Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-236)
20 OCTOBER 2004
MR IAN
PEARSON MP, MR
NICK PERRY,
MR KEN
LINDSAY AND
MR DAVID
KYLE
Q220 Mr Swire: What input do you and
your officials have in the setting and monitoring of performance
targets for the Police Ombudsman and does the Department have
concerns about any aspects of the performance of the Ombudsman?
Mr Pearson: At an official level
through some of the regular meetings that take place, the setting
of performance targets will be discussed and those conversations
will be reported back to ministers. Ultimately, however, it is
for the Ombudsman's Office as an independent body to set its own
targets. Clearly, we will express views if we think targets are
not sufficiently stretching or indeed appropriate. I am comfortable
with the targets that the Ombudsman's Office has set for itself
and, as I keep stressing, it is an independent body and needs
to be treated as such.
Q221 Mr Swire: Are those targets to which
you refer in the public domain and whose decision was it to drop
the performance targets from the current annual report to 2003-04
when they had been in the Ombudsman's 2002-03 annual report? Is
your Department satisfied that the current format is fully transparent
and could not be improved upon?
Mr Pearson: The main performance
measures are set out in the Management Statement which was agreed
by the Secretary of State. I am not aware of the reasons why certain
performance information did not appear in the 2003-04 annual report.
Mr Perry: I think the content
of the annual report is a matter for the Ombudsman.
Chairman: But you are nevertheless free
to comment on it.
Q222 Mr Swire: Do you think it would
have been more helpful if the performance targets had been continued
to be included in a public document which was readily accessible
to anyone who was interested?
Mr Pearson: Ultimately, this is
a matter for decision by the Ombudsman's Office as to what it
puts in its report. Having read the report, I believe that it
is a very informative document. You however make a point and I
will take it away and consider it.
Mr Swire: Perhaps in the next Management
Statement.
Q223 Chairman: Turning to police confidence
in the Ombudsman which is not everything but it is a very important
part of the perception of how the Office works, in the survey
of police attitudes to the Ombudsman and the new complaints system
published earlier this year, 48% of police officers who had been
in contact with the Ombudsman's Office said that they were dissatisfied
with the way they had been dealt with. 37% said the Ombudsman
was doing a poor job and 42% thought that the Ombudsman was out
to get them. Both the police associations that we saw report that
their members do not have confidence in the present arrangements
and it is fair to say that, towards the end of our session, they
were both careful to point out that that was mostly a thing of
the past and they hoped they were putting most of this behind
them. What is your view of how the Ombudsman has gone about developing
relations with the police and what is your view about the police
reactions to the establishment of her Office?
Mr Pearson: First and foremost,
the role of the Ombudsman's Office is to be impartial, to be independent
and to investigate complaints. It is always going to be the case
that there is going to be a degree of tension between a body that
has been set up to investigate complaints and a complainant organisation.
There are bound to be tensions but I have seen no evidence to
suggest that the Ombudsman's Office has been anything other than
completely impartial and independent in the way that it has investigated
those complaints. I do recognise that some police officers have
concerns. I think those concerns are fewer than they were when
the Office was first set up and I believe that the fact that there
have been positive developments such as the working group that
has been set up which we discussed earlier to raise and look at
issues of mutual concern shows that there has been some recognition
by members of the police service that the Ombudsman's Office is
an organisation that they have to work with, they should work
with and that they have nothing to be afraid of.
Q224 Chairman: Would you encourage the
Ombudsman's Office to go on holding and publishing these regular
surveys so we can keep track of what these perceptions are?
Mr Pearson: I do believe it is
important to have monitoring information. It is an issue of confidence.
We want both the public and the police to have confidence in the
Ombudsman's Office and I think we need to survey both the public
and the police to assess whether those confidence levels are rising
or not.
Q225 Mr Beggs: One of the government's
aims for the Office as set out in the Management Statement is
that it should be affordable. How does the Department determine
affordability?
Mr Pearson: We will discuss and
agree a budget with the Ombudsman's Office that, as a government,
we believe is reasonable when looking at all the other priorities
that there are for public spending. I am not aware that the Ombudsman
herself is asking for more funds. We set a budget that we think
is realistic and sufficient to meet the needs of running an efficient
and effective Ombudsman's Office.
Q226 Mr Beggs: The Northern Ireland Office
submission indicates that the Ombudsman was given an additional
250,000 in 2003-04 in response to pressures on the Office, but
that this was unused at the time and your agreement was given
for it to be carried over into 2004-05. What were the pressures
on the Office that caused the additional funding requirement?
Why was it not spent within the originally agreed timescale and
what will it now be used for?
Mr Pearson: I think those are
questions that are best directed at the Ombudsman herself as they
are matters of her operational budget.
Q227 Mr Beggs: Has the Ombudsman bid
for any additional resources over and above the 250,000?
Mr Pearson: I am not aware that
the Ombudsman has bid for any other additional resources, other
than the agreement we reached recently on the complaints handling
system.
Q228 Mr Beggs: You say that it is also
important to recognise that, with the independence of the Office,
it is for the Ombudsman to decide how best to make use of these
resources, whatever their level, provided by the NIO. Can you
confirm that the Ombudsman is required to give the Department
a business case for any additional public funds it receives which
requires the NIO to take a view on the purpose for which the funding
is required? Surely such a process does not compromise the Ombudsman's
independence in investigative matters?
Mr Pearson: My understanding is
that in any organisation that receives public funds in the way
that the Ombudsman's Office does or, for that matter, a NDPB,
major items of expenditure will be required to submit for approval
in a business case. That is standard practice.
Q229 Mr Beggs: We have had a suggestion
that the Northern Ireland Office is withholding resources for
the Ombudsman to carry out retrospective investigations. Can you
offer any comment on that, please?
Mr Pearson: No, we are not. The
Ombudsman has not given us any request for additional resources
to look at retrospective cases. Clearly, she will have to make
a decision on how she prioritises her resources when looking at
current cases and when looking at retrospective cases that she
wants to investigate. She has not been saying to us that she thinks
her budget is woefully inadequate and we believe that the amount
we allocate at the moment is sufficient for the purposes for which
we set up the Ombudsman's Office and the legislation.
Q230 Mr Bailey: Mrs O'Loan has sought
more contact with the Policing Board than has appeared possible
to date. She told us that on two occasions the Police Ombudsman
has been permitted to address the full board and that there is
in addition a six monthly sharing of information and report but
"this could be improved." When Professor Rea, the chairman
of the board, gave evidence to us, he indicated that he was aware
that the Ombudsman had "problems with the board." We
know that there are other channels of communication between the
two bodies—for example, the Human Rights and Professional
Standards Committee of the Policing Board—but the current
position would appear to be less than satisfactory. What steps
do you think as a minister you can take to improve on this?
Mr Pearson: I am not aware of
any particular difficulties in this area. If both the Policing
Board and the Ombudsman's Office however are saying that there
are tensions and difficulties there, then I would encourage both
of them to work them out. There has been cooperation between the
two. We were discussing young people earlier. There was a jointly
commissioned report, Policing Accountability and Young People,
so there has been a cooperative relationship between the Policing
Board and the Office of the Ombudsman. Certainly I want to do
all that I can to encourage them to have good dialogue with each
other and to make sure that they have effective working relationships.
Q231 Chairman: We are coming up, as your
memorandum reminds us, to the statutory five year review which
happens to all non-governmental departments. That is due in 2005.
What will the scope of that review comprise and who is going to
conduct it?
Mr Pearson: I have some confusion
here as to whether you are referring to what I might call the
traditional, quinquennial review or whether you are referring
to section 61(4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
Q232 Chairman: For the avoidance of doubt,
I was referring to the quinquennial review. I am not quite familiar
with section 61(4) of the Police Act. Maybe you have to do both
things but let us talk about the quinquennial review which is
firmly in your lap, or somebody's lap.
Mr Pearson: I can talk to you
a lot more about the other one.
Q233 Chairman: Have you to do both? Do
they both cover the same ground?
Mr Pearson: Let me tell you what
I know and then confess to what I do not know. What I do know
is that under section 61(4) of the Police Act the Ombudsman shall
at least once every five years make a report on it—ie, police
complaints and disciplinary proceedings—to the Secretary
of State. We expect the Police Ombudsman will, as part of this
undertaking, review the working of her Office as well as the complaints
system and make a report and it will then be for the Secretary
of State to consider that report.
Q234 Chairman: That was exactly the question
I did not ask you. The question is whether all non-departmental
bodies have a quinquennial review done by the department concerned.
This is coming up next year.
Mr Pearson: Let me confess to
what I do not know. I do not know the answer to that. I have a
feeling in the back of my mind somewhere that as a government
across the piece we said that would not do quinquennial reviews
any more and there would not be an automatic requirement to do
that, but that is something that does not come from Northern Ireland.
It just comes from some peripheral knowledge.
Q235 Chairman: I would be surprised because
I think it is in your most recent memorandum that it is due.
Mr Pearson: There might be some
confusion. I think we were referring in our memorandum to section
61.
Mr Perry: It is my understanding
also that quinquennial reviews have been discontinued and the
five year review we may have been referring to in our memorandum
was this one.
Q236 Chairman: They are two distinct
things. For the Ombudsman to report how she thinks she has been
going is one thing; for you to review the way her Office has been
operating is another. What you are saying is that you are not
going to conduct a review yourselves?
Mr Perry: My understanding is
that quinquennial reviews are not now done in the way they used
to be.
Chairman: It is we who have it wrong.
There will not be a quinquennial review. Thank you very much,
Minister, for the honest answers to your questions, even the ones
where you said, "I do not know."
| 
