Appendix 2
THE NORTHERN IRELAND POLICING BOARD RESPONSE
I am writing to update you on the actions that the
Northern Ireland Policing Board (the Board) is taking in response
to the findings of the above Committee's Report, following their
Inquiry into the Functions of the Board.
As you can see, a number of the conclusions/recommendations
are noted (where no specific action was indicated); a number have
been actioned already; and the remainder are the subject of discussion
with the NIO (where the recommendation was/is for the Secretary
of State's consideration, rather than action by the Board itself).
One other outstanding issue (although not one that
featured as a conclusion/recommendation in the Committee's final
report) was around performance monitoring - namely, the need for
clear performance indicators to be set relating to the
Board's performance (as opposed to PSNI performance). In relation
to this point, I enclose a copy of the Board's Corporate Plan,
recently published[1][1].
The performance indicators in this Corporate Plan were
designed to take on board the Committee's representations to that
effect.
I shall be more than happy to provide any further
information your Committee would find helpful on any of these
matters.
Might I also extend an open offer of assistance,
should any new Committee members appointed require any information
about the Board's work. Moreover, the Board would be more than
happy to welcome any new or existing Committee members should
they wish to visit the Board at their convenience when in Belfast.
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)
To note and welcome the NIAC conclusion.
We welcome the constructive relationship that
has developed between the Policing Board and the senior management
of the PSNI. (Paragraph 40).
To note and welcome the NIAC conclusion.
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)
Members have discussed this matter in detail, to
ensure that there is in place the appropriate contact and communication
between the Board and the Ombudsman, which now includes:
- regular attendance by the Ombudsman/her
senior officials at meetings of the Board's Human Rights &
Professional Standards Committee, to discuss complaints statistics.
Additional work on collating details of Section 20 reports fed
through from the Ombudsman to the Board is now in place, so as
to identify trends or patterns, and further regular discussions
between the Board and the Ombudsman/her senior officials is scheduled
for future meetings of this Committee
- joint planning & campaign initiatives (such
as joint commissioning between the Board and the Ombudsman of
a survey into the views of young people)
- regular strategic level meetings between the
Board's Chief Executive and the Ombudsman's Office's Chief Executive
- regular meetings between the Ombudsman &
the Board Chairman & Vice-Chairman
- annual formal meeting between the Ombudsman and
the full Board
- attendance at both member/Ombudsman and senior
official level at respective organisations' strategy launches
etc.
- ad-hoc conversations and meetings at official
and Board member-Ombudsman level.
The Board and the Ombudsman's office are, at official
level, developing a protocol addressing communication between
the two organisations. In
addition, the Board has resolved that one of the two meetings
each year between the Police Ombudsman and the Board's Human Rights
and Professional Standards Committee should be opened up to all
Board Members and a broader agenda of issues for discussion should
be facilitated.
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)
As this recommendation/conclusion from the NIAC appeared
to be generated by comments made by the Ombudsman and the PSNI
during the course of the NIAC Inquiry, the Board wrote to both
the Ombudsman and the Chief Constable to tease out any particular
areas of concern over Board member knowledge of particular areas
of policing policy and practice. The Ombudsman and the Chief
Constable have helpfully suggested a range of such areas, such
as firearms usage, less-lethal weaponry usage, deaths in custody
procedures etc. The Board has a series of briefings already arranged
for members over the coming months (e.g. on Police Community Support
Officers, tasers etc.) and will factor in the representations
made by the Ombudsman and the Chief Constable into the design
of an induction & training package for new Board members.
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)
Members agreed a revised Committee structure for
the Board at the June 2nd Board meeting which (amongst
other changes) addresses these concerns - making clearer the routine
reporting arrangements for different PSNI branches - each into
a specific, named Board Committee (e.g. Crime Operations Branch
having a direct reporting line into the revised Corporate Policy
& Performance Committee). This new Committee structure is
scheduled to be introduced in October 2005, subject to consideration
of any recommendations made by the Independent Review Panel established
by the Board to consider its operation & practices.
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 Board accepts that this recommendation is for
consideration by the Secretary of State (in relation to Members'
terms of appointment). The Board has discussed this issue in
some detail, accepting the importance of respecting the confidentiality
of various items of information shared with it in the course of
routine business. The Board is of the view that the situation
around leaks has improved significantly over recent months and
years, and that, at worst, this is in practice only a limited
problem, and does not warrant external action.
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 Board notes and welcomes this conclusion, which
is being addressed by the Board as part of its Communication Strategy.
In relation to the particular issue raised, the Board remains
committed to holding at least 8 meetings in public each year (with
a target of ten, subject in any particular year to restrictions
around election periods). The Board is further committed to holding
two of these meetings each year outside of Belfast - with successful
and well-attended meetings having already taken place in Omagh,
Armagh, and most recently Derry/Londonderry. The Board also arranges
other external events with various different target audiences,
such as a successful Conference on the Night Time Economy recently
in Derry/Londonderry.
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 Board too notes and welcomes the NIAC's conclusions
on Annual Reporting requirements, the detailed comments of which
are being incorporated into the planning for the next publication.
The Board has recently published an informal, user-friendly Annual
Review publication (220,000 copies circulated in newspapers
on Friday June 10th) which was designed and written
explicitly to reflect this recommendation. The Board has put
relevant performance indicators in its annual Business Plan to
monitor implementation of this recommendation.
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 expects the government to support the Board
in achieving this good value for money goal. (Paragraph 61)
As addressed in the NIO response, the Board has indeed
significantly reduced the budgeted cost for the forthcoming DPP
recruitment round, following the approach adopted by the Board
at its meeting held on 3 February 2005, and currently underway.
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 Board can confirm the successful implementation
of the assurance given to the NIAC in relation to speeding up
DPP budget resolution. Members are asked to note that the Board
commenced the processes for agreeing 2005/06 budgets in November
2004, and that twenty three DPP offers of grant were sent out
within the agreed timeframe. The outstanding DPPs were: Belfast
(reviewing their staffing structure and not in a position to agree
a budget for 2004/05 at the planned time of budget offer); Magherafelt
(who had not responded to requests for information from the Board
within the agreed timescale); and Lisburn (who had not responded
to requests from the Board for a letter of assurance for the DPP
grant within the timeframe). All of these outstanding issues
were resolved some time ago, with every DPP now having their budget
fully agreed.
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 2 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)
The Board strongly endorses the NIAC recommendation/conclusion
in this respect, has written separately to Ministers to set out
the Board's arguments for reform in further detail, and is arranging
a face to face meeting over the issue with the Security Minister.
The Board considers very strongly that the current arrangement
is inefficient, and ineffective, and thus unsatisfactory. The
Board will continue to urge Ministers to address the situation.
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)
The Board has established its own externally-validated
review mechanism, with a panel led by Sir Keith Povey (former
HMIC), and including Graham Gordon (retired Chief Executive of
Cheshire Police Authority), Rotha Johnston (businesswoman), Professor
John Mackie (Theologian) and Maurice Manning (President of the
Human Rights Commission, Dublin). The Board will consider the
NIAC recommendation/conclusion further following this current
review, but in the interim, shares the NIO view that there is
no pressing need to extend the Criminal Justice Inspectorate's
remit to specifically include the Board.
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)
[considered alongside]
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)
The Board has considered this issue in detail, including
through its Human Rights & Professional Standards Committee.
The Board respects the general principle that an interested party
should enjoy a transparent process for their grievance to be considered,
with an appropriate appeal mechanism if they remain dissatisfied
(either through resort to law, and/or through a specified and
appropriate appeals route).
The Board has a number of such complaints mechanisms
(& subsequent appeals processes) in place, for its range of
functions and duties.
Principally, the Board has in place a robust complaints
mechanism (for when an individual feels, for instance, that they
have been treated unfairly or rudely by Board staff) and this
complaints procedure already includes a specified appeals process.
The Board also has appeals mechanisms in place over certain of
its defined statutory functions - e.g. a police pensioner dissatisfied
with certain decisions taken in relation to Injury on Duty claims
under delegated authority by a Board Committee has an ultimate
right of appeal to the Secretary of State. There are, however,
no specific appeals procedures in place for interested parties
to dispute a decision of the Board, taken in line with its statutory
powers (for example, over the disposal of land) or on a matter
of policy within the Board's remit (e.g. the Board's decision
to support the Chief Constable's decision to phase out Full Time
Reserve Officers or to support his decision to introduce Attenuated
Energy Projectiles). In such cases, an aggrieved interested party
does nonetheless retain their right to resort to law (such as
seeking a Judicial Review).
On balance therefore, and notwithstanding the NIAC's
recommendations/conclusions, the Board does not feel that there
is any overwhelming argument for the Government to introduce any
additional appeals mechanism in relation to such statutory duties/matters
of policy (either to the Secretary of State, or to any other body).
The Board has reached this view not least because the impact
of second-guessing the Board's proper statutory functions would
be to undermine the Board by such a process - particularly if
it were established that any/all such Board decisions appealed
under any new system would be stayed or delayed pending that appeal.
The Board has balanced this consideration against its natural
inclination to respect the right of an interested party to see
a transparent route of appeal - but feels that this fundamental
right is sufficiently well-safeguarded by the existing available
appeals mechanisms in place, and resorts to law.
1 1 This document
is not re-printed in the Report Back
Back
| 
