Examination of Witnesses (Questions 69-79)
21 JULY 2004
MR PAUL
LEIGHTON, PROFESSOR
DESMOND REA,
MR TREVOR
REANEY AND
MS SINEAD
SIMPSON
Q69 Chairman: Thank you
very much for coming. May I repeat the apology that I made to
Mrs O'Loan and her team for having put you off. Last Wednesday
was a slightly unusual day, certainly in my life, and I am afraid
we just had to drop everything in order to consider the Butler
Report, which was being delivered. Would you please, Mr Leighton,
pass on my apologies to Mr Orde. I know he would have come last
week and I know he cannot come this week. I am very sorry that
we have had to do without him.
Professor Rea:
Mr Orde sends his apologies to the Committee.
Q70 Chairman: Do either
of you want to make a very brief introductory statement? I think,
Professor Rea, you do.
Professor Rea:
Thank you for the opportunity to make representations to the Committee.
I hope I can assist you on behalf of the Board in your inquiry
into the functions of the Ombudsman. I am here today representing
the Board. I am accompanied by Trevor Reaney, the Chief Executive
of the Board, and Sinead Simpson. I know you have a lot of questions
to ask and for that reason I will keep my comments brief. As some
of you may be aware of the composition of the Board, I would like
at the outset to set this out as it is important to understand
the different political perspectives and how these impact on our
engagement with the Ombudsman. The Board has 19 members: 10 political
and nine independent. Of the 10 political members, four are UDP,
three are DUP, and three are from the SDLP. The political make-up
of the Board is, as you probably know, calculated using the d'Hondt
principle. The current representation is based on the balance
of the party representation at the Assembly; that is, two elections
ago. There are a number of points highlighted in the Board's written
statement to this Committee that I would like to emphasise and
briefly elaborate on. Firstly, the Ombudsman is a fundamental
part of the policing architecture. Independent and impartial investigations
of complaints against the police are critical for public confidence
and the Ombudsman's Office plays an important role in providing
this. That opinion is the unanimous opinion of the Board. In making
this statement and in answering your subsequent questions, I have
no intention or desire to weaken that part of the policing architecture.
It is essential. Secondly, I would like to say something about
the work of the Ombudsman and about the engagement and interface
between the two offices. I am sure the Committee, in taking evidence
from the Ombudsman, is well briefed on the nature of the work
undertaken by that office. From the Board's perspective, we see
the primary work of that office falling into two categories: first,
that which leads to the investigation of complaints made by citizens
of Northern Ireland against individual police officers; secondly,
that which relates to the wider issue of the policies and practices
adopted by PSNI in policing Northern Ireland. I will concentrate
on the first category. The Board would not be privy to the details
of the majority of individual cases; rather, it is our role to
monitor the outcomes of these cases, and we do this by analysing
any trends and patterns and statistical reports supplied to us
by the Ombudsman. There are, however certain reports of investigations
that the Ombudsman is required to send to the Board and indeed
to the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. These are called
regulation 20 reports. In respect of these regulation 20 reports
into, for example, the discharge of baton rounds in civil disturbance
situations—and to date there have been some 59—Board
members have welcomed these reports and describe them as balanced,
well written, well analysed, with sound recommendations flowing
from them. Even in the few cases where the outcome has been less
than complimentary about the police, such as the Ombudsman's report
into the murder of Sean Brown, Board members have considered the
reports to be well written and helpful in terms of pointing up
areas of improvement for the PSNI. No doubt the Deputy Chief Constable
can speak in a more informed manner about the improvements that
have resulted. Where then is the problem? I have no doubt that
we will explore in greater detail the positive and negative aspects
of the work of the Police Ombudsman's Office but one example that
causes the Board some difficulty is the handling of the Omagh
Report. The personalised nature of some of the commentary in the
Ombudsman's Omagh Report has left a residue of distrust that we
continue to deal with to this day. I would suggest, Chairman and
members, that you seek and read a copy of that report and that
you judge it for yourselves. There is also a feeling, most notably
articulated by the police associations, that there should be a
review mechanism which officers, aggrieved by decisions of the
Ombudsman's Office, can use rather than having to resort to judicial
review. I have no doubt we will explore this in more detail. Before
I conclude, I would like to acknowledge that I am aware that the
Ombudsman has problems with the Board. She is unhappy with the
lack of confidentiality displayed by the Board, by the apparent
lack of visible support from some members of the Board for the
work of her office, and, I understand, with the attitude of some
of our Board members toward her and the work of her office. I
very much regret that this is the case but as the Chairman of
the Board made up of 19 members, the majority of them political
members—and I have already explained the make-up—it
is very difficult to enforce confidentiality when members believe
that it is their democratic duty to make certain issues public
knowledge. One thing I would like to conclude with, Chairman,
is that, largely speaking, the Board would not query the way in
which the functions of the Ombudsman's Office are delivered. Indeed,
we welcome the fact that around the issue of relationships with
the PSNI much effort has been devoted to developing protocols,
protocols that will enhance and cement those working relationships.
I also feel that the level of engagement between the Board and
the Ombudsman at all levels, formal and informal, has led to an
improvement in our working relationships. It is in the interests
of all organisations within the policing and indeed criminal justice
system to develop, maintain and enhance good working relationships.
With that, Chairman, I am in your hands.
Q71 Chairman: Thank you
very much. I can understand that there is a tension, which I hope
is a constructive tension, between the Ombudsman's Office and
yours. I imagine, as any other chairman of a body that contains
politicians, you have the odd problem from time to time with your
members. Happily, that does not happen it his Committee! Mr Leighton,
do you want to say anything to us?
Mr Leighton: No,
Mr Chairman. I submitted a paper in advance. I am quite happy
to answer questions.
Q72 Chairman: Perhaps
you would give us, in a nutshell, how you see PSNI's relationship
with the Police Ombudsman?
Mr Leighton: The
first thing I would like to say is that we unreservedly support
the independent investigation of complaints. This has been a tremendous
boon in building confidence in the province of Northern Ireland
in policing. That may not have been the position that many people
started out with, but undoubtedly it has proved to be the case
in many controversial issues. I returned to the province in March
2003 and the relationship I would describe then as adequate, if
I may use that word. Since then, we have 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, because that has to be the ultimate, that we stop
complaints happening. I am absolutely delighted that complaints
are down 18% since 2001. I think that is a tremendous achievement,
and there has been a 10% reduction in the last year, which is
to the credit of the police officers and to the credit of all
in Northern Ireland.
Q73 Mr Bailey: Professor
Rea, you have mentioned the difficulties very concisely of your
relationship with the Ombudsman. How often do the meetings take
place and on what basis? What do you think can be done to improve
relations?
Professor Rea:
First of all, in terms of the meetings that we have, we have regular
meetings with the Human Rights Committee about three or four times
a year. We have one meeting a year formally with the Board. Also,
there are regular meetings between officials and there are also
informal meetings between the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of
the Board and the Ombudsman. These meetings provide a forum to
enable the future work of both offices to be discussed as well
as any contentious reports and to discuss opportunities for collaborative
working, for example on joint research. The Board is aware that
the Ombudsman would like two meetings a year with the Board, but
the Board has made the decision as of this moment in time that
the structure of meetings and the occasions of the various meetings
are sufficient at present, but I have no doubt that they will
review that as appropriate.
Q74 Mr Bailey: The Board
has taken a decision that in effect only one formal meeting a
year is adequate as far as they are concerned?
Professor Rea:
No, I am sorry, what I have said to you is that, with respect
to the Board itself, it is one meeting; with respect to the Human
Rights and Professional Standards Committee of the Board, it is
twice a year and as deemed necessary by either party—plus
the regular meetings between staff. There are also meetings, as
I have said, between the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board
and the Ombudsman.
Q75 Mr Bailey: Is that
a sub-committee?
Professor Rea:
It is one of the principal committees of the Board.
Q76 Mr Bailey: How many
times has that met?
Professor Rea:
It meets on a quarterly basis.
Q77 Mr Bailey: Does it
meet with the Ombudsman?
Professor Rea:
No; one of her officials comes to those meetings, each and every
meeting, but I am talking about the Ombudsman herself.
Q78 Mr Bailey: How many
meetings does that committee have per year with the Ombudsman?
Professor Rea:
We are talking about two a year at the moment.
Q79 Mr Bailey: I find
that astonishing. Can you say what you think might be done to
improve relations?
Professor Rea:
I am a bit surprised that you do find it astonishing at this moment.
I have described meetings at various levels, the meetings, for
example, with the staff, the meetings between the Ombudsman and
the Chairman and Vice Chairman. This is subject to review; it
is not written in stone.
|
