|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 108-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
The functions of the Northern Ireland Policing Board
Wednesday 19 January 2005 MR IAN PEARSON, MR KEN LYNDSAY and MS GILLIAN ARDIS Evidence heard in Public Questions 116 - 180
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Wednesday 19 January 2005 Members present Mr Michael Mates, in the Chair Mr Adrian Bailey Mr Roy Beggs Mr Gregory Campbell Mr Eddie McGrady Mr Stephen Pound The Reverend Martin Smyth Mr Hugo Swire Mr Bill Tynan ________________ Memorandum submitted by Northern Ireland Office
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Ian Pearson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Ken Lyndsay, Head of Policy Reforms Division, Ms Gillian Ardis, Head of branch which oversees the Policing Board, Northern Ireland Office, examined Q116 Chairman: Mr Eddie McGrady, as everybody knows, is a member of the Policing Board and, therefore, wants that interest known and declared publicly, which he always does very conscientiously. It means that he will not take part in the questioning but will be an active listener; were that the rest of my Committee were as compliant as that. Tell us: has the concept of a Policing Board been successful in terms of the expectations of Government as conceived when Patten reported? Mr Pearson: Yes, I believe it has. Before I say something in a little bit more detail could I perhaps just update the Committee on three issues very briefly? Q117 Chairman: Yes, certainly. Mr Pearson: Firstly, the Committee will be interested to know that we have met our N+2 targets with regards to the police programme for the 2004 calendar year. Q118 Chairman: If I may say so, on behalf of us all well done. I think we were a little sceptical as to whether you could do that. That is very good. Mr Pearson: The second thing I want to say is that following the last meeting I attended we put procedures in place where there are complaints about how the police ombudsman has investigated a complaint against the police and matters are referred to the Secretary of State. There are now procedures so that there will be ministerial oversight; I will see the correspondence in detail of those complaints. The third thing that I want to say is: I would like to thank the Committee for its very helpful report on parades. I want to be able to respond to it promptly. Government is carefully considering the recommendations at the moment. Naturally, I will want to have consultations with the political parties and other key organisations. I hope to do that over the next few weeks and to be able to respond in a timely manner. Q119 Chairman: Good. That is all excellent news. I am glad we are able to jog you into action on the odd occasion. I think it is a two‑way process, but that is very satisfactory. Mr Pearson: In terms of answering your question directly, I believe that the Policing Board and indeed the District Policing Partnerships have been an undoubted success and one of the major achievements that have come out of Patten and the Belfast Agreement. I believe that the Board has shown that it can take difficult decisions. It has continued to work well, despite the ongoing political difficulties which I do not need to explain to the Committee. Q120 Chairman: Do you have any plans to revise the powers and functions of the Board? Mr Pearson: We do not have any plans at this time to alter the powers and functions. We believe that they are sufficient, but obviously if the Committee comes to a different view we would want to consider that. Q121 Chairman: We have heard concerns about the Committee structure especially that it does not reflect the operational and departmental structure within PSNI. This affects the Board's ability to scrutinise the Board's ability to scrutinise the PSNI properly. Do you think this is a concern and, if so, how do you think we should address it? Mr Pearson: I have heard concerns expressed. Obviously, this is very much a matter for the Board. The Board is an independent organisation. I understand that discussions have taken place between the Board and PSNI and that there is scope to realign their structures. Essentially, I think it is a matter for them to operate in a way in which they think is most efficient and effective. Q122 Chairman: But you would put no obstacle in their way if they wanted to change their way of doing business? Mr Pearson: Certainly I would not put any obstacle in their way at all. Our role here is not to interfere in the independent organisation. The independent organisation we believe is discharging its functions well. Q123 Chairman: If it needed to change any of its powers or functions which did require your action you would look on that favourably? Mr Pearson: We want obviously to listen very carefully to what they say to us; I can give that commitment. Obviously I cannot give a blank cheque that we will do what the Policing Board say to us. Q124 Chairman: I was not suggesting that. They might come to the conclusion that their powers need to be changed, for example. That is something that we could all look at perhaps together. Mr Pearson: I am not aware that they currently feel strongly that there are additional powers that they require, but I am more than happy to discuss that with them. Q125 Reverend Smyth: You did say that the Policing Board and the DPPs were successful. I wonder how effective you evaluate the DPPs? How effective are the DPPs proving? Mr Pearson: It is still very much early days with regards to the DPPs, but I think there are strong indications, again, that they are performing their role and functions in the way in which we expected them to be when the architecture of this was put in place. That is not to say that there have not been some difficulties in some areas, there always are when you are putting new structures in place, but overall we are satisfied that they are performing their role well. Q126 Reverend Smyth: Was it value for money in appointing independent members as something like £920,000 was spent? Why was the cost of these appointments so high and was there any competitive tendering for those who were involved in the recruiting process? Mr Pearson: It is important to bear in mind here that this was the biggest single public appointment exercise across all 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. We were setting up a new structure. It is a structure that is ensuring improved accountability mechanisms with regards to the police. As part of that, it is important that there is strong public awareness of the DPPs and their role. In some ways, I think that the making of, in total, some 215 appointments process, the public advertising that took place, all helped to establish the DPPs in the mind of the public. I believe that public confidence was extremely important. Overall, it is the case that the appointments process was the result of a business case being produced which looked at value for money considerations and we were satisfied that value for money was achieved as a result of the appointment process. Q127 Reverend Smyth: You were satisfied, but was there any guidance given to them at the beginning as to how they should proceed? Mr Pearson: The guidance is essentially based on the fact that when you are spending amounts of public money you have to produce and justify a business case. Those normal methods of sanctioning public expenditure were, I understand, followed quite rigorously in this case. The business case has to stack up if the appointment process was to go ahead. Q128 Chairman: £2,000 per appointment does seem quite a sum. Mr Pearson: It does seem quite a sum, but it was a very large appointment programme and it was well advertised. It was extremely well advertised both to ensure a wide range of applicants and also to give public confidence in the exercise itself. You have to bear that wider consideration in mind as well as the more narrow function of appointing members. Q129 Reverend Smyth: We are responsible to watch public expenditure. We can understand the argument that this was the first time, but has inflation risen so high that we are going to go for £950,000 to the next round. Mr Pearson: My understanding is that for the next round of appointments a further business case will be submitted for approval very shortly by the Board and it will be up to the Board to decide whether that business case represents good value for money for the appointments process. Q130 Reverend Smyth: Are you aware that the Board says that they have no money to do that and they are looking for money that would have to come from Government sources to meet that business, as I understand it? Will the extra funding be available? Mr Pearson: It is up to the Board to manage its budget within the resources that are allocated to it by Government. If the Board is saying that there are difficulties, then obviously they will want to talk to us, but my expectation is that the Board knows that it has to go through an appointment process to reconstitute DPPs. It should budget for that in the appropriate manner. Q131 Reverend Smyth: You bid for one, therefore, they will be looking for more money, so it will be interesting to see how they turn the budget down and how far the Government responds. As I understand it, the Secretary of State's consultation on updating the Code of Practice for the appointment of independent members of DPPs ended in September 2004. What changes are the Government proposing to make to the Code of Practice, any? Mr Pearson: I am not aware of the detail of the changes to the Code of Practice. What I can say to the Committee is that the draft code that was issued for consultation was generally very well received. Most of the comments that were made on it were of a process nature. In the main these have been taken on board and included in the document. It is our intention to publish the Code to coincide with the launch of the new appointment competition for the independent DPP members. Q132 Reverend Smyth: This was a response to the Government's own consultation paper put out in July 2004. At the moment, then, are you saying that the Government has not now made any decisions on the responses and that will take some time? Mr Pearson: No. We have revised the Code. We do want to publish it, but you have to bear in mind this is a Code of Practice on the appointment of independent members. We want to follow that Code and we want to publish it when we go through the appointment process, which is the logical and sensible time to do it. Q133 Reverend Smyth: When is that likely to be? Mr Pearson: Again, that is a matter for the Board, but we anticipate the appointments process starting within the next two or three months. Q134 Reverend Smyth: Are you aware that a number of the DPPs have expressed concern about the Board's delay in setting DPPs' budgets? Are you aware and, if so, what are the problems and what help is the Department giving the Board to ensure more efficient arrangements in the future? Mr Pearson: I understand that concerns have been raised previously. Again, it is an issue for the Board itself, but my understanding is that this is not a problem that is likely to recur in the future. The expectation is that the budgets will be finalised in January or February. Q135 Chairman: Minister, you are in a position that is not unfamiliar to me. You have responsibility for these Boards and a lot of expenditure. You are also the Minister for Finance and Personnel. When you look at the problem: it was £920,000 to set it up. Your brief quite rightly says, yes, it was a due process, a lot of advertising, second time round: £950,000. It is not a new process any more. It is a process that has been well tried and tested. As the Finance Minister, do you not have a view on whether you are going to provide that sort of money for this? Have you asked or challenged them about this and said: "Come on, you can do better than that" or are you just going to give them the funds? Mr Pearson: As you will be aware, Chairman, there is a rigorous system of checks when it comes to the spending of public money. Fundamental to this is the preparation of a business case. In preparing the business case the Board will need to satisfy itself that it is achieving value for money for what it is proposing to do. Certainly, if the Board is going to want to approach Government for additional funds we will certainly want to look very carefully at the business case and what they are saying and why they believe that they cannot meet this through their existing funds. Q136 Chairman: They tell us that they have no funds for the second round of appointments, so presumably on that basis you are going to have to provide the funds for a second round of appointments, am I right or wrong? Mr Pearson: Certainly I am making no commitment. My understanding is that the money that we have allocated to the Policing Board should be sufficient to meet the functions that they need to discharge. Q137 Chairman: Including a second round of appointments, that was factored in when you gave them their funding, was it? Mr Pearson: That is my starting position, Chairman. Q138 Chairman: It is a fact or not: when you gave them their budget did you say, "this furthermore covers the costs there are going to be in the second round of appointments"? Mr Pearson: My understanding is, yes, that is the case. The budget is in excess of eight million from memory. I believe that should be sufficient to discharge. Q139 Chairman: They told us in their submission that they have highlighted to you a funding need for this purpose, is that right? Do let one of your officials answer if they know the answer. You are not expected to know everything. Mr Pearson: I am not aware that they have but let me ask my officials. Mr Lyndsay: Chairman, we are and will be in discussion with the Board on this particular issue. What I would say is that because this is the second time that the DPPs will have been appointed we would expect certainly to learn lessons from the first time around. We will be looking at the business case very carefully to ensure that has happened. Q140 Chairman: The first lesson is it cost £30,000 more to do the second time than it did the first. It does seem slightly surprising. Are you slightly surprised at that? Mr Pearson: I have not seen the business case. I would not really want to comment on it. Q141 Chairman: There is no harm in trying to draw you is there. We have had evidence that the existence of both Community Safety Partnerships and District Policing Partnerships results in duplication and the inefficient use of resources. Have you considered confining those functions into one structure or, if not, what is the rationale for maintaining them as separate entities? Mr Pearson: When I met the Policing Board recently they made this point quite strongly to me that they believed that there was overlap and duplication between DPPs and Community Safety Partnerships. I have reflected on that and I have asked for some work to be done on this. It is true to say that with some 39 per cent of District Councils there is already a sharing of support services, so between DPPs and CSPs. I think that is right and it is certainly to be encouraged. The way I look at it, however, at the moment is that my initial view is that there are distinct and separate roles that are performed by DPPs and CSPs. It is important to recognise that DPPs' role is very much one of holding the local police commander to account. That is essentially a different role from that of the Community Safety Partnerships, which is about a broad‑based partnership which involves the police, but a range of other organisations on issues of improving community safety. It is not an exact analogy, but certainly in England we have Community Safety Partnerships and we have Police Consultative Committees. They have different roles and responsibilities and we accept it here. I am more than open to consider further representations. As I say, we are still looking at this as an issue. At the moment, the Board itself is undertaking a review of DPPs and I will certainly want to consider what recommendations they want. The Criminal Justice Inspectorate has decided that there is going to be a review of Community Safety Partnerships either late this year or early next year. It might be best to await the outcome of both of those reviews before reaching any definite conclusions. Q142 Mr Campbell: Just to go back to the question of expenditure for a moment. According to figures supplied to the Committee, the Northern Ireland Office increased the grant to the Board in the year 2003/04 by almost £2 million, but in the same year the Board recorded an under-spend of £1.3 million. On the face of it, that looks like very poor financial planning. I was just wondering how you would describe it? Mr Pearson: It is certainly the case that the Policing Board's budget was under-spent in the 2003/04 financial year. My understanding is that the primary cause of this was a lower than anticipated expenditure on DPPs combined with a delay in implementing a programme of recruitment for additional staff to the Board, but I have to say that my officials are in close contact with Policing Board colleagues in respect of future Policing Board expenditure. We are confident that the difficulties that led to the under-spend in 2003/04 have now been fully resolved. Again, I have to say: this is not just about spending money for spending sake. What is important here is to have a budget that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Policing Board. The fact there has been an increase in the budget that has been set reflects, we believe, the role and functions that the Board need to perform in this current financial year. Our strong view would be that this is adequate for the purpose. Q143 Mr Campbell: I am not clear, Minister, maybe you can help me. You are saying that the Board requested an increase of £2 million, part of which was to help with the expenditure on the establishment of the DPPs. Yet in answer to the Chairman's question earlier you were indicating that the initial amount that had been granted to the Board was to cover the two years of appointments to the DPP. They are saying that they are going to need an extra £950,000, even though they asked for money 18 months ago to cover. You said that the £2 million was required, part of it to cover the DPP, and yet there is still a shortfall of 950,000 for the second batch of appointments to DPPs. Mr Pearson: I am not saying that there is a shortfall of £950,000. Q144 Mr Campbell: They are saying that. Mr Pearson: The Board are saying that and undoubtedly there is a healthy debate going on with officials about how much money is required. Q145 Chairman: Is there, Mr Lyndsay? Mr Lyndsay: Yes, Chairman, I confirm that there is. It is certainly vigorous but, as the Minister said, the primary cause of the under-spend was that the District Policing Partnerships did not get going as quickly as they thought that they might do. As well as that, the Board was building up its own staffing structure at that time. That was really the main cause of the under spend. Mr Pearson: That is why the budget for 2004/05 is significantly higher than the budget for 2003/04. Q146 Mr Campbell: But have you any comment then on the under-spend of 1.3 million? Mr Pearson: The under-spend in 2003/04 as I have already said was because of the slow start of DPPs, principally, and the delay in recruiting additional members to the Board itself. Q147 Mr Pound: From the costing of the Board to the composition of the Board: are you concerned that there are only two women? Mr Pearson: Let me say, very openly, that I do not think that is ideal. Q148 Mr Pound: I think we can probably all agree on that. Mr Pearson: As you will be aware, the current Board membership is made up of ten political members who were appointed by members of the then Assembly. They were nominated by their respective parties and they were all men. Of the nine independent members that were appointed by the Secretary of State two were women. Clearly, I think we would have preferred to see more women appointed to the Board, but as the Board is going to be reconstituted in October I will be very happy to note any comments that the Committee might want to make on this issue. Q149 Mr Pound: Do you make any approaches to the political parties, although I am conscious of the delicacy of such approaches, but quite clearly it is desirable to reflect the gender balance in Northern Ireland? There are probably more than ten per cent of the population of Northern Ireland are women. Mr Pearson: It was very much up to the political parties themselves to decide who they wanted to nominate. Q150 Mr Pound: I appreciate that, but I just wondered whether you had mentioned it formally to any extent. As I said, I am aware of the sensitivities. Mr Pearson: I was not Minister at the time when these appointments were made. I am afraid I do not know whether there were any informal discussions held between the then Minister with responsibility for this. Q151 Mr Pound: Sticking with the nine independents for a moment, we received evidence which casts some doubt as to the veracity of the appellation "independent". It is felt there may be a degree of political alignment amongst those nine. Do you think that is a fair comment? Mr Pearson: It is very difficult for me to comment on evidence without having seen it, but certainly what I can say is that the Secretary of State took great care when determining the independent members to be appointed. The Secretary of State at the time, on my understanding, genuinely believed that he was appointing independent members. In many instances that could be pointed to, independent members have shown their independence with the decisions that have been taken at the Board level since its establishment. Q152 Mr Pound: Do you think the appointment process is fully transparent? Mr Pearson: The Secretary of State has a responsibility when exercising his powers of appointment to secure, as far as practicable, that the membership of the Board is representative of the community. I believe that it is a transparent process. It is something that goes through all the normal channels with a regard to regulation by OCPA. Q153 Mr Pound: As I say, you are absolutely right to say that it is perhaps inappropriate for you to comment on evidence that you have not seen, but the Police Federation of Northern Ireland have formally expressed this concern. Are you aware of their concern? Mr Pearson: I certainly am now. Mr Pound: Perhaps we could share their submission with you, but I am very, very grateful for your answer. Q154 Chairman: If we might just clear this up. What the Police Federation said to us was that they were unhappy that the so‑called independents were politically aligned and that their political alignment determined their acceptability to the political parties to serve on the Board, but the political parties have no say in who the Secretary of State appoints, do they? Mr Pearson: No, they have absolutely no say at all. Q155 Chairman: The Police Federation have this wrong? Mr Pearson: I believe the Police Federation have this wrong. Mr Pound: I think at the risk of us having a cross‑table dispute here acceptability is the key word; whether that is informal or formal acceptability is really the point here. Chairman: We all know the Police Federation have strong views on certain matters. They are not always correct. Q156 Mr Beggs: We have heard concerns also about members of the Policing Board divulging sensitive information to the press, Minister. Given the importance of confidentiality to the proper functioning and credibility of the police, police ombudsman and the Board, do you acknowledge that this is a serious problem? Mr Pearson: Again, the Board is independent and this is a matter for the Board itself. I seem to recall from my briefing that the Chairman said politicians will be politicians. Q157 Chairman: The Chairman of the Board? I would never let a remark like that cross my lips. Mr Pearson: That is right. Q158 Chairman: Just so we establish: which Chairman is it? Mr Pearson: Desmond Rea said this. I am certainly aware that information has leaked before the Board, after the Board, and in one case I heard rumour of during the Board by mobile phone text messaging. It is clearly not satisfactory and I think the Board should rightly expect that confidential matters should be kept confidential, just as Select Committee deliberations are kept confidential until reports are issued. Those similar procedures ought to apply. Q159 Mr Beggs: The Chief Constable told us that in order to address this problem sensitive information is now being shared with small groups of the Board as appropriate. In your view, is this a suitable way of addressing the problem? Mr Pearson: Obviously, if that is the Chief Constable's view then the Chief Constable is the Government's chief adviser on security matters and he will know best on this matter. Clearly, again, this is really a matter for the Board to resolve itself. It is not essentially a matter for the Government. Q160 Mr Beggs: But would it not be your own view that this does affect the Board's overall credibility and ability to make decisions? Mr Pearson: The best answer that I can give is that these are matters for the Board and for PSNI to iron out themselves. The Board is independent of Government and it is not something that we should be interfering in. Q161 Chairman: But would you agree with the view that in order for the Board to function properly, and to be credible, it needs to have divulged to it as much information as it needs to do its job, and that if the Chief Constable or anyone else is prevented from doing this by constant leaks that affects the Board's credibility and ability to command respect and to do its job properly? Therefore, it is entirely in the Board's hands to make arrangements within its own members that confidences are kept confident. Have I said anything from which you would dissent? Mr Pearson: I was just about to say that I listened carefully to what you said, as I always do, and I would not disagree with one single word of that. Chairman: It is very nice to have that said by a Minister of the Crown. Q162 Mr Swire: Minister, you will know on page 41, maybe you will not know it is on page 41 but you will no doubt recall in the Patten Report it envisaged mechanisms whereby the community can express its concerns and priorities to the police. The Board when originally constituted was required to hold ten meetings a year, this has already been reduced to eight meetings a year. It was envisaged that some of these meetings would both involve the public, to a great extent, and matters of public interest would be discussed at these boards, and that these board meetings would be held all around Northern Ireland. I am aware that you are planning in the current year to hold some outside Belfast, one in Newry for instance. How do you address the criticism that the Board meetings more often than not take place in Belfast and that matters of public interest are perhaps discussed more often than not behind closed doors than during the meeting? Mr Pearson: These are essentially matters for the Board itself. Q163 Mr Swire: Are they of concern to you? Mr Pearson: I am aware that it holds eight meetings a year in public. What is of concern to me is that the Policing Board is carrying out its functions in the appropriate manner. As I said earlier, I am confident that the Policing Board is discharging those functions properly and has been, indeed, a success during its time of existence. I am aware that the Board has held two meetings outside Belfast in Armagh and in Omagh and that undoubtedly future meetings are planned. They are always advertised well in advance. Some people would be surprised by the level of attendance at Board meetings because there is a high degree of interest in the policing issue in Northern Ireland. Q164 Mr Swire: Minister, in 2003 the Committee on the Administration of Justice commented that the Board: "better publicised its public meetings and rotate its public meetings at different times of the day and week and at different venues throughout Northern Ireland". You say that these meetings are now better publicised, is that as a result of that recommendation in the Review or is it very much business as usual? Mr Pearson: I do not know the specific answer to that question, but certainly my understanding is that there is a good level of public awareness of when Board meetings are taking place at the moment. They are advertised in a range of local media. Q165 Mr Bailey: May I move on to the full‑time reserve issue? Patten recommended there should be no full‑time reserve. In the light of that, what view do you have about the Chief Constable's decision to retain a full‑time reserve of 680 officers on a three year contract from 1 April this year? Mr Pearson: I support the Chief Constable's decision and the Government very much clearly supports the Chief Constable's decision. As I said previously, he is the Secretary of State's senior adviser on security matters. He set out in his statement a very full explanation of the factors that he took into account when making his decision. I want to stress to the Committee that this was not a political decision. It was a decision made by the Chief Constable and his senior management team. He took it based on his professional judgment of the prevailing security situation. Q166 Mr Tynan: The Criminal Justice Inspectorate of Northern Ireland has developed a comprehensive list of bodies which come under its remit, including the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the PSNI. The Policing Board of Northern Ireland is a notable omission. Why does the Board not come under the Inspectorate's remit? Mr Pearson: The main reason why the Policing Board does not come under the remit for inspection of the Chief Inspector is that unlike the other organisations that are on the list that you are referring to it does not have an executive function in the criminal justice system. It does not investigate or prosecute. As you will be aware, it is essentially an accountability mechanism, and so it is of a different kind from the other organisations listed in that report. Q167 Mr Tynan: The Government has no intention of adding the Board to the Inspector's remit? Mr Pearson: We do not have any current intention. We are certainly as always open to any representations that the Criminal Justice Inspectorate might wish to make to us. At the moment, the CJI is able to inspect the Policing Board in circumstances where an aspect of the criminal justice system might cut across a number of organisations, a thematic inspection. If that touched on the responsibilities and the activities of the Board, then the Inspectorate would be able to go in, but not on a routine basis as an organisation to inspect, for the reason that it does not have executive authority and executive functions. Q168 Mr Tynan: If the representation was made, would you consider that? Mr Pearson: If it was persuasive enough, but at the moment the principle we have is that if there is an executive function then this is something that would naturally come within the remit for inspection by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. If it is essentially an accountability mechanism, which is what the Policing Board is, I am always open to arguments, but I think there is a persuasive logic to the position we are in at the moment which is. Q169 Chairman: Before you move on, Mr Tynan, what would trigger a referral of this to the Criminal Justice Inspectorate since it is not within their remit? In what circumstances would they be able to say: okay, this is now within our remit and we are going to bring it into our purview? Does it not take action from Government to do that? Mr Pearson: What I can say is: the CJI can inspect the Policing Board under section 47(4) of the Justice Act Northern Ireland 2002. This is the provision enabling the Secretary of State to order an inspection of some aspect of the criminal justice system which might cut across a number of organisations. At the moment, that is the only circumstance in which the CJI could inspect an aspect of the Policing Board. Q170 Chairman: It does seem a little strange, Minister, that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board comes under their purview but not the Policing Board. Is there any logic in that? Mr Pearson: Yes, there is. Q171 Chairman: I would be delighted to hear it. Mr Pearson: It might seem surprising at first glance, but the Northern Ireland Tourist Board does have an investigatory and I believe also prosecutorial role, so clearly it has executive functions of the type I was describing to Mr Tynan. Q172 Mr Tynan: The Policing Board told us in evidence that where complainants are not satisfied with the outcome of an internal investigation of a complaint there is the opportunity to take that to the Secretary of State; can you explain that process? Mr Pearson: If I can maybe ask officials to say something about that. I am not quite sure what you are referring to. Q173 Mr Tynan: The Policing Board told us that complainants where they are not satisfied with the outcome of an internal investigation, where people have been subject to an internal investigation of a complaint, they had the opportunity to take that to the Secretary of State. There is a process there as far as we understand from the Policing Board. Mr Pearson: This is without going to the policing ombudsman? Q174 Mr Tynan: It would appear that way. Mr Pearson: I am not aware of the circumstances. Q175 Chairman: Would the Policing Board be wrong when they tell us this? Mr Pearson: I am sure the Policing Board would not be wrong in that they may well have an issue. I think the best thing to do, Chairman, is for me to look into that and to write to you. Q176 Mr Tynan: It is surprising that they tell us that they have the opportunity to go to the Secretary of State and you are not aware of that process. Mr Pearson: Yes. Q177 Chairman: We are just going to check the provenance of that statement and maybe we will return to it in a moment. It was only really a little tease. You pray in aid the Northern Ireland Tourist Board as having an investigatory role, but so of course does the Policing Board, which leads us on to the next question. They have a role as a disciplinary authority for officers of Chief Constable and up. Given the inevitable frequent contact between the senior officers and the Board, do you think that is appropriate? Mr Pearson: Yes, I do. The statutory provisions of the Board in this respect mirror those in section 11 of the Police Act 1996 which permit police authorities in England and Wales to require a senior officer to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness of the force. This is something that has worked in England and Wales and provisions are essentially similar. I do not believe that there is a conflict of interest here. Q178 Chairman: Just to conclude then: Mr Reaney, the Chief Executive, told us on 8 December: "There are a number of checks and balances within the Board which I trust would never see a complaint go beyond that ..." the complainant not being satisfied, " ...but we do have the opportunity for someone to take that to the Secretary of State." Mr Pearson: This is a complaint about the Board itself? Q179 Chairman: The complainant not satisfied with what the Board has done as a result of an approach to them, in other words I suppose an appeal, but you do not know about that? Perhaps you or your officials could check with Mr Reaney when you get home and let us know. There does seem to be a slight dilemma here. One of you is right and one of you is wrong. Of course, the Minister is right, is he not, otherwise the officials get fired! Mr Pearson: I think that was helpful clarification, Chairman, in terms of the situation. Let me just say on that: if somebody is complaining about the Policing Board to the Policing Board and the Policing Board cannot satisfy that complainant, I do not think it unreasonable that they feel they should have an avenue to be able to complain to a higher authority. That would normally be, I would imagine, the Secretary of State or myself as the Security Minister. I am not aware of any such complaints about the Policing Board. Q180 Chairman: If it is further help to you I think Mr Reaney said to us: "We have recently advised our complainants ... my understanding is there have been two in relation to our handling of our cases to do with medical retirements from duty. These complaints ultimately are referred to the Human Rights Professional Standards Committee". Then he went on to say, "There is an opportunity for it to go further". We just need to clear that up so we know what we are talking about when we report. Mr Pearson: It would be helpful if I write to the Committee having investigated the matter. Chairman: That would be very helpful indeed. If they could consult Mr Reaney to make sure we have it all clear.
|