Appendix 1
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
In July 2004 the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
announced its intention to hold an inquiry into the functions
of the Northern Ireland Policing Board
The Government welcomes the inquiry as a useful examination
of the important part that the Policing Board plays in the new
policing accountability arrangements. The Northern Ireland Office
provided written evidence to the Committee on behalf of the Government
and the Minister, Ian Pearson MP, gave oral evidence to the
NIAC on 19 January 2005.
The NIAC published its report on 10 March 2005.
The Government has considered the NIAC's report carefully and
the enclosed paper sets out the Government's response. For ease
of reference the paper responds to each of the recommendations
(in bold type) in turn.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Northern Ireland Policing Board has made solid
progress in establishing and developing its role, and its achievements
since 2001 in establishing a framework of accountability for policing
in Northern Ireland have been significant. The Board has put
in place mechanisms to monitor and assess the performance of the
Chief Constable and the PSNI, including a human rights monitoring
framework, human resource and training strategies, and a code
of ethics for police officers. It has made difficult decisions
successfully in a complex political environment (Paragraph 39).
The Government notes the committee's comments and
would agree with the committee's conclusions. The committee rightly
acknowledges that the Policing Board is now an important part
of the new policing accountability arrangements in Northern Ireland.
We welcome the constructive relationship that
has developed between the Policing Board and the senior management
of the PSNI (Paragraph 40).
The Government too welcomes the constructive relationship
that has developed between the senior management of the PSNI and
the Policing Board.
We believe that in order to be effective, the
Policing Board must cooperate fully with the Office of the Police
Ombudsman. We have already noted the difference of opinion between
the Board and the Ombudsman over what constitutes appropriate
frequency of contact. We call on both organisations to put in
place a structure for communication acceptable to both without
delay (Paragraph 41).
Though this is a matter for the Policing Board and
the Ombudsman, Government would wish to see appropriate arrangements
in place to facilitate effective communication between both organisations.
We were told that Policing Board members were
not always aware of the detail of policing policy and practice.
This is of concern as a sound understanding of the police and
its role is fundamental to the effective operation of the Board's
oversight function. We do not doubt that most Board members are
well informed and conscientious. However, the Board collectively
must take full responsibility for ensuring that all its members
are equipped with the information and expertise necessary to fulfil
their statutory functions. We hope not to hear such complaints
repeated when we next scrutinise the Board (Paragraph 42).
The Government would support any action the Board
would take to ensure Board members are fully briefed and aware
of the detail of policing policy and practice.
It is important to the effective functioning of
the Board that its committee structure permits a targeted oversight
of the activities of the PSNI. The existing structure does not
have a committee focused solely on crime operations, a highly
significant area of PSNI activity. We recommend that the Board
considers its present committee system carefully in the light
of the PSNI's review of its own corporate governance arrangements
to ensure their structure is wholly appropriate. (Paragraph 45)
The Government would support any changes to the Board
Committee system to ensure that it allows for more effective monitoring
of the PSNI.
We were pleased to learn that there have been
no recent 'leaks' from the Policing Board of sensitive information.
The importance of maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive
information provided by the PSNI to the Board cannot be overestimated.
Both the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman told us that past breaches
of confidentiality have eroded their trust and confidence in the
Board. We expect the Board, and its staff, to act at all times
in a fully professional manner. This means that sensitive information
provided to the Board in the course of its work must never be
divulged to third parties. Such gross breaches of trust are entirely
unacceptable and must not be repeated if the reputation of the
Board is to be maintained. At present, the Board has a voluntary
Code of Conduct which includes a confidentiality provision. In
addition, Board members' terms of appointment letters state that
members should respect the sensitivity of "some of the issues"
they will be dealing with. We invite the Secretary of State to
consider whether, in the light of past breaches, this is sufficient,
or whether maintaining strict confidentiality about all information
received by the Board should be a formal condition of appointment.
(Paragraph 49)
The Government notes the Committee's conclusions
and will take them into consideration when drawing up terms of
appointment for the Policing Board members when it is reconstituted
in October this year.
We commend the Board for holding more than the
minimum number of public meetings in 2003/04. These are opportunities
to promote public confidence in the work of the Board, facilitate
greater transparency, and engender a more inclusive approach to
policing, as envisaged by the Independent Commission on Policing
for Northern Ireland. More needs to be done to encourage public
participation and develop a genuine exchange between the Board
and the public. This is not a simple matter, and progress will
be incremental. However, we are convinced of the usefulness of
this aspect of the Board's operations and we expect it to take
the lead in creating all reasonable opportunities for public participation.
(Paragraph 52)
The Government would wish to encourage as much public
participation in the work of the Policing Board as possible.
It is our experience of the organisations we scrutinise
that the annual reporting exercise is sometimes approached as
a necessary chore. While we accept that achieving excellence is
time consuming and difficult, the creation of a fully comprehensive
and transparent annual report is a vital part of the presentation
of any organisation's activities to the public and must be taken
seriously. The presentation of the Board's performance data in
the annual report is insufficiently transparent and comprehensive.
The annual report must set out clearly the Board's progress on
key objectives in a simple, attractive and consistent format,
year on year. This level of presentational excellence has yet
to be achieved by the Board. We appreciate that while the Board
must report on the PSNI's performance in its annual report, the
major focus must rest clearly on the Board's own performance and
its principal activities. We welcome the willingness of the Chief
Executive to consider improvements, and we are confident that
the Board will take immediate steps to improve the presentation
of its annual report. (Paragraph 55)
The Government notes the Committee's comments and
also welcomes initiatives to improve annual reporting arrangements
for the Policing Board.
While we appreciate fully the scale and complexity
of the appointments process for independent members of the District
Policing Partnerships (DPPs), we were alarmed by the extremely
high cost of the 2003 process and, in particular, by the projected
higher cost for 2005. There will be approximately 226 independent
members of DPPs appointed in 2005 at an estimated cost of £950,000.
We were assured by the Minister that value for money had been
achieved in 2003, and that the normal rigorous checks on public
expenditure had been followed. However, we welcome the Board's
decision to review its approach to the recruitment process, and
expect that now the DPPs are established, membership appointment
costs will fall. We expect the government to support the Board
in achieving this good value for money goal. (Paragraph 61)
As the Committee noted in its report the Board has
reviewed its approach to the 2005 recruitment exercise for Independent
DPP members. The Board has accordingly submitted a revised business
case which has a significantly reduced cost of £449k. Having
scrutinised the case to ensure value for money Ministers have
approved this amount. It should be noted that in accordance with
the financing of DPPs [Paragraph II of Schedule 3 to the Police
(NI) Act refers] the Board will be recouping 25% of the total
of these costs from local government.
The DPPs are an integral part of local policing
accountability structures and it is particularly important at
this early stage that the Board provides them with full support.
We were concerned to learn about the delay by the Board in settling
DPPs' budgets, and the perception among some DPPs that the training
provided by the Board was inadequate. We hope that these problems
are 'teething difficulties' only, but, in any case, we expect
the Board to ensure that there is no recurrence. We therefore
welcome the Board's commitment to ensuring that the DPPs' budgets
for 2005 are settled in a more efficient manner, and we shall
follow this up to monitor any increases in efficiency. (Paragraph
65)
The Government understands that procedures are now
in place to ensure that DPP budgets are settled in a more timely
way.
There is significant overlap between the functions
of CSPs and DPPs which has led to a duplication of work and wasted
resources. This may be because the roles of the two networks are
insufficiently defined, or because there has been a failure to
publicise their roles clearly. There must be no confusion in this
area. The government needs to give further consideration to the
functions of CSPs and DPPs, whether there is scope for rationalisation,
and, if not, how best to ensure that the roles of these organisations
are presented effectively to dispel perceived duplication. (Paragraph
69)
Government notes the recommendation and officials
in both the Community Safety Unit and the Policing Board have
met to discuss a range of inter-related issues to facilitate more
effective working. Government is awaiting the outcomes of both
the Board-led review of DPPs and the inspection of CSPs by the
Criminal Justice Inspectorate to assist in the further consideration
of the two partnerships.
We were surprised that the remit of the Chief
Inspector of Criminal Justice does not extend to cover the Policing
Board. The Policing Board is the disciplinary authority for senior
officers of the PSNI and, as a result, examines public complaints
against such officers. This appears to us to be an executive function,
and we recommend, therefore, that the government gives further
consideration to extending the Chief Inspector's remit to include
the Policing Board. (Paragraph 72)
Government notes the recommendation. The Criminal
Justice Inspectorate is able to inspect the Policing Board under
Section 47(4) of the Justice (NI) Act 2002 with the Board's agreement.
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 - a so called thematic
inspection. If that touched upon the activities and responsibilities
of the Board then the Inspectorate would be able to undertake
such an inspection. Though open to reviewing the list of organisations
at Section 46 that the Inspectorate must inspect, Governments
present view is that there is no reason to include the Policing
Board on that list.
We queried whether there was any formal provision
within the Policing Board's Complaints Policy for appeals from
the Board. The Chief Executive gave us his view that complainants
did have the opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State.
However, the Minister clarified later that there is no formal
right of appeal set out in the Board's policy. (Paragraph 73)
It is important that individuals who have a complaint
against the Policing Board, and remain dissatisfied with remedies
arising from approaches to the Board itself, understand clearly
what further scope for appeal exists.
There is a formal structure in place for appeals
from the Police Ombudsman and, in our view, there should be similar
arrangements for appeals from Policing Board decisions. We recommend
that the government and the Board bring forward appropriate proposals
quickly. (Paragraph 74)
Government notes the Committee's recommendation.
Officials from both the Northern Ireland Office and Policing
Board will be meeting shortly to consider the Committee's recommendation.
| 
