UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 319-iHouse of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFORE
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
|
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
|
5. |
Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935
|
Oral Evidence
Taken
before the
on
Members present
Sir Patrick Cormack, in the Chair
Rosie Cooper
Mr John Grogan
Mr Stephen Hepburn
Lady Hermon
Mr Denis Murphy
Stephen Pound
David Simpson
________________
Witnesses:
Mr Al Hutchinson, Police
Ombudsman; Mr Barry Gilligan,
Chairman, Mr Brian Rea MBE,
Vice-Chairman, and Mr Adrian Donaldson,
Q1 Chairman: Gentlemen, could I welcome you. Some of you we have seen before. Mr Hutchinson has become an old friend of the Committee and has appeared before us on a number of occasions. You are all very welcome. Could I first of all ask you, as some of you we have not seen before, to introduce yourselves. I see you have positioned yourself in the middle, Mr Donaldson. Does that mean you are going to take most of the questions?
Mr Donaldson: The answer to that is yes, Chairman!
Q2 Chairman: A number, of course, will be directed to the Ombudsman. Would you like to number off from Mr Rea.
Mr Rea: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Brian Rea. I have been a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board since April 2006. Upon the re-election of officers in June of last year I was appointed Vice-Chairman.
Mr Gilligan: Good morning, Chairman. I am Barry Gilligan. I am Chairman of the
Mr Donaldson: Good morning, Chairman. My name is Adrian Donaldson. I am the Chief Executive of the Policing Board.
Mr Hutchinson: Chairman, I am Al Hutchinson, Police Ombudsman since November 2007.
Q3 Chairman:
The
Committee is nearing the end of its term because when Parliament ends with the
dissolution and the announcement of the General Election, which everybody seems
to think will be May, but could be earlier, could be later, the Committee will
then cease to exist and it will be for the new Parliament to elect a new
committee. We are anxious to report to
our colleagues before dissolution on the progress of devolution over the last
five years since this particular Committee came into being after the General
Election of May 2005. We want to ask you
a number of questions. Mr Hutchinson,
you have already given us your views on some of these things, but it is about a
year since you last appeared formally before the Committee and it may well be
that your views have altered in some way or that you wish to add something to
them, so please feel free to give us as full answers as you can. We will aim to finish the formal session by
Mr Gilligan: Thank you very much. First of all, could I state at the outset
that this Board supports the concept of the devolution of policing and justice
as set out in recommendation 20 of the Patten report which says:
"Responsibility for policing should be devolved to the Northern Ireland
Executive as soon as possible, except for matters of national security". The Board are unanimous in that respect. There are two major points of principle,
however, which the Board have presented to the Assembly Executive Review
Committee in this regard. Firstly, the
role and powers of the Board should not be diminished under the devolution of
policing and justice, including that the Chief Constable should remain solely
accountable to the Board for the delivery of the policing service in
Q4 Chairman: Let me get this absolutely clear because this is a very crucial issue. The Chief Constable, after the devolution of policing and justice, would be primarily accountable to you and not to the new Minister of Justice?
Mr Gilligan: Absolutely. That is a point that has been accepted by the Assembly Executive Review Committee and is absolutely critical to the independence of operational policing going forward. You asked what it will mean for us post-devolution. Whilst the Board unanimously welcomes the devolution of policing and justice, in one sense not much about what we do will change because we continue to hold the Chief Constable to account and the Chief Constable continues to have operational responsibility for policing. We do have a relationship, and a very good relationship, with the Northern Ireland Office and the Minister of State responsible for policing, Paul Goggins, and there is no reason why that productive working relationship should not continue at post-devolution of policing and justice, but it is important that the protocols related to that are agreed and laid down before it takes place.
Q5 Chairman: The relationship that you currently enjoy with Mr Goggins as Minister of State in the United Kingdom Government would be replaced by a relationship with the new minister here in Stormont?
Mr Gilligan: With the new Justice Minister, yes.
Q6 Chairman:
You
would not envisage any relationship particularly with whoever might occupy the
role of Secretary of State, if there was a Secretary of State for
Mr Gilligan: Only insofar as the Secretary of State would take responsibility for excepted matters, such as national security, where there would be an ongoing relationship. In terms of the day-to-day oversight of operational policing, we do not envisage any change from the relationships that currently exist on a tripartite basis. The new leg to all of this will be the Scrutiny Committee at Stormont, and you may wish to explore that later.
Q7 Chairman: Indeed. Before I do that, I would like to ask Mr Hutchinson if he would like to comment on the opening question, and then I want to ask you both what preparations you have made and are making for the transition. Mr Hutchinson, on the general issue.
Mr Hutchinson: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to welcome the Committee. I hope it foreshadows perhaps the Justice Committee or Scrutiny Committee that we will face shortly. Firstly, I would endorse Mr Gilligan's points in terms of the accountability and governance. As the former Patten Oversight Commissioner, of course I endorse the principle of the Board staying as it is and in parallel fashion my reporting relationship will then be with the Justice Minister, whoever he or she may be, and I look forward to that. Currently with the arrangement, and I differentiate Westminster, Mr Goggins' presence, versus the local Justice Minister, I think there are a great number of benefits to us on the rapidity and flexibility of the arrangement with a local Justice Minister familiar with local issues and the lead to a joined-up justice system. I see it as an opportunity, in other words, for us. One of the criticisms my office faces is the lack of accountability of our office, although there are a number of mechanisms in place. I think certainly a local Justice Minister replacing the Secretary of State would be beneficial for public confidence in our office as well. There are a great many benefits. The current impasse, I believe, has caused somewhat of an institutional vacuum. I speak only for my office, but I am sure the Board has felt that presence as well. There are two examples that I believe could be dealt with more quickly in a local setting. One deals with Dealing with the Past. Our two business lines I have echoed to the Board before where we have this policing the past issue, our historic investigations, and we have the present. Workload presently is up approaching 25% this year, which we may want to cover a bit later, which is a bit concerning. I think Dealing with the Past is part of that issue. I have recently resubmitted my business case post Eames-Bradley to the Government and the Secretary of State has advised that pending devolution it will be put on the shelf again, so our issues continue.
Q8 Chairman: Are you happy with that response?
Mr Hutchinson: No, I am not, because we currently have 101 cases involving complaints against police actions.
Q9 Chairman: Are you confident that post-devolution this matter will go to the head of the agenda and that it will be dealt with?
Mr Hutchinson: I am hopeful because clearly
it is a major issue for
Q10 Chairman: You have seen this Committee's report on Eames-Bradley?
Mr Hutchinson: Yes, I have. It remains an issue and leaves a strategic vacuum. The second example I wanted to raise was our five year legislative review that after about a three year process finally came to an end with the Northern Ireland Office basically not accepting any of the challenges, but it shows the legislative queue and the priorities in Northern Ireland you face in getting changes, whereas there may be some changes we want. I think there will be a lot more flexibility and a lot quicker action with a local Justice Minister.
Q11 Chairman: Thank you for that. Could you both tell me relatively briefly what preparations have been made for this transition and whether there are other preparations still to be made? If an announcement were made this afternoon that this would happen within the next three months, are you ready for it?
Mr Gilligan: We are ready for it and have been ready for it. I made a statement at a public engagement meeting last week. It was my Groundhog Day statement that we are ready for it, we were ready for it 12 months ago and we were ready for it two years ago. As far as what we are doing, externally the Northern Ireland Office in conjunction with the former Chief Executive of the Board and the Deputy Chief Constable have put forward a protocol document clarifying the roles, the tripartite and quadripartite roles going forward. That paper was tabled at our corporate policy meeting on Thursday last. Board members are considering that and we will make a formal response on that document to the Assembly Executive Review Committee as soon as possible. I think it is fair to say that some members were concerned that the document was a little bit loose. The importance here is that we meet trouble before it arrives, in a sense. I think it is absolutely critical that we have the respective responsibilities laid out as clearly as possible before devolution takes place.
Q12 Lady Hermon: Does "loose" mean weak?
Mr Gilligan: No, it does not mean weak.
Q13 Lady Hermon: What does it mean?
Mr Gilligan: It is about language. As you might imagine, with a Board of 19 people, with ten politicians, the use of language has different meanings for different members. It is a question of us trying to get as close to a corporate response in that as we possibly can. Internally we have a dedicated project underway within the Policing Board to assess any impact that devolution might have on our day-to-day operations, and particularly any impact that it might have for resourcing.
Q14 Chairman: Mr Hutchinson, you are ready, are you?
Mr Hutchinson: Yes, Chairman, we are ready. Our changes are internal facing as opposed to external facing. Essentially our business will not change, it will enjoy operational independence. There are no issues around that. I see it more as an operational responsibility á la Patten. In other words, I will have an ability to account to a Justice Minister or Justice Committee. Our preparations are internal to prepare for a substantially increased workload, appearing before a local committee and, indeed, the Justice Minister and Department.
Q15 Chairman: Thank you. Before I bring in colleagues I have two points. Mr Gilligan, you referred to the Scrutiny Committee and said we might wish to ask about that, and indeed I do wish to ask. This is, in a sense, an imponderable because we do not yet know precisely what form it will take, who will be on it, et cetera. If this is going to work effectively, and we must all want it to work effectively, would you like to say a word about that. The other thing is when you were talking about your role as a Board you quoted Patten and used Patten's phrase about operational responsibility for the Chief Constable. What is the difference between that and operational independence? Could you deal with those two points and then I will bring in my colleagues.
Mr Gilligan: Sorry, Chairman, the first point again was on?
Q16 Chairman: The Scrutiny Committee.
Mr Gilligan: This has the potential to be a very crowded place with a 19 member Board and I do not know how many members on the Scrutiny Committee. I think it has been accepted that those political members who sit on the Scrutiny Committee should not also sit on the Policing Board. I come back to the protocol that we have got to agree in advance because it is absolutely critical that we agree what the relative parties' responsibilities are. As I see it, the political members on the Policing Board are there with their independent colleagues to hold the Chief Constable to account whereas the members of the Scrutiny Committee are there to hold the Justice Minister to account not just for policing but also for all areas of the criminal justice system. It is important that we do not have the same members on both committees and it is important that the roles are absolutely clearly laid out in terms of responsibilities. On the second point, I do not see a great distinction, to be honest, between operational independence and operational responsibility. I often say as Chairman of the Policing Board I am not a police officer, I have no wish to be a police officer, I am not qualified to be a police officer, and in terms of day-to-day policing we have to rely on the Chief Constable to take those hard decisions. That is why he gets paid the big salary and that is why he has the responsibility. It is important that post the event we are there to hold him to account for the outcome of his actions.
Q17 Chairman: When you responded to Lady Hermon's intervention you did say that with 19 members, ten politicians, it is not easy. Are you absolutely confident, because you talked about unanimity in your very first answer, that the unanimity among the Board is real and can hold in the face of whatever adversity might face it?
Mr Gilligan: We can never be certain of that. I can only take members on what they have said in the past in respect of this item. They have been unanimous on both of the points that I made at the start. What they do afterwards we will have to wait and see. That is why I think it is absolutely critical that the protocols are crystal clear before we go down this road.
Q18 David Simpson: Can I declare that I sat for some time as a member of the Policing Board. I was one of these politicians that Barry mentioned. In the short time that I was there I think relationships were very important in order to move things forward as one of the key components of it all, and a degree of trust among all members but certainly amongst the politicians and the political representatives. When I speak of "relationships", could you describe for us the relationship currently with the Northern Ireland Office?
Mr Gilligan: The relationship, as I have outlined to the Chairman, is a good one. It is co-operative. There is certainly no sense that the Minister has been in any way treading on the toes of the Policing Board. We have worked together and I will give you a couple of examples where we and the Minister have worked together in partnership with the tripartite arrangement working. One was the recent spate of ATM robberies, for example, where the Minister asked for a meeting with the Chief Constable, myself and the banks to see how collectively and in partnership we could help to address that situation. There was also the issue, and this is where the Minister has responsibility for policy as opposed to operation, of the District Policing Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships working more closely together. The Minister asked for the Board's views on that and we gave the view of the Board, which again was a unanimous view, and that has been taken on board. The relationship can be tense at times ---
Q19 David Simpson: I know the feeling.
Mr Gilligan: --- but it is good. I have spoken a number of times and mentioned the word "unanimous". We do not always find a unanimous view on issues. You mentioned earlier the question of the Chief Constable's operational responsibility. He has an operational responsibility on the use of Taser as an example and that is not an area where we did get a unanimous view around the Board. For the most part we can come to a corporate view.
Mr Rea: Historically there has been a very high level of consensus on lots of the decisions. Issues like Taser, which in my view are purely within the remit of the Chief Constable, did cause one or two ripples.
Q20 David Simpson: In relation to advice or guidance, there is no issue. If you wanted guidance or advice from the NIO the support is there in order to help?
Mr Gilligan: I can speak for my
relationship with the Minister and senior officials. I know
Mr Donaldson: I would agree with that. The relationship between officials and the Office is extremely sound and very professional. We meet regularly, on a weekly basis.
Q21 Chairman: Weekly, you say?
Mr Donaldson: On a weekly basis on different issues. It might be finance, it might be resources, it might be policy, but certainly we have a meeting if not weekly then certainly fortnightly. We talk on a daily basis. You know what emails are like, we email each other profusely. The relationship is particularly sound. We expect that most of those officials will transfer to the new Justice Department so the official relationship should be maintained after devolution.
Q22 David Simpson: Can I ask Mr Hutchinson in relation to his meetings with the Secretary of State, how often would you meet with the Secretary of State in relation to your portfolio? Would it be on a needs basis? How beneficial have you found those meetings?
Mr Hutchinson: Let me first endorse the comments from the Policing Board that our organisational relationship with NIO broadly is extremely good. I believe they perform a challenge function. We are a relatively small department with £9 million, but it is good. We have quarterly meetings to establish performance criteria. The Chief Executive, Sam Pollock, over the years has built a credible reputation with the Office in terms of corporate management, so there are no issues. We have met our 5% budgetary cut for 2010-11 coming up and that has been through working with the NIO and their agreement. It is very sound at a corporate level. Specifically with the Secretary of State it would be on a needs basis. I would meet a couple of times per year with Mr Goggins. I have a very good relationship with Mr Goggins, he is a very professional politician. We are a relatively small organisation and in terms of profile prisons and police are obviously bigger ticket items than our office. I would say the relationships are very good.
Q23 David Simpson: Can I briefly finish by asking the members of the Policing Board the same question in relation to the Secretary of State.
Mr Gilligan: I do not have a lot of contact with the Secretary of State. Most of my contact would be with the Minister of State, Paul Goggins.
Q24 Chairman: How often do you see him?
Mr Gilligan: Certainly at least every couple of weeks.
Q25 Chairman: That is good.
Mr Gilligan: I have a meeting scheduled with him for tomorrow afternoon.
Q26 Chairman: I think it is fair to put on record that Mr Goggins has fulfilled his duties impeccably.
Mr Gilligan: Absolutely, I could not agree more, Chairman.
Lady Hermon: I think we are all unanimous on that.
Q27 Mr Murphy: Mr Hutchinson, the last time we met about a year ago you said that the relationship you had with the Garda Ombudsman Commission was a very strong one both at a personal and operational level. Is that still the case?
Mr Hutchinson: Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, I will be meeting with the Garda Commissioner and the chief Garda Ombudsman Commissioner in a couple of weeks as well. We will continue at our annual meeting between the IPPC, An Garda Síochána and Scottish Police Complaints Commission. That is coming up in March. Personally and professionally it is still very strong, there are no issues. We co-operate on operational advice where we have common issues and certainly in areas like training as well. It is extremely strong and remains that way.
Q28 Mr Murphy: Do you work together on any individual cases?
Mr Hutchinson: No, we do not. That still remains somewhat of a legislative issue in terms of the two cases I mentioned a year ago when I remained, and still remain, open. Those deal with national sovereign security and intelligence issues as well. You can appreciate the practicalities of that.
Q29 Mr Murphy: Do you think there will be any changes in the event of policing and justice powers being devolved?
Mr Hutchinson: I do not anticipate any. I see it as a relationship
institution-to-institution. Certainly it
is my intent to co-operate at all levels in
Chairman: We do want to explore a little on paramilitary activity and so on, but we will do that privately.
Q30 Lady Hermon: Could I begin with the Policing Board. What changes, if any, would you expect in terms of public confidence or public perceptions of the police post - we hope - the devolution of policing and justice?
Mr Gilligan: I can only see it being
strengthened, Lady Hermon. The more
elected local officials are engaged with policing, the more that contributes to
public confidence. Public confidence
here is relatively high in policing compared to other parts of the
Q31 Lady Hermon: Can we come back to what you described as the little "slippage" in public confidence. Looking at your statistics that were published in December 2009 that was a drop to 80% from 87%. Can you account for that "slippage" as you called it?
Mr Gilligan: It is hard to account for statistics, as you know, but I will give you my shot at it, as it were. More and more people are engaged in policing here, and that is a good thing.
Q32 Lady Hermon: What do you mean by "engaged in policing"? Phoning the Stephen Nolan Show?
Mr Gilligan: People who traditionally
would not have involved the police now accept the PSNI as the Police Service
dealing with crime issues in
Q33 Lady Hermon: If, for example, you do hear criticisms of delivery by the police to the community, for example criticisms that are voiced and aired on the BBC's Nolan Show, do you find that you feel compelled to respond to that? Would you appear? Would you make representations to the Stephen Nolan Show?
Mr Gilligan: As rarely as possible!
Q34 Lady Hermon: He has a very big listenership.
Mr Gilligan: He has a very big listenership but we also, on the Board, have a community engagement policy where through the network of DPPs we go out and engage with an awful lot of people who are not compelled to phone in to Nolan. I think it is a useful barometer. I attended a public engagement meeting in Enniskillen with the Chief Constable on Tuesday evening of last week. It was the fourth such meeting we have had. People are invited along to engage with the Board and the Chief Constable and discuss any areas of concern to them. I find that they have been very productive evenings.
Q35 Lady Hermon: Have they been well attended?
Mr Gilligan: Yes, well attended.
Q36 Lady
Hermon: Right across
Mr Gilligan: Yes, we have had four so
far. I am talking specifically about the
community engagement meetings that we have instigated as a Board. We have had one in
Q37 Chairman:
Have
you had one in
Mr Gilligan: Newry is the next one that
would cover the
Q38 Chairman: Can I just pin you down a little on the meetings. What do you reckon is a good attendance?
Mr Gilligan: A couple of hundred.
Q39 Chairman: How do you advertise these meetings?
Mr Gilligan: They are advertised through the Police Board website and also through the local media. For example, on the Fermanagh one last Tuesday I did an interview with the Fermanagh Herald, the local paper, beforehand encouraging people to come along to that meeting.
Q40 Chairman: Anybody is allowed to come?
Mr Gilligan: Everybody is welcome, absolutely.
Q41 Chairman: Is there an age profile in the meetings?
Mr Gilligan: Yes, unfortunately there is. It tends to be the over-40s, Brian, would you say?
Mr Rea: I think you are right.
Q42 Chairman: It is quite important just to get some of these things on the record.
Mr Gilligan: We are conscious of that. Through our community engagement meetings we have identified people we specifically want to target because they may not have traditionally been involved with policing. The first four we identified were young people, elderly people, lesbian, gay, bisexual people and ethnic minorities. We have made a particular effort in those cases to outreach to those people and get them to engage not just with the Policing Board but with the Police Service.
Q43 Chairman:
I do
not want to cast any aspersions or minimise the importance of any individual
groups such as those you have just mentioned, but in
Mr Gilligan: Absolutely, no question about that, Chairman. We are getting a complete cross-section of people. They are not cosy meetings. The Chief Constable had to deal with some difficult questions from both sides of the community in respect of perhaps full-time reserves on one side and collusion on the other, or whatever. I make it quite clear at the outset of all of these meetings that there are no questions we will not attempt to answer.
Q44 Chairman: We had a very interesting and, in some respects, exceptionally moving meeting in Crossmaglen specifically with the supporters and relatives of the Quinn family. Is it your intention to hold a meeting in Crossmaglen?
Mr Gilligan: We would imagine that ---
Q45 Chairman: Not just on the Quinn issue, I do hasten to add.
Mr Gilligan: I know that a matter of days
after the incident of the illegal roadblock at Meigh the DPP held a meeting in
Crossmaglen. The Police Board cannot be
everywhere, Chairman. In our public
engagement meetings we tend to concentrate on the areas of larger population,
so I would expect that either the Newry or subsequent
Q46 Chairman:
But
you will have meetings in Newry and
Mr Gilligan: Absolutely, yes.
Q47 Stephen Pound: Can I just ask a follow-up question. I am sorry, Lady Hermon. This is extraordinarily interesting. This is at the very interface that we have discussed theoretically and we now have some practical empirical data. Do parochial issues emerge at these meetings? Is there a preponderance of issues relative to one particular geographical area at the particular meetings, or are there some things that cut across everything? What I am trying to say is at some stage will you be producing a sort of digest of the issues that are raised? That would be an extraordinarily good way of taking the temperature.
Mr Gilligan: Everything that is raised at these meetings is brought back to our Board and discussed at the community engagement committee, and particularly on any actions that need to flow from the points that have been raised there will be follow-up either through ourselves, the PSNI or the DPPs. The issues that are raised are wide-ranging right from local issues to the issues that you would hear discussed on the Nolan Show on a daily basis. It is quite far-reaching and very encouraging. One point I would make is this: you asked, Chairman, is everyone invited. Everyone is invited. At the meeting in Enniskillen last Tuesday night I had to drive past a protest by Firinne, which they are entitled to do, questioning the application of section 44 stop and search. I made the point in a media interview before the meeting, and I made it during the meeting, that they were welcome to be at the meeting and had they come to the meeting and asked the question that issue would have been addressed by the Chief Constable and members of the Board.
Q48 Lady Hermon: Yes, freedom of speech. Chairman, I was going to ask a question of Mr Hutchinson but I think you indicated you wanted to speak on the previous question.
Mr Hutchinson: I was going to add to some
information following the debate on your question and Mr Pound's
intervention. I highlighted earlier that
complaints were up significantly for the first nine months of our year. Failure of duty remains about 38%-40% and
incivility and oppressive behaviour combined are about 40%. We can track particular areas of public
complaints. I think our barometer of
satisfaction, confidence in policing, ironically may indicate that there is
confidence in policing because people are complaining and their expectations
are high on delivering the service in different areas. It will take a full year's data before we can
properly analyse it. I think it is both
a worrying trend that may reflect conditions in
Q49 Lady Hermon: Could I just clarify that the increase in complaints to your office about police officers, are they complaints that do not relate to the past but to the present?
Mr Hutchinson: They just relate to the present, although amounts dealing with the past are increasing as well, it still remains an issue.
Q50 Lady Hermon: Yes. What percentage of those complaints is upheld?
Mr Hutchinson: Roughly about 70% are held in favour of the police. The remaining 30% deals with police officers who are prosecuted, disciplined or the complainant may abandon their complaint and we have no evidence one way or the other that it is upheld. About a quarter of our complaints are dealt with by Informal Resolution, in other words it is a quality of service issue. In that regard, we have started a local resolution project in the Lisburn district, broadly speaking, because I think the police should have the first opportunity on quality of service issues to resolve it locally.
Q51 Chairman: What are these complaints about the present? I am not talking about the past. What sort of things are people complaining of? How many of them are very serious? I am not suggesting that every complaint about the police should be locally treated, of course I am not, but we all know that there are grades. Can you give the Committee some idea of the sort of things that people are complaining about and how many of those are on very serious matters?
Mr Hutchinson: We would put recommendations for prosecutions to the Public Prosecutor in probably about 20-plus cases per year and there are about 11 police officers per year over the last few years actually prosecuted. Those would largely be dealing with assault cases. For example, I have had a couple recently that deal with not only incivility but simple things like crushing a chocolate bar. At first the case would appear to be ridiculous, but in some cases we have to look at a pattern of harassment.
Q52 Chairman: Crushing a chocolate bar?
Mr Hutchinson: Yes.
Q53 Chairman: Would you like to be a little more specific? I trust it was not a Cadbury's chocolate bar!
Mr Hutchinson: I am sorry, Chairman, I did not delve into the brand. What it illustrates is probably several things but we do have to pay attention because we track multiple complaints against officers. We do have officers who have had up to 50 complaints against them, so one would argue where there is smoke there is fire. We need to track and trend those things.
Q54 Chairman: On the other hand, one does not want to encourage the frivolous and vexatious complaints. It seems to me that the Ombudsman - this is no reflection on you, of course - was appointed to instil and reinforce public confidence in the police, not to be involved in the crushing of a chocolate bar.
Mr Hutchinson: That is true, Chairman, but
it is a larger picture than that. The
oppressive behaviour, for example, when Nuala opened the office in 2001 was
about 60% and that has reduced to less than 30% now. A series of reforms and changes, attitudes,
have changed that and now we are looking at increased failure of duty, hence
one could argue that public expectations are high and there is a gap between
the police being able to deliver against those and what the public expect. That is probably a worldwide phenomena; it is
certainly a
Q55 Chairman: Is there not a very strong argument to say that your time and money should not be wasted on certain things because you began this afternoon, perfectly legitimately, by talking about the burden of the past, and you have made this point to the Committee before, the need for extra resources in coping with all these things. Surely you should not even be looking at crushed chocolate bars.
Mr Hutchinson: I would agree that is a political decision. We have the legislative mandate and requirement to do it. I cannot absolve myself of what the legislation requires.
Chairman: Do you not have the authority to say, "Sorry, that is not something we are going to look into?"
Q56 Stephen Pound: When I think of what the police were accused of crushing a few years ago, a chocolate bar can only be an improvement.
Mr Hutchinson: I would agree, but if you are the person who has been harassed through multiple stops and complains, it is a similar scenario to the chocolate bar. Chairman, it is a complex area. I have built in three corporate goals because I want to change the direction of the organisation. One is building confidence, the second is dealing with the past and the third is contributing to improve policing with the community. Those three together talk about confidence and we have to work with the Board and police to realise that there should be joined-up confidence in the justice institutes and policing institutions. That is what we are trying to do, but these things will be a long-term issue.
Q57 Lady
Hermon: Just one final question to Mr Hutchinson. I was alarmed by a recent statement by the
former Commissioner of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in
Mr Hutchinson: Let me say it may be a fallacious statement in this sense: if you are a member of the public making a complaint statistically the odds are that complaint will not be upheld.
Q58 Lady
Hermon: In
Mr Hutchinson: I would say in
Q59 Lady Hermon: John Crawley.
Mr Hutchinson: I hear often in
Mr Hepburn: What qualities and attributes
do you look for when appointing a Chief Constable in
Q60 Lady Hermon: The patience of Job.
Mr Gilligan: Resilience. I chaired the appointments panel which
appointed Matt Baggott back in August. For
any of you who ever sit on a recruitment panel, one of the great joys is to
have someone stand out. The result of
that was we had a unanimous panel in support of the appointment of Matt
Baggott. What did I see in Matt
Baggott? He made a statement at the end
of the interview and said he believed policing to be a force for good. In everything that Matt Baggott has said
since that resonates with me, that it is a force for good. The other issue, particularly in respect of
Matt's appointment, was that he is a strong advocate of community policing and
this was something that the Board had very much taken to its heart, in line
with Patten of course, deciding that policing of the community should be at the
core of policing in
Q61 Chairman: You say you were unanimous. How many were on the panel?
Mr Gilligan: Typically an appointment panel is made up of seven: the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board, another independent member and a representative from each of the political parties. We had total cross-party representation on that appointments panel. One of the key responsibilities of the Policing Board is to appoint the top team. We are responsible for appointing not just the Chief Constable, but the Deputy Chief Constable and all of the Assistant Chief Constables. Every member of the senior team now has been appointed by this Board.
Mr Rea: Something else that he brought to that interview was the concept of personal policing. I had not heard it before. He was enthusiastic about it. I could see clearly that he meant what he said. It is a challenge for him and the whole Police Service to bring personal policing.
Lady Hermon: What did he mean by that?
Q62 Chairman: How do you define that?
Mr Rea: He defined it the other night in Enniskillen as where his officers would deal personally with people who had got a problem, people who had got a complaint, and they would be in weekly contact, and perhaps more than weekly contact, with the victim. Each officer would be tasked to get back on a personal basis to the victim.
Q63 Lady Hermon: It will be fewer letters going out to people, it will be face-to-face with a police officer?
Mr Rea: Or telephone contact. He means to bring the Police Service down to a personal level, especially with victims. He certainly impressed me with that, as he did with other attributes that Matt Baggott has.
Q64 Mr Hepburn: Going on to policing plans, when was your plan decided? Does it take into consideration the proposed devolution of justice?
Mr Gilligan: As I said at the outset, we continue with the job in terms of holding the Chief Constable to account. We want policing and justice to happen. Notwithstanding that, we develop a policing plan annually looking forward three years. We held this year's back by about a month to allow Matt Baggott to put his particular imprint on how he saw policing developing over the course of the next three years. The timetable for that is we develop a policing plan, we take account of the Secretary of State's objectives, which are largely around confidence, we take account of our District Policing Partnerships, what do people at local level want from policing, because as Matt often says policing issues are best resolved with input from local people. Our plan for 2010-12 will be launched on 30 March. That continues irrespective of the devolution of policing and justice and that launch will go ahead on 30 March.
Q65 Chairman:
So
you can offer the people of
Mr Gilligan: Absolutely. I have referred a couple of times to the public engagement meeting we had in Enniskillen on Tuesday evening where we had a wide range of questions. We had not a single question on the devolution of policing and justice, save for the fact that there were a couple of young ladies from Mount Lourdes College in Enniskillen who were political students and I prompted them to ask a question which I answered along the lines that I have given to this Committee today.
Chairman: That brings us down to earth! Mr Hepburn.
Q66 Mr Hepburn: On cross-border issues, could you tell me the last time your Board actually met and how often do you meet with your colleagues across the border. Also, what sort of considerations are you bearing in mind as far as devolution is concerned?
Mr Gilligan: We do get regular briefings
from the PSNI on cross-border co-operation and, as luck would have it, the last
of those we had was last Thursday at the corporate policy meeting. A political colleague asked the question,
"What is the relationship like between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána?" and ACC
Drew Harris described it as, "as good as, if not better than, our relationship
between neighbouring police services in the rest of the
Q67 Chairman: We shall be seeing him on Wednesday, we will have to ask him.
Mr Gilligan: That is a matter for them. The other issue which is timely is that the most senior appointee to date from An Garda Síochána has been announced, and that is Superintendent Paul Moran, who has 25 years' experience in the Garda, specialises in community relations and has been seconded to the PSNI for a year. I think he takes up post next month.
Q68 Chairman:
Based
where, in
Mr Gilligan: Based in
Q69 Chairman: That is extremely encouraging. Thank you. Are there any other points you would like to make?
Mr Donaldson: If I could just add that there are also five-sided meetings that take place at official level, at which I attend, and we deal mostly with regulations and policy, such as inhibitors to lateral transfer between the Garda and the PSNI on pension issues and issues like that.
Q70 Chairman:
This
is very encouraging. We shall be
following up these things at meetings in
Mr Rea: If I could mention one
thing. Historically, before I became a
member of the Policing Board, they held one of their meetings in public locally
in
Chairman: I am sure it is. Thank you very much for that. Thank you all for your public evidence. I will ask if we can now clear the public gallery and we will move into private session. Thank you very much.