Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-68)

21 JULY 2004

MRS NUALA O'LOAN, MR SAMUEL POLLOCK, MR DAVID WOOD AND MRS OLWEN LAIRD

Q60 Mr Tynan: How do you respond to the allegation of the Police Federation that states that several of their members have no confidence in the present system of accountability?

Mrs O'Loan: As I have told you, we have received from police officers 20 complaints, a total since we opened of about 40. We have dealt with each of them. They have all had the right to come back to us or to go back to the Secretary of State. When we are dealing with complaints by police officers, we deal also with the Federation or the Superintendents' Association, whichever, because they represent the officer to us. We have satisfied them in our dealing with the complaints that we have dismissed a member of staff on the foot of a police officer's complaint. We have disciplined; we have retrained officers, and all that on the foot of 40 complaints. We take complaints very seriously because I think, if we seek to judge the integrity and the professionalism of others, we must do all we can to try and see that our staff do their job professionally.

Q61 Mr Tynan: Obviously it is vitally important for people to have confidence in your office. Does the fact that the Police Federation state that some of their members feel as they do concern you? How would you rectify that?

Mrs O'Loan: It does concern me. It always concerns me if police officers feel unhappy about the office in any respect. What we are attempting to do is to go round at the lowest level possible in groups and just to talk to people. That is hard to arrange. I asked the MSU Commander in a particular area, "Can I come and talk to your mobile support units?" Those are the operational support units and they go in Land Rovers when there is a problem. "Yes of course you can", he replied. It was arranged and then I received a phone call to say, "Sorry, we have been called out". We have been unable to arrange it since. I do not think that is any reflection on them; it is just the pressures on policing. We are trying to engage with the police because I think they should understand the process and understand that at the end of the day there is a mechanism for independent investigation by the Secretary of State, by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State, and there are all these other mechanisms; there are at least 12 mechanisms for scrutinising our office.

Mr Wood: For the complaints that have been made by the police there is the single point of contact, the Police Federation, and they come through them to us. I have actually spoken to their representative on many occasions on this subject. There is not one complaint that has been made through the Police Federation that they would not say has not been satisfactorily resolved at the end of the day. There are not a lot of aggrieved complainants out there who have complained to your office about the behaviour of our staff and remain dissatisfied with how it has been dealt with.

Q62 Mr Tynan: Would you welcome Dr Hayes's suggestion that your office should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Assembly on this point?

Mrs O'Loan: I think there are difficulties there because police and justice are not matters which are devolved to the Assembly in the first instance, so it just could not be done at the present time. I think it is a matter for Parliament to decide. I do not honestly think it is a matter for me, but you then have to look at what an ombudsman is and what the process is. All the decisions which I make are recommendations, not decisions. I recommend to the Director of Public Prosecutions that a police officer should be prosecuted. The Director of Public Prosecutions is a totally independent officer and he decides. He has, if you like, a review; he sends papers out to counsel; he determines whether what I have presented to him is right, and he makes the decision. If you like, there is an appeal already in there. If a police officer is prosecuted, then he appears in court. If he is convicted, he has a right of appeal all the way through the normal criminal process. On the disciplinary side, I make recommendations to the Chief Constable for disciplining of officers. The situation is that those are recommendations. The Chief Constable can reject them, and there have been a few occasions where he has rejected them. In some of them, I have accepted that reaction; it may be, for example, on the grounds that the officer is ill, and there are various other circumstances which mean it is inappropriate to take action against the officer at this time, so I have accepted those.

Q63 Mr Tynan: Can I take it that your answer is "no", you would not welcome that?

Mrs O'Loan: I just think you have to look at the proportionality. You have to look at the function of an ombudsman and you have to see what you are dealing with. I do not make final decisions. I make decisions which are referred to other people—the Chief Constable or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Against each of those decisions, there is then an appeal process. The Policing Board recently have agreed that, given that, they feel that is an appropriate level.

Q64 Mr Tynan: I understand the process. There has been a recommendation. I was asking you if you would be happy with that under the Assembly Ombudsman. I understand that it is not devolved. Obviously this suggestion has been made and the direct question was: would you be happy with that?

Mrs O'Loan: Mr Tynan, I will do what Parliament requires me to do. I do not think it is a matter of me being happy or unhappy. I will do what Parliament requires me to do, and I will do it graciously and willingly. I do not want to be seen or to be perceived to be saying "yes" or saying "no" because I do not think that is my role. My role is to carry out the function, to explain to you the issues, to explain the numbers, and to leave you to make the decisions.

Q65 Mr Hepburn: Legislation has meant that you have acquired new powers and duties. How has this increased the financial and staffing problems and pressures on your office?

Mrs O'Loan: The office was established in 2000. When we were established in 2000, one of the things we did was go round looking at what policing costs. Dr Maurice Hayes did this too. We were established with a budget of about £3.5 million. Hayes said that the cost of running RUC complaints handling under the old system was about £6 million in 1996 or 1997, so we have a lower budget. It very rapidly became clear that the budget which had been allocated to the office initially was totally inadequate for what the government was asking us to do. There was a re-evaluation of the functions of the office in 2002 and the budget went up then. Since then, it has simply more or less kept pace with inflation; it has increased slightly. Although we have new powers and new duties, the level of complaints has gone down, so we have diverted people into quality assurance or research and things like that to try and make the best use of the resources we have and to meet our statutory duties. We do have a delay in dealing with some of our retrospective cases. We are not funded to do that at the present time. I have not made a further application. We will do them as best we can under the funding which we have. People understand that.

Q66 Mr Hepburn: We are informed that the key performance indicators are missing from the present annual report. Does that not make it difficult to compare year-on-year?

Mr Pollock: We have established objectives and targets and we have addressed those from last year. We have also produced a corporate plan for this incoming year and the goals for the next three years.

Mrs O'Loan: I think the corporate plan contains the measurement against objectives that you are looking for.

Mr Pollock: I refer you to pages 47 and 49 in terms of the progress and achievement of objectives.

Q67 Mr Clarke: I just wanted to give you the opportunity to place on record the concerns that you have expressed in your submission and in your annual report in respect of your ability to investigate historic matters. We do not know what those historic matters are but it would seem that they are sensitive and that they will also be very time-consuming and resource-heavy. However, we have heard many times that we cannot move forward until we deal adequately with the past. Would you comment on what your concerns are in respect of investigating those historic matters and when you feel the Ombudsman will be in a position to carry out those investigations and start to provide answers for members of the community that may be concerned?

Mrs O'Loan: We started to provide answers. The first retrospective investigation I did was into the death of Mr Sammy Devenny in 1969 and I published that in 2001, so we have been doing that from very early on. There are difficulties in doing retrospective investigations. Very often, particularly with the older ones, there were joint police and army activities. I can investigate the police but I cannot investigate the army. That is fine by me but it does mean that there are situations in which the army will sometimes provide us with information but I have no right to information as I have a right to information from the police. Some of the retrospective investigations are actually dealt with very quickly but I never know, when somebody comes to me and tells me the story of a death, quite what is going to come when we begin to investigate it. Some of them we have been able to deal with within one month or two months; others are queuing up, and we have 15 queuing up at the moment. There are those concerns. I think it is part of a wider problem that Northern Ireland has to resolve. I do not have the solutions to that. I am quite happy to engage in the debate but I do not have the solutions.

Q68 Mr Clarke: I think what you have just said in respect of the complexities of army-police relationships and receiving information is very helpful to us and it may be something we can put in our report, Chairman.

Mr Wood: We have not been resourced for retrospective inquiries. We have restructured, as we get some flexibility within the budgets in any way, to direct resources to that. Indeed, a great deal of our investigative resource is directed towards that type of larger inquiry. We have to prioritise and deal with matters as we get the resources with perhaps more complaints coming through the door. It is a difficulty for us. We acknowledge, as Mrs O'Loan said, the difficulties on the public purse and we are getting through them. As you have acknowledged, this is resource-intensive, complicated by history and the time they go back, and they do take some time to resolve.

Mrs O'Loan: The really complicating factor is that the forensic science lab was blown up, lots of police stations were blown up, a lot of evidence has gone, people have died, memories have changed, locations have changed. Those investigations are difficult. We always tell people at the beginning, "It may be that we will be able to present you with an incomplete picture of what happened and that may be all we can do". I want them to understand right from the very beginning that we will do what we can within our powers and our remit but that there may be limitations on what we can find for them.

Chairman: Mrs O'Loan, thank you to you and your team very much indeed for being with us. You have been an enormous help and I hope that when we report, we may be of some help to your office, too.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 23 February 2005