The board which is charged by statute to hold the police to account isfailing to do so, concludes a report on its work over the last two years, writes Paula Schwartzbauer
Policing is a key issue at the heart of the Northern Ireland conflict and the peace-building process. Despite the wider political crisis, policing change is proceeding and the new policing institutions are up and running.
In a few days time the Northern Ireland Policing Board will celebrate its second birthday.
As the first in a series of reports on the new policing institutions, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) has just published a commentary on the work of the policing board. It takes stock of its work to date and measures the board's activities against the Patten recommendations. The commentary concludes that while a great deal has been achieved, there is considerable room for improvement.
The board's achievements are many and include the appointment of a new chief constable, agreement on a new emblem and a code of ethics, the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships and agreement on a package of measures to tackle the serious failings in the Omagh investigation, which were identified by the Police Ombudsman. Even without the presence of Sinn Féin members, there is a wide range of political opinion on the board, and this makes its ability to reach agreement all the more remarkable.
The board is charged by statute with holding the police to account and it is in this area that the CAJ commentary is most critical. Patten attached central importance to this public accountability role if wider confidence is to be secured in the new policing arrangements.
CAJ cites a range of examples where the board is failing to hold the police publicly to account. For example, its monthly public meetings are largely superficial and the public are given very little information on how the board conducts its business with the police.
CAJ's concerns would appear to be borne out by statistics gathered by the board itself which show that only 18 per cent of the public is aware it holds monthly public meetings with the chief constable. Only 23 per cent believes the policing board is performing "well" or "very well" in consulting the public about policing issues. Clearly greater transparency is required. It may be that the board is doing more behind the scenes to hold the police to account, but the public need to know this if they are to have confidence in the new structures.
By way of example, the commentary cites the publication of a Human Rights Commission evaluation of police recruit training, issued in November 2002. While positive in parts, the commission's report identified very serious flaws.
Recruits were being told how to say the right thing rather than do the right thing, for example, if they were going to kick a suspect, they should make sure the incident was not caught on video. The commission also found that the issue of sectarianism was being largely ignored and that the human rights component of the training was superficial and at times misleading.
One might have expected some immediate public reaction from the board and proposals on how the failings would be rectified. The only public board comment came five months later in response to media questions. A year later, the public still does not know what action has been taken to remedy these training failures.
In one of the seven case studies, CAJ examines the board's decision to endorse a police proposal to acquire CS spray. The board sought little if any information from outside the police or government on the effects and human rights implications of the use of CS spray. It did not consult and deliberated in private giving little information on how it came to this important decision. This approach created the impression that the board simply rubber-stamped the police proposal, rather than subjecting it to independent analysis.
The board has successfully appointed over 200 independent members to local district policing partnerships. Unfortunately, a number of these people, as well as members of the policing board itself, have been deliberately targeted and subjected to violent attack or threats. This situation makes it all the more important that DPP members receive support and guidance. If these local structures are to perform to their full potential, their members will need a comprehensive programme of advice and training.
A longer-term challenge for the board is the need to develop a broader vision of policing. Patten envisaged that the reform process would encompass policing - and not just the institution of the police service. This approach would require the board to embrace wider issues of community safety and engage proactively with the work of other statutory bodies and the voluntary sector, as well as the police. The board has not as yet engaged sufficiently with these other players, and there is a danger that it may become a police board rather than a policing board.
The board has a statutory duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions and those of the chief constable are exercised. CAJ hopes that its 21 recommendations will be of assistance in this task. The recommendations urge the board to be more transparent in its relations with the police; set clear and specific standards against which police performance can be publicly measured; and engage key statutory agencies, non-governmental and community organisations, and the public, more proactively in its work.
Paula Schwartzbauer is a researcher on policing with the Committee on the Administration of Justice which is a cross-community human rights group working on policing in Northern Ireland since 1981. It was awarded the Council of Europe Human Rights Prize for its work on ensuring effective human rights and equality provisions in the Belfast Agreement.