Examination of Witnesses (Questions 186-199)
20 OCTOBER 2004
MR IAN
PEARSON MP, MR
NICK PERRY,
MR KEN
LINDSAY AND
MR DAVID
KYLE
Q186 Chairman: Good afternoon. We have
been hearing evidence from all sides about the functions of the
Ombudsman's Office. It will not surprise you to know there are
various nuances of views about how it is all working. How do you
see it? The first two aims the government has set out for the
Ombudsman are that the public and the police should both have
confidence in the complaints system. Do you think this has been
achieved yet? What is your evidence which tells you either that
it has or that it has some way to go?
Mr Pearson: Firstly, thanks very
much for inviting me to meet with the Committee. Let me say, before
answering your question directly, something by way of context
which I am sure you are probably familiar with anyway. I think
it is important to recognise that, at the time of its establishment,
the Police Ombudsman's Office was one of the first anywhere to
provide a completely independent civilian arrangement for handling
and investigating complaints against the police. It was a new
area of work and we need to bear in mind all our comments in that
context. The fact that it was up and running so quickly is a tribute
to the staff there. With regard directly to public confidence,
you will probably be aware of some of the figures. Certainly the
surveys that have been done indicate a high level of public recognition
of the Ombudsman's Office. Something in the region of 85% of people,
it is estimated in Northern Ireland, are aware of the Office and
there is growing public confidence in its impartiality going up
from 61% to 76%. I do however recognise that some police officers
do have concerns about the role and operation of the Ombudsman's
Office and no doubt they have been bringing those to your attention
in previous sessions. They have to get on with it and work together
with the Ombudsman's Office. I am pleased that a working group
has been established to look at issues of mutual concern and I
really think the way forward is for that working group to be allowed
to do its work and for everyone to go into it with an open, positive
frame of mind.
Q187 Chairman: The Institute of Conflict
Research has concluded that there is a need to promote greater
awareness among young people of the Ombudsman's work. Do you think
the Ombudsman is doing enough in that regard, is there more you
could do to help or is there more she should be doing?
Mr Pearson: I think the Ombudsman
has been doing quite a lot of work in this regard. The most recent
annual report to March 2004 has a section on working with young
people. From memory, it says there have been visits with more
than 70 community groups and organisations. Staff are visiting
schools across the province and I think there is an active level
of engagement. Obviously, the Ombudsman's Office is independent
and it is up to Nuala O'Loan to decide how much time and resource
to devote to this area but certainly from what I see they are
doing quite a lot to work with young people.
Q188 Chairman: Again, according to the
Ombudsman's surveys, only 16% of respondents who had experienced
unacceptable behaviour by the police said they had complained
about it. 55% either thought nothing would be done if they did
complain or they would not be taken seriously. Are you concerned
about these figures?
Mr Pearson: I understand the argument
that some people make when they say that it is not worthwhile
complaining because our complaints will not be taken seriously,
but I want to assure people that complaints are taken seriously
when they are made. The fact that some 3,000 complaints a year
are made and investigated indicates the seriousness with which
the Ombudsman's Office performs its duties.
Q189 Chairman: If 84% think it is not
worthwhile, is that not a matter for concern?
Mr Pearson: I do agree it is a
matter for concern and that is why I think it is important that
we do more to increase public perception of the Ombudsman's Office,
the Ombudsman's role, and give assurance to the public that any
complaints against the police will be fully and properly investigated.
I am not aware how that figure would compare with a figure for
England or Wales, for instance, but clearly if people have complaints
about the police they should make them through the appropriate
complaints mechanisms.
Q190 Chairman: We have just heard from
the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation of
Northern Ireland and we were talking to them about the system
whereby, if a police officer is dissatisfied with the way his
or her complaint has been handled, there is an informal mechanism
which the Secretary of State has accepted whereby it is referred
to him and if there is any question of any maladministration by
the Ombudsman's Office somebody will be appointed on an ad hoc
basis to look at that allegation. We have also heard in a Northern
Ireland Office memorandum that no such case has yet come up; whereas
the police officers we spoke to representing those associations
said that there were a number of cases where a police officer
had expressed dissatisfaction and all that had happened within
the NIO was that it was referred back to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman
then stood by what they did, which is what you would expect, and
nothing further has happened. One allegation was that there was
a case that was maybe two years old. You may not know the answer
to this question now but it is important, is it not, that if the
Secretary of State has given an undertaking it is kept and it
is a little surprising, in view of what those officers said, that
this situation has not so far arisen?
Mr Pearson: As far as I am aware,
there are no outstanding complaints from police officers with
regard to maladministration that have been referred to the Secretary
of State. Five complaints over the total period of the Ombudsman's
Office's to date relating to maladministration have been received
by the Secretary of State and all were indeed referred to the
Ombudsman for her comments and explanation. The explanations that
we received from her seemed satisfactory to us. Those responses
were then forwarded to the complainants and no further representations
were received back to us. As far as we believe, those maladministration
cases have been dealt with satisfactorily.
Q191 Chairman: I can see where there
might be a misunderstanding here as to the status of these things.
If a police officer says, "I was not fairly treated. My case
was not properly handled" and appeals to the Secretary of
State, I fully understand that the Secretary of State will want
to refer that back to the Ombudsman in the first instance in order
to make sure that there has not been a factual error or a page
missing from something or whatever. Having got it back again,
is it enough for the Secretary of State simply to say, "I
have checked with the Ombudsman and it is okay"? Do you think
that that carries out the undertaking? This is the Ombudsman repeating
what the Ombudsman has already said to the police officer. In
what way does the Secretary of State's office or maybe you on
his behalf look at this and assure yourselves that you are in
full agreement with the Ombudsman before so informing the police
officer? Otherwise, I can see them saying, "There is no point
in doing this because it just goes back and of course she will
say what she said before."
Mr Pearson: I fully understand
the point you are making and I do not think it is the case that
something simply gets copied to the complainant in the end. It
is right in any complaints procedure that you refer the matter
to the organisation that is being complained about and ask for
an explanation. After that, you have to take a view. It is the
role of the Secretary of State or the responsible minister at
the time to take a view on whether the explanation you have received
from the Ombudsman is sufficient or whether it requires future
questions and comments. I have not had any of these maladministration
cases referred to me but that is pretty much the way that I would
do it and it is my understanding of how the procedure works.
Q192 Chairman: You say you have had none
referred to you. Is this because the Secretary of State takes
them himself? Do allow one of your officials to answer if you
do not know. It is quite reasonable if you do not know as you
have not had any.
Mr Perry: No ministerial representations
have been received since the Minister took up office.
Q193 Chairman: That is why it is very
fair to ask you because you were there before he was.
Mr Pearson: I would imagine it
would be the security minister who would look at these.
Q194 Chairman: It is Mr Pearson's predecessors,
not the Secretary of State, who handle this? Is that what you
are saying?
Mr Kyle: They are looked at at
official level. Unless there was some evidence, they would not
normally go up to the minister for final decision.
Mr Pearson: In that case, I do
not think it is satisfactory.
Q195 Chairman: I am very glad to hear
you say that because if the Secretary of State gave the undertaking
that he would look at things that means he will or one of his
ministers. Are you saying that within the Northern Ireland Office
none of these cases has been referred to ministers?
Mr Kyle: On maladministration
complaints, no. We get a reply from the Ombudsman to be considered
at official level.
Mr Pearson: That is the first
time this has been brought to my attention. I do not regard it
as satisfactory and I do not think we are dealing with a sufficiently
large number of complaints that these things cannot be looked
at by ministers and a submission and advice be received from officials
by us and considered properly. I will certainly undertake to do
that while I am Security Minister.
Chairman: I am pleased and gratified
that you have said this and I think so too will be the police
officers concerned, because if they simply feel—this is
no discredit to officials, but sometimes someone has to take a
policy decision about these matters—it is being batted back
to the Ombudsman and it comes back again the same as it was before,
I agree with you. I will not flog the point. We have made the
point.
Q196 Reverend Smyth: I would just make
the point that the Minister did honestly answer the question but
it was repeated that no minister came back. Can I ask the officials:
did they go back to the police officers concerned and respond
accordingly?
Mr Kyle: Yes. There are no outstanding
replies due to any police officer.
Q197 Reverend Smyth: The gestation period
for the Office was from October 1999. The Ombudsman was put in
place at that time but the responsibilities were designated to
her in April 2000 and then it was November 2000 before the legislation
was passed. Since that time, there seem to have been changes.
Evidence to us suggests that there have been some 15 or so changes
in the legislation. Does this suggest that the original legislation
was deeply flawed, especially in the light of questions and requests
from the Ombudsman herself that there might be changes and of
course the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission?
Mr Pearson: I do not recognise
the figure of 15 legislative changes and I would be very interested
to hear some of the detail about how those have come about. I
think the government substantially got it right in the Police
(Northern Ireland) Act 1998. There have been a few legislative
changes since then. The Police Act 2000 introduced the Ombudsman's
power to report on police practices and policies and the Police
Act 2003 widened powers to investigate complaints against designated
support staff, but that is it in terms of legislative changes
as far as I am aware. A lot of those changes were pattern driven
over a period of time so I do not recognise the figure of 15 that
has been quoted.
Q198 Reverend Smyth: As I understand
it from the Ombudsman's Office there has been a request that her
powers of mediation be strengthened and she considers that this
will require further legislation. Will the government be supporting
this request?
Mr Pearson: I understand that
the Ombudsman has produced alternative mediation proposals and
I can quite understand why she wants to do this. It is important
that any alternative mediation arrangements and new conciliation
proposals have the agreement of all parties, but we are certainly
considering any legislation that will be required to implement
these. If all parties are agreed that this is a sensible way forward,
this is something that we would like to facilitate as a government.
As always, these will be subject to allocation of parliamentary
time.
Q199 Reverend Smyth: I understand the
answer that has been given. The powers are already there, as I
understand it. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 changes
can be made. Specifically, the Secretary of State was to consult
with the Ombudsman on setting long term policing objectives and
the chief constable, on the other hand, was to do likewise on
the formulation of codes of practice. It is in the Ombudsman's
own evidence that there have been some 15 legislative changes
to which her office has been subject during the three years of
its existence, so it would be helpful for you to have a look at
that.
Mr Pearson: I understand the point
you are making. There is a difference between legislative changes
affecting the Ombudsman's Office and legislative changes affecting
the police.
| 
