Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-114)

21 JULY 2004

MR PAUL LEIGHTON, PROFESSOR DESMOND REA, MR TREVOR REANEY AND MS SINEAD SIMPSON

Q100 Mr Tami: The same point again, you are happy with the way that that practice works?

Professor Rea: We believe that, so far in terms of our experience, this is very beneficial; it demonstrates the importance of the Ombudsman's Office as part of the architecture of policing in Northern Ireland.

Q101 Mr Beggs: The Ombudsman's survey of police officers indicated that almost half, that is 48%, of those police officers who had been in contact with the Office of the Police Ombudsman said that they were dissatisfied with the way in which the Office had dealt with them during the investigation. What do you understand to be the main reasons for this dissatisfaction and what steps have you taken to address it with officers and the Ombudsman?

Mr Leighton: We met with the Ombudsman's Office along with the Federation, the Superintendents' Association and the (inaudible) reps to discuss the outcome of the survey. It is fair to say that the survey results have lessons in them for both the Ombudsman's Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland and we agree that those lessons need to be picked up and learned. With regard to that particular result, 48% of police officers who had been in contact with the Police Ombudsman's Office said they were dissatisfied with the way the Office had dealt with them during the investigation, it is somewhat at odds with other results in the survey where 74% of police officers who had been in contact with the Police Ombudsman's Office said they were satisfied with the overall time it had taken; 64% were satisfied with the outcome of the investigation; 61% were satisfied with the way they had been received; and 58% thought the explanation of the complaints process given to them was clear. So, there are a number of things in this survey and what we agreed was that we would look very closely at this survey and try and learn the lessons from it because it needs interpretation in the light of those different responses.

Q102 Mr Beggs: Thirty-six% of your police officers said that they had a good knowledge of the role, responsibilities and powers of the Police Ombudsman and 36% said they had not. Are you concerned that over a third of police officers who responded to the survey indicated that they did not have a good knowledge of the role, responsibilities and powers of the Police Ombudsman and what are you doing about that?

Mr Leighton: That was one of the clear lessons from the survey. What we have done is that we have instigated a series of meetings in conjunction with the Ombudsman's Office. The people who are most likely to receive complaints are our first concern and those are people who are in the frontline units or detectives. So, we have focused on those as the first number of people who would need to receive training about the Ombudsman's Office and information about the Ombudsman's Office. Information is available to all police officers about the Ombudsman's Office firstly and that is clear: there are leaflets; there is information that they can find about the Ombudsman's Office very easily within our system; there is access to their website on our system. There are a number of ways in which they can find out the information. To proactively go to officers and give them information about the Ombudsman's Office, we targeted those groups that are mostly likely to be complained about: the TSGs, the Tactical Support Groups/Units who go into frontline riot situations and who would be the first line in any public order situations or who would do searches and arrests in difficult circumstances and CID officers who may be the subject of investigation because they are involved in major investigations such as murders and other serious investigations. That is what we have done about that. The Ombudsman's Office have cooperated with us, they have attended various training sessions and they attend every year the briefings before Dumcrie and the briefings before other major events in order that they capture large numbers of police at one time and explain the role of the Ombudsman's Office and what they will do if a complaint is made. So, we have proactively approached that along with the Ombudsman's Office.

Q103 Mr Beggs: At present, we understand that police officers cannot make a complaint to the Ombudsman about fellow police officers. Should members of the PSNI be able to complain to the Police Ombudsman about the conduct of other members rather than to their line manager?

Mr Leighton: No, I do not think they should. I think that would create a rather complicated system. We already have a grievance procedure and we already have managers and we are currently training our managers to deal more effectively with internal grievances and complaints and we feel that any external methodology might actually duplicate and make it more complicated and actually make it longer before the complaint gets resolved. I think that the time for complaints being resolved is crucial within our organisation because, when it is not resolved, there is a festering, there is a fermenting of dissatisfaction. So, we try to resolve things as quickly as we possibly can.

Q104 Mr Beggs: Are complaints an inevitable part of policing? What do you consider a normal level of complaint to be?

Mr Leighton: There is a leading question!

Q105 Chairman: When did you stop beating your wife, Mr Leighton?

Mr Leighton: Are complaints a normal part of policing? I have now been a police officer for 24 years and I have had several complaints made against me during my 24 years, none of which has been substantiated let me quickly add. I do not think that complaints are an automatic function of policing but I think it is almost inevitable that some sections of the community, when we are dealing with a divided community, will feel aggrieved at the way the police act, deal or some decision that the police make. So, I think it is highly unlikely that for some time we will get to a situation where there are no complaints in the policing, if it is ever possible. It does suit some people with allegations made against them when they are facing serious charges of course to make complaints against the police as an avenue of mitigation or even to have charges withdrawn before a court. So, I do not think it is possible that we will ever get to a time where we do not have complaints. What was the second part of the question?

Q106 Mr Beggs: What do you consider a normal level of complaints to be?

Mr Leighton: A lot less than we have now. An acceptable level of complaints would be a lot less than we have now.

Q107 Mr Beggs: In the Belfast Newsletter of 6 July, a senior member of the Police Ombudsman's staff was quoted as saying that the PSNI was "years behind in training". Do you think that that officer had a point of view and, if so, is there a relationship between lack of training and the level of complaints?

Mr Leighton: I do not think we are years behind in terms of police training. I have had the advantage of working on secondment with HMIC looking at many English police forces including the Metropolitan Police and I have also had the advantage of serving in Northumbria Police which is widely regarded as one of the best police forces in the UK and I know that one of the members around the table will support that.

Q108 Chairman: And 11 who will not!

Mr Leighton: Looking at training in the PNSI, we have suffered from perhaps having to train more in certain circumstances than others. All our officers receive public order training and all our officers receive firearms training. That is not the case in other police services. I think to say that we are behind in training is an oversimplification of the issue. Training is a huge issue for us. We are trying to develop police training that is way in advance of things that have been done in other parts of the world partly because we must. I had a meeting this morning with people from Central Training in the Home Office, Centrex, about some of our leadership training. It is clear that the relationships we have with academic institutions and the accreditation which we have achieved for some of our training in our leadership training and our foundation training is way in advance—and I state that categorically—of much of the training that goes on in England and Wales. That is not to say that all of our training is in advance of England and Wales. You have already heard Mr Wood refer to our firearms training in which we do lag behind the ACPO standards. There are mitigating circumstances in the sense that our officers over the years have lived with their weapons. It is not the case of an English police officer who picks up a gun when he goes for training on the various training events. Our officers actually live with their firearm and therefore their familiarity with the firearm is actually much greater. You can argue that that obviates the need for some training but it obviously increases the need for other types of training and Mrs O'Loan herself did allude to that in her evidence as I heard. So, I would say that it is an oversimplification of the case. What we aim to be—and I know in designing the new police college which we are currently engaged in—is to have facilities that will be as good as anywhere in the world to train in all matters.

Q109 Chairman: I have just been told that there is going to be a vote at 6.04, so I want to wrap this up because I do not think we are able to continue after we have been to vote. Can I ask two very quick questions. Can I take it that you both agreed with what Mrs O'Loan said about the mediation procedures? I gather you have been in discussion and you have both agreed that it would be better if you can mediate the less serious complaints before a formal investigation process starts.

Mr Leighton: If I may make just a brief comment on that. I had a meeting with Mrs O'Loan recently on this and we have had some reservations about this, but we have now agreed a way forward and the premise on which we have agreed a way forward is that it is not a duplication of other processes. In other words, our officers do not have to go through consecutive processes. So, one fails, try another, try another, try another. Rather, it is a concurrent process and, on that basis, we are happy that Mrs O'Loan proceeds and we await further information.

Q110 Chairman: I think the Committee would be very grateful if you would let us have a note of that view which you have just expressed in order that we can see it quite clearly.

Professor Rea: Can I say that we have not debated it but, in principle, we would be for it. The only question I personally would have is, could there be use of independent outsiders who could assist in that process? In terms of the principle, I would imagine that our response would be "yes".

Q111 Chairman: Again, once your Board has considered it, perhaps you would let us have a note because we want to make absolutely certain that we reflect your views correctly. We had Mrs O'Loan obviously very fully give hers. Do either of you or both of you think it would be desirable for officers from PNSI to be seconded to the Police Ombudsman's Office?

Professor Rea: In principle, I think that is a proposition that is worth considering. I can see positive arguments and I can see negative arguments but it seems to me that it is something that is worth considering.

Mr Leighton: The only comment I would make is that I need more detectives, I do not need to lose any!

Q112 Chairman: Everyone would say that, but in principle.

Mr Leighton: In principle, I do not object to the possibility.

Q113 Chairman: It is just a question of manpower and I understand that. Mr Leighton, you said in your submission to us that, should amnesty be contemplated in these historic inquiries, that the Ombudsman's remit should be considered.

Mr Leighton: It was a brief comment. Should amnesty or any other judicial or non-judicial solution to a way of trying to move the past forward and this is a debate which has been ongoing in Northern Ireland for some time, if that is the case, then I would find it unacceptable if someone could walk before a tribunal, hold their hands up and say they did something, get a technical conviction and walk away. I would find it unacceptable that my officers would then be subject to ongoing investigation about not filling in a form or not doing some particular act in the investigation that was leading to that several years previously. The principle that I work to is that we need to learn. I am quite happy that we can learn from mistakes and, where someone has done something wrong or done something by mistake, that we learn from that and move on. What I do not want is those officers jeopardised.

Q114 Chairman: Do you have a view on that Professor Rea?

Professor Rea: I have nothing to add.

Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed for coming and I am sorry that I have brought this to a rather abrupt conclusion but I know that we are wanted downstairs in two minutes. Thank you very much indeed.





 
previous page contents

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 23 February 2005