "progress and correspondence logs" for each complaint as it progresses through the Office's complaints and investigation processes. Advice and support on the implementation of the Office's IT systems was provided by Deloitte & Touche at a cost of £72,000.[64]

30. Mrs O'Loan told us that the case management system has since proved "inadequate" and "lacks many forms of functionality".[65] For example, the system is unable to track external interaction with the DPP on criminal case referrals, or with the PSNI on discipline referrals. Nor has it any integrated investigatory processes, no modules for informal resolution, mediation, discipline and misconduct matters.[66] Mrs O'Loan explained that as her remit has grown, increased pressure has been put on the case management system to the point where it is "not capable of doing the job any more".[67] The Office recently requested funding for a 'case handling system' and a business case has been submitted to the NIO. Mr Sam Pollock told us that that the total capital and revenue costs for the new system over seven years is likely to be in the region of £2.4 million. Mrs O'Loan has told us that the Department had recently given its approval for the Office to enter into procurement for a new case handling system.[68]

31. The NIO was emphatic that the Ombudsman had done everything possible to procure and install an adequate system when the Office was set up. It told us that the project implementation team had examined a "wide range of issues affecting the running of the new Office", and that an "IT strand Team", with experience of recording complaints, worked with Deloitte Touche to identify the most appropriate system at that time.[69] The NIO's view was that "in the four years since the Office opened, experience of operating the investigation system, and changing demands…mean that the current system needs replaced"

32. We are surprised that the Office's present "case management system" has failed completely and is having to be scrapped so soon after its installation at the considerable replacement cost of over £2.4 million over seven years. While we appreciate the difficulties involved in anticipating how such systems will operate in practice, we note that, despite expenditure of £72,000 on consultancy advice and the experience of the "IT strand team", the project implementation team failed to identify an IT system capable of functioning satisfactorily. The new "case handling system" must be made to operate effectively over a much longer period.

Performance against targets

33. The Ombudsman's 2002-03 Annual Report contained 22 key performance indicators with clear targets and progress columns.[70] However, the 2003-04 Annual Report contains no indicators, but has a list of over thirty targets to measure progress on 11 'objectives'.[71] When we asked the Ombudsman about the reason for the inconsistency in its presentation of performance data, we were told that the 2002-03 indicators focused on "administrative and efficiency" targets because they were important as the Office was putting in place systems and procedures, but that targets were now having to relate to "core performance issues and outcomes".[72]

34. We also asked the Ombudsman why the targets in the 2003-04 Annual Report described activities and processes rather than stating outcomes. Mrs O' Loan reassured us that the Office had regard to SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time Bound) criteria when developing its performance targets. She explained that the Office's remit had changed as a consequence of legislative changes and, as it entered into a period of stability, it would be "possible to achieve greater continuity and consistency in the objectives, targets and performance indicators set".[73]

35. It is crucial to the credibility of the Office that the Ombudsman's formal presentation of her performance in the Annual Report should be of the very highest quality. It must be comprehensive, fully transparent, easily comprehensible, and should track progress on key targets year on year in a consistent format. There is some way to go before this standard of rigour is achieved. We expect to see an improvement in the presentation of the Annual Report in future years.

40 Mrs O'Loan chaired the project implementation team, which was made up of representatives from the then RUC (now PSNI), the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, the Superintendents' Association of Northern Ireland, Senior Police Officers' Staff Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the then Police Authority for Northern Ireland (now the Northern Ireland Policing Board) Back

41 Q 201 Back

42 PONI 6 para 29. However, the Ombudsman's recent annual report shows that there were 2,976 complaints in 2004, a small increase of 22 complaints from 2003: Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2003-March 2004, p 5 Back

43 PONI 6B p 19 Back

44 Q 35 Back

45 PONI 6 para 32 Back

46 PONI 6B p 19 Back

47 Qq 72, 89 Back

48 PONI 29A Back

49 PONI 29 p 1 Back

50 Q 89 Back

51 Q 36 PONI 6 p 19 Back