Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Update from the PSNI, HC 512
Wednesday 25 October 2017
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 25 October 2017.
Members present: Dr Andrew Murrison (Chair); Mr Gregory Campbell; Maria Caulfield; Mr Stephen Hepburn; Lady Hermon; Kate Hoey; Jack Lopresti; Conor McGinn; Nigel Mills; Ian Paisley; Jim Shannon; Bob Stewart.
Questions 1 - 39
I: George Hamilton QPM, Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland; Stephen Martin, Assistant Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland.
George Hamilton QPM and Stephen Martin.
Q1 Chair: Good morning, everyone, particularly to our two witnesses this morning. Chief Constable George Hamilton, welcome, it is good to see you here, and Assistant Chief Constable Stephen Martin. We awake this morning to some extremely good news, in that Belfast has been named, along with the causeway coast, as a number one attraction in the Lonely Planet guide. Specifically, in its citation, it mentions the security situation. Of course, these things do not happen by accident. They take a hell of a lot of hard work, in particular by the security services, of which PSNI is an important part. Well done to PSNI for the part they played in that obvious and clear normalisation of Northern Ireland in the eyes of Lonely Planet and, therefore, the rest of the world, which is great news.
Chief, thank you for coming to give us evidence today. Clearly a great deal has changed since you were last here in October. If I may, I will give you the floor for a few moments so that you can update us on where we are right now.
George Hamilton: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. It is important for us to be here, so thank you for the invite. We have always appreciated the interest and support shown towards policing in Northern Ireland by this Committee. You are right, Chair. It is almost a year since we were last here and much has happened since then. I understand that Committee members are particularly interested to hear about the impact of the current political situation on policing and how it touches on policing.
The first point I would like to make, to provide some reassurance to the Committee and the wider public, is that we will continue to do our job of keeping people safe, no matter what is happening at Stormont. Despite the political machinations of the last year, we have continued to tackle drugs, domestic abuse, cybercrime and all the things you would expect us to do. We work hard to ensure that politics does not get in the way of keeping people safe. That said, there is no doubt in our view that policing is more effective when there is a functioning local Executive and the attendant accountability and infrastructure around it. Accountability is one of the most obvious challenges that the current political situation has created. Accountability through a fully functioning Northern Ireland Policing Board is critical to confidence in policing.
The ability to discuss policing in such an open and transparent way can only be a good thing. Even if it is sometimes uncomfortable for us, it is healthy for policing. The current political impasse has left the Policing Board without its political representation and its properly constituted role. We have not attended public meetings of the Northern Ireland Policing Board during the current year, 2017.
I am grateful to the chair, who is an independent member, of the Policing Board, the vice chair and the independent members. Despite the political difficulties, they have continued to keep policing on its toes. We have met with them in private session on a monthly basis.
To facilitate public conversations, the Policing Board has been running very constructive seminars, to which the public have been invited, although not formally constituted as the Northern Ireland Policing Board. In fact, the next one of those takes place tomorrow and will enable a public conversation on child sexual exploitation, for example, where Stephen in particular will be presenting the progress and the challenges we face in that area.
Another implication of the lack of a Northern Ireland Executive is greater financial uncertainty, at a time when budgets are vastly reducing across public services. Uncertainty is as challenging as cuts. The lack of clarity around that is difficult. For the last number of years, I have had a budget one year at a time. We have not had the CSR‑type approach of three to five years. It has been one year at a time. I used to think we were hard done by with that, but this year we have been working almost on a month-to-month basis in the absence of budgets having been fixed.
Senior figures from the various departments have issued indicative budgets, but those are subject to change and have changed over the course of the year. In those circumstances, longer term financial planning is virtually impossible.
The third element of note to us is around the Programme for Government. One of the best developments to have come from the Executive when it was functioning in recent years was the draft Programme for Government. Many of us hoped that the outcomes-based approach that was being developed was mature. It had an emphasis on improving collaborative working right across Government. We thought it would become a strategic game-changer for public service delivery.
Every day, our officers are looking after the most vulnerable in society in a way that is little understood and appreciated. Police officers will always help when we can. We are not always the best equipped or best trained person to deal with that vulnerable person and their needs. There is a responsibility across all public services to understand better the demands we face and how we can work together and collaboratively for the safety and well-being of our communities.
The financial climate dictates that public services can no longer afford to work in isolation. That was recognised in the draft Programme for Government. We thought that was constructive and helpful. I would love to see the Executive back up and running, to help provide the strategic direction, momentum and support that public services require to make change happen for the better.
Finally, as I conclude these opening remarks, I need to say something about dealing with the past. This is a major challenge for us. I have talked to the Committee on previous occasions about this most challenging of issues. As chief constable, my role is to deliver a police service that is fit for purpose. Our job is to keep people safe, but as chief constable I also find myself with a significant role to play in trying to deal with the past.
It is not a role that was referred to in the Patten report and reforms. Patten was silent on it. Yet the past has a very significant impact on both the operational side of our business and the way in which we are perceived by the community. It is a role that presents very real dilemmas and is coming under increasing financial, legal and ethical challenge.
In recent weeks, a number of judgments in the courts have brought the legal challenges into ever sharper focus. We are currently studying these judgments and considering carefully the implications for policing.
It is one of my greatest frustrations as chief constable that I am constantly forced into a position where I have to made decisions about putting my finite and reducing police resources to policing of the present or policing of the past. That is an uncomfortable dilemma that we face.
At a time when I am struggling for resources, for example, Stephen and his department of crime operations have just moved 16 detectives on to legacy work to deal solely with legacy disclosures. That is to respond, hopefully in a positive way, to court orders around disclosure. Those are 16 detectives who are no longer working to keep people safe; they are people who were working on organised crime, public protection, child sexual exploitation and longer term murder investigations.
I will never shirk my responsibilities for dealing with the past. I do not feel it is right that a chief constable should be asked to take resources away from policing the threat today, from dealing with the current issues of service delivery, to deal with our unresolved past. It remains our position that the Historical Investigations Unit and various strands of architecture in the Stormont House agreement to deal with legacy matters are the way forward. It would be good if responsibility was removed from me to those institutions that deal with the majority of legacy issues.
Undoubtedly, we would have a residual and continuing responsibility for disclosure into those mechanisms, but the responsibility for investigation, resolution and dealing with the past would move to other institutions under the Stormont House agreement if we could get the political consensus, political progress, legislation and so on.
While I am glad to have the opportunity to share this real concern with the Committee, I do not want to create a complete picture of doom. There are lots of positive things going on. I am an optimist. We are working together, and the people of Northern Ireland are capable of great things when they do that. It is often easily forgotten how far we have come and how much we have achieved. We have seen huge political leadership in the past dealing with very difficult and uncomfortable issues. It is possible that we could have that again.
From a policing perspective, there is no doubt that we face significant challenges in continuing to deliver a quality of police service with less money and fewer people against a continued backdrop of a severe terrorist threat. Despite all these challenges, crime is down and the most recent independent research puts confidence in policing at just over 90%. That is a truly remarkable achievement that is often forgotten in the current 24/7 news agenda.
This is evidence of how our officers and staff continue to step up to the mark and ensure our commitment to keeping people safe through policing with the communities and in partnership. That does not waver. Their hard work and dedication remains a constant source of inspiration to those of us who lead the organisation. Our most recent recruitment campaign was launched on Monday of this week, and I hope many more young people from right across our communities will be inspired to take up a career in this challenging but noble profession.
Thank you, Chair. Those are all my comments for this time, because it is probably more constructive to progress by way of questions through you as Chair. Thank you.
Q2 Chair: Chief Constable, thank you very much indeed. That is very comprehensive. You clearly take your duty to be accountable extremely seriously. It must have distressed you greatly that, over the past several months, that has not been possible in the normal way through the failure to constitute properly a Policing Board.
Can I also ask you about the failure of a ministerial presence in that respect? There will have been things that required ministerial decisions to be made, which presumably have been put on ice because of the failure of the Executive. I wonder if you can enumerate those and say what would happen in the event that this situation continued, since we are properly approaching a crunch point with respect to governance in Northern Ireland. We look forward to the restoration of some form of ministerial accountability in the not too distant future, though we are not sure what shape that will take.
George Hamilton: I am happy to comment on that. The absence of a Minister, an Executive and, in particular for us, a Justice Minister is significant. I mentioned in my opening remarks the piece about financial planning and uncertainty. All of that is brought out because we do not have Ministers to sign off on budgets. It is not just knowing what money we have to spend, but some spends require ministerial approval.
For example, I have commented on the inspiration that front-line officers are to us as senior leaders. They go the extra mile. They have a strong public service ethos. They were rewarded through the negotiation mechanisms a very modest pay rise, which we were grateful for, in keeping with the pay rise for police in England and Wales. That cannot be operationalised because there is no Minister to sign off a pay remit. While these people are continuing to do a great job on our behalf, the modest pay rise that has been decided for them cannot be brought into being. In some ways it is a minor point, but it is a significant one in terms of officer morale and well-being.
The broader financial piece around the lack of ability to do longer term transformational work, because we do not know what money is going to be available, is an issue I have mentioned. There are also legislative provisions. The previous Justice Minister, in her short period in the post, was in the process of bringing forward further legislation to help us deal with domestic abuse: for example, coercive control orders, which are in that space of domestic abuse before violence but around psychological abuse and other controlling pieces of domestic abuse. It was going to go through the Assembly for coercive control orders. That has not happened. There is no Minister and no Assembly.
There is the financial planning piece. There is part of the accountability mechanism, because a consequence of no Executive is no Policing Board. Then there is the actual legislative provision to give us the tools in the box to do the job. That is significant and we would be hopeful, whichever way it turns, through either resolution in the devolved space or some form of direct rule, at least we will get the certainty to allow us to run and transform policing.
Q3 Chair: In terms of the Policing Board, with the chairman you have tried to do something that is a little ad hoc, given the circumstances that prevail, to give some form of link with community and accountability. However, the situation is clearly less than satisfactory. What do you think might be done to constitute that board in its structural arrangements for the future, to ensure that the thing is a little more stable, given the institutions we have in Northern Ireland?
George Hamilton: My understanding is that the provision for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to appoint a Policing Board no longer exists, so that would require legislation if we were to move in that direction. That provision had been there in earlier iterations of the legislation and had been removed as part of one of the series of negotiations; I think it was at St Andrews. Currently, in the absence of an Executive, it is not possible to nominate and appoint to a policing board. We are voluntarily making ourselves available and answerable to what is left of the Policing Board in terms of the independent members and officials. We are happy to do that. It provides a good platform for explaining policing actions and decisions.
For example, when we have Police Ombudsman reports being published that require a public airing, it is very hard to do that on a 45-minute video clip on the BBC or ITV news. The Policing Board has historically provided a platform for us to be held to account with some quite intrusive questioning, but we welcome that because in most of these cases we have a strong story to tell. Without being defensive, we have context to give, which explains the cut and thrust of policing that can lead to what could sometimes be perceived as a negative ombudsman’s report.
The gap created, in terms of not just accountability but the voice for policing through the absence of a Policing Board, is one that we would love to see fixed, but my understanding is that that would require legislative provision being brought forward in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive.
Q4 Lady Hermon: It is very good to see both of you here and to have the opportunity to put some questions to you. Chief Constable, I am going to mention the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman’s investigation. Without giving the details, because I do not expect you to go into the specifics of the investigation, can we give you the opportunity to go on the record?
I think it is the first time there has been a Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman investigation into the deputy chief constable, chief constable and another senior officer at the same time. Would you like to take this opportunity to put on the record the impact on you personally and, indeed, on the wider police family?
George Hamilton: Yes, thank you. I was not quite anticipating that opportunity, but thank you, Lady Hermon. The office of the Police Ombudsman is there to investigate allegations of misconduct against individual officers, arising from complaints made by members of the public. That is a healthy thing even if it is somewhat uncomfortable at times.
As to the backdrop, these particular allegations made against me, the deputy chief constable and a number of other senior officers are of varying degrees of seriousness, but for me and the deputy chief constable some of the allegations would appear to amount to alleged criminal conduct, which is a concern to us.
I and Drew Harris are absolutely confident in the final outcome of that. The problem that we have and feel is that the final outcome, which could be 18 months away, could end up as two lines on a website from the Police Ombudsman to say that the complaints are not substantiated or proven, and in the meantime we have all this public commentary about a chief constable who is alleged to have perverted the course of justice. That is not good for my reputation, frankly, and confidence in policing generally. We have a workforce looking up to us, which is probably saying, “What on earth is going on with these guys?” It presents a huge distraction from getting the job done. There are personal pressures attached to it as well.
I have to say we stand firm and confident in what the outcome of the investigation is going to be. At a personal level, this is about the damage being done through the process and on the journey. The backdrop to it, which is a matter of public record, is that our anti-corruption unit picked up some concerning intelligence, which went into very large sums of money, around the procurement of police vehicles. As a result of that, we started an investigation back at the end of 2013.
That investigation ran its course. It was done in full consultation with the Public Prosecution Service. In the middle of the investigation, I was appointed as chief constable. Up to that point, I did not need to know about it so I had not been informed. On becoming chief, I insisted on a full briefing, which took the best part of a full day. I satisfied myself that the investigative measures were proportionate and professional.
As a health check, I brought in another agency, the National Crime Agency, to do a peer review on this investigation, because I knew that this day would come. I knew that, regardless of whether this resulted in a prosecution or not, it was highly likely that the individuals or some of the individuals who were the subject of the investigation would be seeking some sort of a review or investigation into our activities.
We had prima facie evidence of very serious corruption. We did an investigation to high professional standards. We have confidence in that. We knew that this level of scrutiny would come, but it would have been wrong for us to have made assumptions because of the previous professional background of the people we were investigating. They were never going to get any different treatment from anyone else we investigated. Our professional pride and levels of integrity would not have allowed that to happen.
That ran its course. Those people are innocent. We presented a file of evidence to the Public Prosecution Service. The PPS directed that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution. That does not mean that we should not have investigated. If we conducted an early initial assessment about whether or not we were likely to get a complex investigation to a point of having sufficient evidence to prosecute, it would defeat the purpose of having an investigation; that is why we do the investigation.
The investigation was proportionate. I am satisfied we did the right thing. We went into this with our eyes open and it was our responsibility under the Police Act to conduct this investigation. I am satisfied that we did that in a way that had integrity, but we need to allow the ombudsman to get on with the investigation.
Part of what concerns me, I have to say, is that the ombudsman has declared this as a critical incident; that is an incident that is likely to have an impact on the confidence of the complainant, the community or some other person involved. Ordinarily, in critical incident management, as much resource as possible is geared towards dealing with that in an expeditious manner. I am concerned about the lack of speed in bringing this to a resolution. I gave a very comprehensive response to the ombudsman upon notification of the initial allegation, as did all the officers concerned. My belief is, with limited investigation, by going and looking at documentation, a number of those allegations could be struck out at a very early stage.
That has not happened. The ombudsman’s investigators are still reading themselves into the case. This is a critical incident, part of which is that I am alleged, for example, to have rewritten and amended records and directed others to do so. I did not nor would I ever do such a thing. These very records that are alleged to have been rewritten are still sat in my safe and the deputy chief constable’s safe. In terms of the basics of an investigation, of securing and preserving evidence, that still has not even happened.
I have concerns about the speed and cadence of the ombudsman’s investigation. I get upset when other people tell me how to do my job, so I am not going to tell the Police Ombudsman how to do it. Since you ask, those are the concerns that are impacting on us personally. The sooner this is brought to a conclusion, the better. I am convinced that that conclusion will be one that we have acted with integrity and professionalism.
As always with any major complex investigation, if you review and investigate it, I am quite sure there might be minor issues around the margins that we could have done differently or better, but it is not going to be misconduct. It is certainly not going to be any criminal activity. It may well be some compliance with a policy, documents not signed or something of that nature.
Q5 Lady Hermon: I am very, very grateful to you for such a comprehensive response. I just expected you to read a couple of lines. That was very, very clear and comprehensive. I am grateful to you, and I am glad you had the opportunity to put that on the record. I am horrified at the prospect of you being under investigation for 18 months. That is an issue that the Police Ombudsman needs to pay attention to. This needs to be investigated thoroughly but quickly; otherwise it is intensely damaging. Thank you so much.
Could I move on to a completely different issue? I think you will be glad to move to Brexit now. On contingency planning for Brexit, as you know, the Brexit Secretary has been talking about making contingency planning for no deal between the EU and the British Government by the time 29 March 2019 comes around. In the event of no deal, what contingency planning has the PSNI been doing for what will inevitably be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? There are no two ways around that; it will be a hard border.
George Hamilton: Three or four weeks ago, Stephen and I met with our counterparts from Garda Síochána, the acting commissioner, deputy commissioner and Stephen’s counterpart in crime and security. We talked about this possibility. We have commissioned a piece of work that is running parallel to other work going on in the policy and government space. This is police to police, identifying the consequences and implications of Brexit, the various styles of Brexit we might have, including no deal, and going into the operational detail of what the border might look like. That piece of work with senior colleagues is due to report to the acting commissioner and me by the end of the calendar year.
Lady Hermon: This calendar year?
George Hamilton: Yes, in another eight weeks or so. It may not provide you or other interested parties with all the answers. What it will provide are the issues and consequences of those issues not being identified. From an operational perspective, we are hoping that will be a stimulus for some sort of agreement in this justice and security space. A huge amount of work is going on at the moment, on a police-to-police co‑operation basis, that does not require EU provisions or directions.
The problem is, when you come to translating that into needing to share biometric data or evidence of whatever nature, that needs to be followed up with some sort of legal statutory basis: ILORs, international letters of request, for example. We may well have shared information that has led to an arrest and somebody might have been charged, but we might need evidence to corroborate movements through surveillance from the Republic of Ireland. Evidence of the crime might be in one jurisdiction and the suspect in another.
When it comes to getting that into a format that can be presented before the court, it needs to go through the official channels. We have this operational tier for exactly that action, a lot of which can be done, based on relationships and good partnership working, without any provisions. It needs to be followed up, to allow it to be admissible evidence in court, with evidence presented through international letters of request or mutual legal assistance.
To answer your question on the contingencies, we are looking at that and have concerns about no agreement leading to this label of a hard border. That would be a worry to us. When I appeared before this Committee a year ago, I made that point very clearly. We need to be careful not to move into the policy and political space on this, but there are very practical, operational policing consequences for a hard border.
We know that a hard border would be exploited by organised criminality and, more worryingly, by violent dissident republican groupings, because it would inevitably need to have some manifestation of the state at the border, probably in terms of people but even in terms of technology. Those people and technology would need to be protected. That probably brings police officers into the arena. They in turn become a target, and very quickly we could get back to providing opportunities and targets for the terrorists, which we do not want to do.
Lady Hermon: Dissident republicans.
George Hamilton: Yes. It is not a case of us leaving the border unpoliced or anything like that, but we prefer to police even the current border, in co-operation with the Guards, in a way that is unpredictable and agile. Stephen and I are both of a generation where we remember dozens, maybe hundreds of permanent vehicle checkpoints at border crossings. That left as many or more informal border crossings unstaffed. It was not really securing the border. It was not hard; it was still porous. We would prefer to have the resources and agility to police that from an immigration, organised crime and terrorist perspective in a much more agile and unpredictable way, because it is more effective.
Q6 Kate Hoey: Thank you, Chief Constable. It is nice to see you. There are a couple of quick things to pick up. Do the independent members of the Policing Board get paid? Do they get money?
George Hamilton: Yes, they do.
Q7 Kate Hoey: Are they still getting that money?
George Hamilton: My understanding is yes.
Q8 Kate Hoey: The political representatives obviously do not.
George Hamilton: That is correct. There are no political representatives at the moment.
Q9 Kate Hoey: The independents are still carrying on. They are doing some work.
George Hamilton: Yes. In fairness to the independents, their level of interest in policing is high. They probably feel a need to be flying the flag; that is always interesting to talk about in Northern Ireland. They are doing a piece for policing accountability. They are getting out and visiting stations. They have been overseeing projects, asking us questions and effectively holding us to account in quite an impressive way, but they do not have anyone with a political mandate sat alongside them and they are not formally constituted.
Q10 Kate Hoey: You said crime has gone down, which everyone obviously welcomes. Can you tell us a bit about rural crime? Has it really gone down? From what you hear from people, the theft of machinery, tractors, animals and all of that is widespread. It does not seem to have decreased in any way.
George Hamilton: Rural crime tends to be high-impact crime, regardless of the quantity of it. No matter what progress we make towards either catching the culprits or, through education, target hardening and preventing the crime occurring, it is always going to have a high impact and potentially be of a higher profile. I do not have figures to hand. Do you have any commentary on that, Stephen?
Stephen Martin: I do not have any figures to hand, but I could reassure you that the joint agency taskforce, which I co‑chair with the deputy commissioner of An Garda Síochána and which looks at the cross-border nature of crime, includes rural crime and agri-crime as priorities. We have had some notable success there, recovering plant on both sides of the border that has been stolen on the other side of the border. Incidents of rural crime have reduced in recent years, but the financial impact has increased. The level of insurance claims, because of the expensive nature of plant and tractors, has increased.
Q11 Kate Hoey: Can I ask you about the fresh start group and some of the work it has been doing recently? What is the definition of paramilitary memorabilia? I understand there have been a number of cases where badges, ties and these kinds of things have been taken from people’s homes and then displayed as being paramilitary, to show how wonderfully the fresh start group is doing. It seems to be a bit one-sided, if people want to keep these things in their homes. I gather there were seven UVF flags from 1912 seized recently from a person’s home. Is that rational? Does that come under the Terrorism Act 2000? If that is not possible, why are we not raiding some of the IRA memorabilia places?
George Hamilton: Memorabilia and flags in particular have long been the subject of much discussion about what is effectively a historical artefact and what is support for a current‑day proscribed terrorist organisation. When materials such as that are recovered in house searches, first of all it is not by accident. It is normally intelligence-led where we are looking for other things that are more unequivocally connected to harm and terrorism, such as firearms and information around intended targets.
We sweep all of that up because, in the round, this can lead to a charge of membership, which is historically very difficult to prove without admission. While memorabilia, of itself, may not always be a black and white case of obtaining and possessing material that supports a terrorist organisation, in the round, along with the other things recovered in searches and potentially other sources of evidence, it can help to corroborate something the PPS would want to consider in deciding on a prosecution. It is not a straightforward success story when we recover a 1912 UVF flag, but often it will be in a broader context if other materials have been seized as well.
Q12 Kate Hoey: Are you not portraying that in public and showing wonderful pictures of how many things you have lifted? It does not seem like common sense. Is there no need for public guidance on this, because a lot of people do, for all sorts of reasons, keep historical badges and so on? No one wants to stop you raiding and getting arms. That is absolutely fine.
George Hamilton: There are two things on that. The issue of flags, emblems and so on has been unresolved for many, many years around what is legal, what is not legal and the way forward around that, on both owning and, more importantly, displaying these things. Without wanting to duck it, our view is that the framework for deciding what is acceptable and unacceptable is one for the police to police once it has been agreed by policymakers and politicians.
We have been the subject of significant criticism that we are taking a softly, softly approach with paramilitary groups generally. It seems to make good sense in terms of confidence in policing and assuring the public we are taking it seriously and are proactive around this. If we are searching, finding materials and making the arrests that often accompany these seizures, if we are doing all that enforcement activity, it is a healthy thing for the public to know about. The world just needs to look at social media and see commentary from the normal citizen about their concern at the lack of proactivity in tackling paramilitarism.
Kate Hoey: I look forward to the public display of some IRA memorabilia, which I am sure you will find in the various museums and so on.
Stephen Martin: In relation to the last question on fresh start, that falls within my department’s responsibility, the paramilitary crime taskforce.
Kate Hoey: I should have directed it at you.
Stephen Martin: I know of a search very recently. It may well be the one you are referring to. As well as flags, in the same house we recovered literature relating to a proscribed organisation. We discovered a crossbow, ballistic body armour and CS spray along with the flags. During the lifetime of the paramilitary crime taskforce, £450,000 of criminal assets, £157,000 in cash and drugs with an estimated street value of £230,000 have already been seized or restrained. In the last week alone, we have seen a person charged with membership of a loyalist proscribed organisation. We have seen another conviction in Cork where some £60,000 has been restrained, again from a loyalist.
I want to reassure you that we have five priority groups under the paramilitary crime taskforce. We have never published or said what those groups are, for obvious reasons, because we do not want to alert those criminals to our specific attention on them, but two of those groups are republican in nature and three are loyalist. We keep that under review. I am satisfied that we are going where the intelligence and evidence takes us. That is based on crime, not based on community background. I would also be confident that, in the future, we will undoubtedly have success against some of those republican groups as well.
Q13 Kate Hoey: Any member of the public who wants to keep memorabilia from former proscribed organisations in their home with nothing else need not fear any kind of police raid.
Stephen Martin: These organisations are still proscribed. It is still against the law to be a member of these organisations. Many of the people who are current members of proscribed organisations—you used the UVF as an example—will have flags that have 1912 on them. The possession of a 1912 flag as a historical piece of material would not in itself be an offence, but many of the people who possess them are at times engaged in other activities that are criminal offences. Depending on the nature of the evidence collated, that flag could also be added to the evidence bundle presented to the PPS.
Q14 Ian Paisley: Chief Constable, Assistant Chief Constable, it is good to see you here at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I did not think I would ever hear a chief constable say he missed the Policing Board, especially as someone who served on it for seven years. There we are: how things change.
Your earlier commentary, Chief Constable, which I want to quote accurately, was that, in terms of the 16 detectives you are using in policing the past, this takes resources away from today’s policing. I understand that you want to police today and the future, but you are spending resource on the past. Can you give us an idea of how much this is costing you?
George Hamilton: To be clear, I was using the additional surge of an extra 16 detective constables to illustrate what we needed to do to meet a court order around disclosure. We would have, between police officers, lawyers, researchers, analysts and disclosure officers, somewhere in the region of 250 people working every day on legacy‑related matters, alongside other outsourced legal advice, which comes at a premium. Please do not think that legacy is done by just 16 officers. That was a one-off hit we had to take to deal with a court order around disclosure on the Flynn case.
Q15 Ian Paisley: No, I do not think that at all. How much of your budget are you putting into this?
George Hamilton: I do not have that figure to hand. We have done quite a piece of work recently.
Q16 Ian Paisley: Can you give us a ballpark?
George Hamilton: No, because I might get it wrong, and I do not want to do that. I am very happy to clarify that. We have done a very significant piece of work to present probably to the Secretary of State or Executive, when we get one up and running, of the current cost and demand around legacy matters. This is not just us continuing with the work that the historical enquiries team was doing, or the criminal justice investigations that we were doing largely on the basis of referrals from the Public Prosecution Service. We have, for example, almost 600 letters of claim for litigation and civil cases falling out of legacy cases. We have something like 54 or 55 highly complex inquests touching on the death of over 90 people.
All these require a massive amount of disclosure of documents, sometimes in the tens of thousands of documents, much of which will have sensitive information contained therein, which needs to be redacted to protect people and methodology. We have all of this civil litigation, coronial inquests and then the review/reinvestigation work of the legacy cases that are worthy—although they are all worthy—of a revisit, to try to bring higher investigative standards to them.
Q17 Ian Paisley: What I am trying to get to is this: the thrust of what you are telling us is that, if you had that resource to police the present, you would be fulfilling all your functions and maybe achieving more expectations of the public about how the police are addressing current crime levels. Is that right? Is that fair?
George Hamilton: That is exactly it. We will get for you the current spend on legacy because there has been ongoing work on that. I was reading a draft report on it the other day. We will get that to you by way of a follow-up letter through the Chair. You are absolutely right. We had bespoke funding for legacy investigations up until 2011, and then that was removed and we were told to prioritise this within the main grant allocation. The costs are significant.
Take, for example, Operation Kenova, which is an investigation run by Chief Constable Jon Boutcher on my behalf because of potential conflicts of interest that PSNI or RUC officers would have had with some of the matters that are under investigation. That alone is costing us £6 million a year. There is another investigation that we have had to outsource to Police Scotland, which is about £1.2 million a year. These will run for somewhere between three and five years.
Q18 Ian Paisley: I look forward to receiving the breakdown and the detail. I want to move to two other issues. In the past seven years, 52 of your officers have been emergency evacuated from their homes. This year, three or four have been. On a personal level, can I thank you for your intervention on a couple of cases that I have brought to your officers, which have been resolved? However, it must be a terrible plight—and I know it is a terrible plight—for eight or nine officers each year on average to have to up sticks overnight and move to a new location. The stress on their family and the community is appalling. Of course, the cost is also quite extensive.
Police Beat magazine this month carried a fairly extensive article on the impact of this. It indicates that part of the problem is that money is a priority when you come under threat. Money becomes a priority in how a police officer can have their home properly evaluated and then compensation given to them to achieve a new home. Importantly, the level of threat seems to be an extremely high threshold to cross before SPED is awarded to an officer. There are some cases that you will be familiar with where it is almost the morning before a hit takes place that a police officer is told they are being SPEDed, yet the police may have known for weeks in advance. That is the talk that goes around this. How much of SPED is restrained by monetary concerns?
George Hamilton: I am going to ask Stephen to cover this. In a previous portfolio he held, he led on this for the organisation. Can I put on the record very clearly that the protection of our officers is not going to be fettered by money and expenditure? They are too important for that. If we have to make cuts in costs in other places to protect officers and their families, we will do that. It is not as straightforward as that. The SPED scheme is run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It is probably best that I get Stephen to elaborate, because he has had working knowledge of it more recently.
Stephen Martin: In a previous ACC portfolio, I was the person in the organisation who would have determined whether the criteria for SPED were met. I want to reassure you at the outset that money did not come into my thinking in any respect whatsoever. The SPED scheme, as the chief has said, is owned by the Housing Executive. It remits the details to us and we have to, based on our understanding of the case and intelligence assessment, make a determination on whether the criteria for SPED are met.
There are three tests in that test for SPED, and all three have to be met. You cannot have two out of the three. All three have to be met. The three tests are that the householder has been attacked or intimidated; that they are at risk of serious injury; and that it is unsafe for the householder or someone living with the householder to continue living at that address. Serious injury can include psychological as well as physical injury. It is now Barbara Gray as the assistant chief constable who deals with this, but, if those three tests are met, we would absolutely say SPED is met, send it to the Housing Executive and SPED would be initiated. Money does not come into our thinking at all in relation to the SPED scheme.
Q19 Ian Paisley: Thank you for that. I have had some dealings with your office on a couple of cases and I appreciated the outcome of those cases. The idea that an actual attack has to take place is something that causes alarm to people who are living in fear in certain areas and may have received a P1 or a warning note.
George Hamilton: This affects all levels of the organisation, including our own team. There are problems, as well—not problems. In your question, you used the word “compensation”. Under the SPED scheme, grateful though we are to have it, people do not make money out of it. It works on the basis of no detriment and no gain. That creates challenges at times, because it is pound for pound, given the expenses of moving and so on.
Ian Paisley: Could I ask you one further question about crime? That is drive-off crime, making off without payment or “no means to pay” crimes at our forecourts across Northern Ireland. I understand that forecourts in Northern Ireland lost £30 million in the last year because of drive-off incidents. That amounts to about 77,000 specific incidents in Northern Ireland. That is a 21% increase in that crime level since the previous year. These are police figures that I have.
On the basis of that, retailers are telling me that they find it very, very difficult to get data for the police when someone drives off, in terms of CCTV data, with issues in identifying the vehicle driving licence in order for the police to swoop in and get those people. It is becoming an issue that they carry the entire burden of. As you know, if you are a petrol retailer, you already pay 80%-plus tax upfront for your product to HMRC. That money is lost as soon as the crime takes place, and it is hard to get it back. Are any specific actions being put in place to address forecourt crime in Northern Ireland?
George Hamilton: I am surprised to hear those anecdotes, because we respond to drive-offs and forecourt crime. It is not always crime, by the way. It may be a technical crime, making off without payment, but our officers spend a significant proportion of time using police records to trace the owner of a vehicle, to find out it has been a mum out buying fruit, ham and rolls for the lunches the next morning who had paid for the foods but genuinely forgot to pay for the petrol. The two parties are married up to have the outstanding payment paid.
Under the definition of making off without payment, that is still technically an offence but clearly the complainant would not always be willing or wanting to prosecute there. This is effectively a mistake. That is not always the case. We follow them up. There has been a debate in UK policing about whether this is a matter for the police. We have discussed that internally and come to the conclusion that it was and we would continue to react to it.
Because of the technology available to us and the records and databases, very often there would be no forensic evidence and no other evidence to gather at the scene, other than at some point a witness statement from the staff at the forecourt or petrol station. Quite often, these matters are resolved by contact being made, through contact management, with the drive off person, saying, “You have just left Hightrees garage in Donaghadee and you have not paid for your petrol. What is the story?”, and it gets resolved in that way. I am happy to have a look at it, but we have other priorities and pressures.
There has been a huge education. You will have seen a number of initiatives around forecourts, with police warnings and stickers attached to the pumps reminding people to pay and that non‑payment is an offence. We encouraged the retailers, but they did not want to do this because it was not as easy for the customer. If they did not all do it, people would vote with their feet and go to a different petrol retailer. One way of reducing this, if not eradicating it, is paying for your fuel first, either at the pump or in the shop. The retailers were not enthusiastic about that because it was less convenient for the customer, which is understandable, but we have engaged with them and are happy to listen to and try to alleviate their concerns.
Part of this is absentmindedness; part of it is sheer criminality. The challenge for us is differentiating between the two and dealing with them in a sensible way.
Q20 Chair: Can I bring you back to some personnel issues? I want to ask you about your recruitment of reportedly 300 extra officers and the background to that. Why had you come to that figure? What is the demand that has led to it? What attempts are being made, which I am sure are extensive, to ensure cross-community representation in those figures?
George Hamilton: First of all, one of the lessons that we learned a few years ago was that, when you switch the recruitment tap off completely, it becomes very troublesome to switch it back on again because under the legislation we have to outsource the recruitment selection function. It is therefore best to keep a contract rolling, even if we are reducing to a trickle the number of officers we are bringing into the organisation.
The recent campaign that was launched anticipated that we would be selecting into a pool of around 300 officers. That is not 300 officers in growth. We are losing each year, through retirements, ill health and other people choosing to leave the organisation for a variety of reasons, around 250 to 300 people. All we are doing is marking time, standing still, with this current recruitment campaign.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to give any guarantees about timescale for all the people in that pool being appointed because it is finance dependent. If the money is there, we will be recruiting to a profile by the end of this financial year of 6,700 officers. In the following year, that will fall to 6,600. Those are lower numbers than we would like, but they are what we can afford. That is the issue around the numbers. The numbers are on a downward trajectory, rather than this looking like 300 growth. We are trying to recruit and appoint 300 people, but they will effectively be replacing people. Even then, not everybody leaving will be replaced for affordability reasons.
The representativeness piece is an important one for us. We want the organisation to be representative in all respects of the communities that it serves. That relates to the two main communities and traditions in Northern Ireland. It also relates to male/female and geographical spread. We want people from west of the Bann and border areas. We want people from north, west and east Belfast. We want the organisation to be as representative as it possibly can be. That is, frankly, the right thing to do and good for public confidence, but there is something about the psyche of the organisation. We are better informed and do a better job if we are truly tuned in and representative of the communities that we are trying to serve. We take that very seriously.
I might have reported on this last year as it was being commissioned, but we have commissioned a piece of work into barriers. It started off as research to look at barriers to Catholic recruitment. Very quickly, the consultancy house that did it for us said, “Look, the same issues apply in loyalist working-class areas, rural areas and other places”. It became a more generic piece of work to identify the barriers to recruitment. Some of that was about moving as much of it to the online space as possible, about reducing the time from advertisement to appointment and some practical things that were well within our gift to change. We have done that.
It also identified issues that were outside our gift and the responsibility of other people. Within the Catholic community in particular, and indeed in loyalist working-class areas, people are very much influenced by the views of close family and friends in relation to how sensible or honourable it is to pursue a career in policing. People from those two groups are more easily put off by a lack of support or discouragement from family and friends than other groups that we looked at.
That is a bit of a civic leadership challenge. We are hoping that political parties and civic groups will step up to the plate and advocate for a career in policing. We have seen huge progress over the years from some political parties and other organisations. Take the GAA, for example. We do not question its bona fides in respect of support for policing and policing reforms, accountability structures and reporting matters to the police, but sometimes it feels there is a reluctance and stopping short of actively advocating for a career in policing. Until we get that, it is going to be hard to be truly representative.
Q21 Conor McGinn: Chief Constable, ACC, it is very good to see you here. Can I first place on record my gratitude to both of you, your colleagues, the senior leadership team and the men and women officers of the PSNI for the professional, dedicated, selfless and often very brave way they go about their job to keep people in Northern Ireland safe?
I also want to acknowledge, and I think it needs more recognition, that the work you and your organisation do, often in co-operation with the Garda and National Crime Agency, on organised crime, drug trafficking, counter terrorism and CSE keeps people in my constituency safe too. Those of us who represent constituencies in GB should perhaps acknowledge that more readily and often.
Over the last three years, you have had budget cuts of about £140 million. You have to find further savings this year. The Patten report recommended that the force be kept at around 7,500. I think your own resilience review in 2013 arrived at a figure of about 6,900 or just under 7,000. You have said that the latest recruitment will keep you standing still, and the latest figure provided for the number of officers you had was around 6,700.
How worried are you, with budget cuts, issues of retention and a decline of around 8% of officers in the last 12 years, about whether you are able to do your job, police all the communities in Northern Ireland and keep people safe and secure? When does it get to a critical point where you say, “I do not have enough money, resources and officers to fulfil the role that the police should”?
George Hamilton: It is a very good question, because, if there is a political and societal desire to have the Patten infrastructure retained, that is not going to be possible with the current resourcing plan. We will not be able to do that, because a number of things have happened.
The demand that we are facing has not only increased but has changed its form. Patten was largely about policing within communities, high visibility, reassurance and individual officers connecting with individual communities and community groups, working in partnership with them and mobilising community capacity in the policing effort. That is all really good stuff we are absolutely committed to.
Sitting alongside that, we have seen a spike in reports of serious sexual offences, for example, maybe because of some high-profile cases. Generally women, but not always, are more willing than before to come forward. Our response is to invest heavily with health, so that, when people come forward with their report of having been raped or some other serious sexual offence against them, their first port of call is to the Rowan Centre, which is a health facility jointly funded by ourselves and health. The person’s needs and vulnerabilities are addressed first and in a way that captures evidence as they go, rather than in the sterile surroundings of a police medical room with a police doctor taking samples and things. It is a much more victim-centred approach. That has led to greater confidence in our ability to deal with them properly. The sexual offending thing has spiked.
Child sexual exploitation, probably on the back of the difficult reporting that has happened in GB around that, is now something that people are much more tuned into. There is a massive increase in police resources allocated to deal with child sexual exploitation. Again, because of the horror stories around offender management of sexual and violent offenders, we are having to put many more people into that space to manage offenders. The police are more involved in that. Cyber-crime, cyber-enabled crime and cyber-dependent crime are much more prevalent now than they were even 18 months ago.
All the categories of demand that I am talking about are not dealt with by people in high-visibility jackets on the main street, in villages or doing community meetings in church halls. They are dealt with in a less visible place, sometimes in a laboratory or healthcare facility. It is right and proper that we are flexible and agile to that. It is a different operating environment to what Patten and we envisaged.
The basic principles of Patten around accountability, a human rights‑based approach and a partnership approach to policing are no less relevant now than they were back then. What I am saying is the context has changed significantly. The visual representation of policing is very different and probably less visible.
Sitting alongside that, one of the consequences of austerity and introducing budgets in other public services is sometimes an offload of risk and responsibility from other agencies towards the police. Working with social services colleagues, we have good partnership arrangements through a central referral unit that operates very well Monday to Friday. We look at the reports coming in and work out who is best placed to deal with them. It might be a social worker, someone from education, the police or health who goes and deals with a report.
What tends to happen, though, is that you get to the last hour of the day, especially on a Friday, and there is a deluge of referrals coming in from all the other agencies towards the police, because we are the only service with a 24/7 response. That is a consequence of shrinking budgets across public services generally.
Q22 Conor McGinn: The other side of it is the impact on officers. The report that you referenced pointed to the fact that 35% of sick leave now in the PSNI is stress-related. I know that the Police Federation survey reported an increase in low morale among officers. The fundamental question I am asking is this: do you think you have enough resources to fulfil your role as a police service, providing a comprehensive service to all communities in Northern Ireland, and to do right by your officers?
George Hamilton: The impact on officers, especially at the front end, is ever increasing. I am concerned about it. Tomorrow, we will get the early indications of a survey conducted into officer and police staff morale, engagement and well-being. That is conducted by Durham University on our behalf. We are worried about this. Do we have enough to keep doing policing?
I think that we have, but there needs to be a recalibration of public and political expectation as to what they want from their police service. We are always going to be there in people’s hour of need, for the crime in action and the genuine emergency, but there is something a bit bizarre about people’s expectations of a police response.
If I have a back problem or a tummy upset and I phone my GP, if I am really lucky I will probably get an appointment towards the end of next week. I accept that. If it is really critical, I go to accident and emergency and I am dealt with after a number of hours. If people phone the police about a non-emergency call where there is no crime in action and no immediate evidence to be harvested, if they are not getting a response within the hour of a police officer in attendance, there can sometimes be complaints about that.
There is something about people’s expectation of how responsive the police are going to be to them in non-emergency calls that is simply not realistic. We see responding to calls as an opportunity for engagement. We want to do it, but we cannot do everything. Something is going to have to give here. To answer your question of whether we have enough to keep delivering the service, yes, we do, for the emergency end of things.
We are always going to prioritise in terms of threat, risk and harm, in dealing with terrorist, organised crime and public protection threats. The visible part of policing that gives people a feel-good factor about their police is going to suffer, not because we do not want to do it but because the numbers and money will not be available to maintain the service at current levels.
Q23 Conor McGinn: Finally, in terms of community representation, I welcome the report that you referenced on understanding the barriers that prevent people joining the police. The comments by the deputy chief constable yesterday about how he is going to manage the new recruitment process were very welcome. He acknowledged things that had perhaps not been wrong in the past, but could be done better or differently.
The number of Catholic officers has been static at around 30%. My concern is that 50/50 was supposed to act as a catalyst and enable that to grow to the stated aim of 50%. It is not doing that. Do you think that 50/50 ended too soon when it did? Is there a possibility of it being reintroduced, if you feel that the number slips below a critical level in terms of community representation?
Secondly, I understand and agree with a lot of what you said about the challenge for nationalist communities and leadership there to step up to the mark, in encouraging people to join the police and actively and vociferously supporting the police. The report, which you referenced yourself, talks about the opinion of family, friends and community being a very strong influence within the Catholic community and upon Catholic applicants. What is your strategy and what have you done with organisations like the GAA, the church, schools, and community and political leaders? I want to acknowledge your personal commitment to this in the work that you and Stephen, in both this post and his last post, have done. That is the context in which I am asking it.
George Hamilton: I am grateful for that, thank you. Patten identified that it would be helpful if the police service was truly representative of the community it served. We buy that, are committed to it, advocate for it and that is our aspiration. He is also a bit of a pragmatist. The Patten commission identified that a critical mass would be around 30%. The 10 years of derogation from the pure merit principle and the introduction of 50/50 recruitment got us to 30% or just over.
It has been maintained at that level, but that was only ever seen as a critical mass and a milestone towards achieving true representativeness. The decision about whether or not to reintroduce 50/50 recruitment is a political one and not one for me. My view, if I am allowed to say this, was that the last time it was introduced it had some kickback within the unionist community.
Conor McGinn: I accept that, absolutely.
George Hamilton: There was a feeling that moving away from the merit principle was not healthy for any public service. Those observations have validity. Strategically, because of where we were, the unique circumstances, the need to transform policing and the very generous severance package available to officers to create the headspace to make us more representative, all of that made it strategically the right thing to do.
Should it be considered for reintroduction? First of all, it is a political decision and not one for me, but if I am allowed to offer a view on it I would have thought that we should only be getting to that consideration when everybody else has stepped up to the plate to do everything reasonably possible to address it: address representativeness and recruitment through normal means, rather than derogating from the merit principle.
I am not stereotyping the entire Catholic nationalist community here. There is a critical role for political leadership in this. Sinn Féin needs to take a position of not stopping to wait until everything is perfect and there are no complaints about policing ever before it can advocate for a career in policing, because it is a human endeavour. We are always going to make mistakes. There are accountability mechanisms in place to deal with the bad behaviour or the mistakes made. Have confidence in that and advocate for your young, bright people to join the police. That is what we want, and it is a particular challenge to one political party.
There are other segments within the nationalist, Catholic community that have been more proactive. The GAA, for example, has been quite collaborative with us, in terms of allowing us to advertise in some of its publications and match programmes, to reach into those underrepresented communities. It is not a case of us wanting those good candidates at the cost of any other group. There is something quite powerful in people being appointed on the basis of the merit principle, but you need to get the applicant pool as rich and diverse as possible in the hope that that translates into who the successful candidates are.
I am reluctant to move away from the merit principle until we have exhausted every other avenue. One avenue that has not been exhausted is advocacy for a career in policing from some parts of political leadership within the nationalist community.
Q24 Mr Campbell: Chief, Assistant Chief, it is good to see you here. I want to make a comment, not really a question, on 50/50. There was about a 40% application from the Catholic community throughout that 50/50 period of 10 years. The pragmatic 30% that Patten recommended would have been reached and exceeded anyway had there not been a 50/50. I can certainly confirm there was a massive kickback in the unionist community. Some of the problems that you have in the working-class Protestant community of getting into the police are directly as a result of the totally counterproductive 50/50. It was a disaster and should never, ever be contemplated again.
This is not really a legacy issue but relates to legacy and is relevant today. A couple of weeks ago, Leo Varadkar, the Irish premier, came to Londonderry and engaged in a couple of events. He was accompanied at one of the events by a Sinn Féin councillor, Councillor McMonagle, who for the benefit of all members of the Committee is the mayor of Donegal. He was there in a civic capacity, but he was also wanted by police for questioning about the murder of an off-duty UDR officer 34 years ago. He was arrested for his part in that crime, allegedly, and then released and went on the run, as I understand it. In 2003, 14 years ago, he was named as an on‑the‑run.
Has he been questioned since that time? Was he questioned during his visit to Northern Ireland with the Taoiseach? Are there plans to question him now?
George Hamilton: No, he was not questioned on his recent visit to Northern Ireland with the Taoiseach. The sequence of events is similar to what you have articulated, but let me tell you the story as far as I can, given that this is a public session. There is the murder of the part-time UDR soldier in 1982. The individual you are referring to was a suspect in that case, was arrested, interviewed and charged, then left the jurisdiction. As happens in these cases, both because of the review and mechanisms of legacy, but also being in a position to proceed with a trial if an on‑the‑run person can be brought back into or is arrested in the jurisdiction, that was reviewed in 2003. The file was resubmitted to the Public Prosecution Service.
A number of witnesses in the intervening years had died. Some of them were in such ill health that they were unable to give evidence for a number of reasons. Some of the original exhibits were unable to be found, not that they were particularly conclusive anyway. They were never likely to be the cause of conviction in court anyway. In the interests of openness, I declare that that was the case. On the basis of all that, in 2003, the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that the prosecution against this individual would be stopped and not proceeded with.
There was nothing further on that case to put to the aforementioned individual. That has run its course. All these cases go through a circle of review that includes looking for other forensic opportunities or the application of new forensic techniques to old exhibits. That will continue to happen. It is not a case where this person goes on the run, we lose interest and he is not proceeded against. His case was systematically and thoroughly reviewed. Due to the passing away of a number of witnesses, I think five or six, and another three who were so ill they were unable to give evidence in 2003, the director came to a view that there was no reasonable prospect of successful prosecution. Therefore, the proceedings against the individual were stopped.
That said, without prejudice to the individual concerned, the review process by legacy investigations branch against individuals is going on. There is a piece of work, which this Committee has been actively interested in, with the on-the-runs scheme, Operation Redfield and all that. There is a churn through all these cases and none of them ever go away, but they are being reviewed for evidential opportunities.
This case will be in that stack, but it has received more attention and been through more due process with the original arrest, charge, report to the PPS and then the follow‑up review and further report to the PPS in 2003. That means prosecution against this individual for that murder is extremely unlikely. He is certainly not wanted for interview by the police at the moment in relation to that murder. You look like I confused you, Mr Campbell.
Q25 Mr Campbell: You did not until the last sentence when you said “in relation to that murder”. Does that mean that you may wish to question him about other incidents?
George Hamilton: First of all, if we did, we would not be announcing it publicly in a hearing such as this. I am not saying yes or no in relation to that. We did not see his attendance in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction last week as an opportunity lost. In other words, at that point in time, we had no requirement to arrest and interview that individual. As we work through the very large stack of cases, we will go where the intelligence and evidence takes us. If, hypothetically, that individual’s name came up and we had cause to speak to him, we would take active measures to do that.
Regardless of how it was reported in the press, there was no requirement for us to speak to that individual on that 1982 murder. It has, for the time being, unless new evidence comes to light or new witnesses come forward, run its course—sadly for the Cummings family, who lost a loved one back in 1982 and have not had any criminal justice closure on that. It has not been for a lack of trying on our part. I would like to reassure them, you and the broader community there was nothing ignored and no opportunities missed in relation to that case and the appearance of the individual you referred to in Northern Ireland.
Q26 Mr Campbell: I have two small points in relation to that. You used the phrase that some items were unable to be found in relation to his case. Can you elaborate? Was that material that was lost, misappropriated or what?
George Hamilton: I cannot elaborate other than that is the case. I do not know how or why. There are literally hundreds of thousands of exhibits within the system stretching back. I have been briefed that the items that were no longer available as exhibits would not have been absolutely critical to a prosecution anyway. The main issue was the non‑availability either through death or serious illness of up to nine witnesses. That was the real problem.
We have a serious crime exhibits store at Seapark. The Committee may have visited. You would certainly be very welcome. We could do that. In terms of managing the sheer volume of property and exhibits connected with legacy cases, it is massive. From time to time, not least because forensic science laboratories were bombed, burned down and things like that, there are a variety of reasons, not just police negligence, for why some of these exhibits are not available to us today. In the interests of transparency, I was trying to paint a picture for you of what happened in 2003 when the director made the decision not to proceed with the prosecution.
Q27 Mr Campbell: Can you understand the frustration there would be in the community, understandably, that after all this time, 35 years after a murder, part of the reason for not being able to proceed against a possible suspect in the murder is the passage of time and the demise of a number of people who may well have been witnesses?
The event known as Bloody Sunday occurred 10 years before that, which means that witnesses were 10 years older than that. There appears to be no reluctance or attempt to say that perhaps we cannot proceed here. There is a file in front of the prosecution service at the moment on a whole range of military personnel who were active 10 years before this. The passage of time, the demise of witnesses and the age of people who may be questioned do not appear to have been factors in saying that we cannot proceed against the soldiers, but have now been used as factors in not proceeding against Mr McMonagle.
George Hamilton: We did proceed and do the police bit against Mr McMonagle. These prosecutorial decisions are for the director of the Public Prosecution Service. He may well come to conclusions based on those reasons in relation to the Bloody Sunday file that is sitting in front of him as well. I do not know. There is something about police getting on with the investigations and the prosecutorial decisions sitting with the DPP.
In terms of what we end up investigating, as I have explained to this Committee before, a number of the high-profile investigations against so‑called state actors as they have been termed in some reports—police officers, military personnel and so on—are on the basis of referrals to me under Section 35(5) of the Justice Act, where the director asked me to ascertain and furnish—in brackets, investigate—certain cases. In fairness to the director, it is normally on the back of referrals he has from the Attorney-General where families have been asking for a fresh inquest. The Attorney-General assesses the concerns that the family has and says, “Before we get to an inquest, there are potential criminal justice matters that need to be at least investigated”. He, under the legislation, refers it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, if he concurs with it, has the power to refer to it to me to effectively prioritise it for investigation.
That is why we get ourselves in this situation where there appears to be an imbalance in terms of the investigative activity between the various groups of actors involved. Our preferred option would be for the whole legacy piece to be lifted up and given to HIU. In the meantime, we are the body of constables charged with investigating these matters. We are trying to do that, but there is certainly no agenda on our part. Why would there be?
Q28 Chair: We perhaps need to bring the DPP in to discuss some of these matters. It is probably unfair to put you on the spot. A lot of them have much bigger and wider political implications that are subject to some consideration, both in the context of Northern Ireland and more generally at the moment. Perhaps we can do that.
George Hamilton: Can I just clarify one point that will be important for the record? I am simply describing how we have got to this point. None of my comments should be taken as a criticism of the decision of the director, because I did not agree with some of the media reporting about him being anything less than professional and independent in how he has fulfilled his function. The director has arriving on his desk a number of cases referred from the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. He has looked at those and they have come on to me. That is the way the process works.
Chair: That is very clear and on the record.
Q29 Jim Shannon: First of all, I want to say thank you to you and your staff for the hard work that you do. On a very personal basis, in the consistency that I represent, your officers are exemplary. I am very proud of them and their response to me at all levels has always been excellent. Thank you for that.
I want to back up my colleague, Mr Campbell, in that under no circumstances would the reintroduction of 50/50 be a good rule, having had a family member who was excluded because they happened to be a Protestant but had the ability, experience and wanted to be a police officer. That is in the past now, but I wanted to have on record just how detrimental that step was.
To back up the issue of Lexie Cummings—I am very conscious of time so we will do it very quickly—one in four Troubles legacy cases could be settled by next summer. That was a headline in the paper on Saturday morning, the Belfast Telegraph. That is the story. I am quite happy to give you the cutting of the paper if it is helpful to you. If that is the case, Lexie Cummings’ case, where evidence, which was critical and significant to that murder, was lost for whatever reason, would be part of that. Nobody was ever made accountable for the murder of Kenneth Smyth and his colleague on 10 December 1971. Nine people were arrested for the murder of the four UDR men—John Birch, Steven Smart, Mike Adams and John Bradley—in Ballydugan Road. One person was made accountable but the rest of them seemed to get away.
If we are going to have legacy cases settled by next summer, I would suggest that these should be part of that. The commanding officer in relation to La Mon does not shave every day. I am very clear that he should be brought to account for his involvement in the La Mon thing. When we are looking at Troubles legacy cases to be settled by next summer, can I suggest making those four the priorities?
I want to ask a question on cybersecurity. Last week, you had someone in Northern Ireland, Ciaran Martin, the CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre. He said that major cyberattacks are inevitable but the damage they can do will be limited. He referred to 590 significant cyber incidents across the UK and said he prevented tens of millions of attacks through active cyber measures. He also referred to the digital economy in Northern Ireland, where there are critical systems. He referred to low sophistication, but highly prolific, sets of attacks.
Can I ask you very quickly to answer the first question of legacy cases? On the cyber-security, we seem to be a wee bit weak and vulnerable in Northern Ireland. What has been done to ensure that does not happen? I am happy to leave that with you, George.
George Hamilton: I will make a comment on the legacy issues and then ask Stephen to speak about what we are doing and our current assessment of the cyber vulnerabilities.
First of all, can I deal with public and political expectations? I have not seen and do not agree with the headline that you refer to. One in four legacy issues being resolved before the summer is not going to happen. Let us be honest in dealing with expectations. When I say that I am looking for politicians locally to overcome their current difficulties and implement what was agreed in principle at Stormont House around the legacy institutions, I am not dismissing the important of legacy work and know that, for many families right across the board, it is not in the past. The pain, suffering, loss and grief are current‑day issues for them. I accept that.
Given Conor’s challenge and question around when we get to a point that we have to say, “This far, no further” in resourcing terms, the problem I have at the moment is that I am not resourced to deal with legacy investigations. I am having to beg, borrow and prioritise against other parts of policing today. That is not a satisfactory place.
I do not enjoy 100% confidence across the board about our independence to address these legacy issues. I would far rather get on with the transformed policing organisation that we delivered on the back of the Patten report and allow the legacy issues to be dealt with by a body that is at least perceived to be more independent.
I have full confidence in the professionalism, independence and integrity of our investigators. I am also not blind to the fact that, in some quarters, we do not enjoy confidence regarding our independence. That is sad, but the way it is. The specific cases that you refer to either have been or will be reviewed by us in the absence of the Historical Investigations Unit. If the Historical Investigations Unit is established, responsibility for review and investigation of those cases will transfer to it.
I would not like to leave the impression that these investigations are not important in some way. They are hugely important for the families. We have this impossible task with ever reducing budgets. Mr McGinn mentioned the £140 million taken out of the police budget, just in my short tenure as chief constable. We cannot do that and pretend that everything is going to be okay and be the way it once was.
I hear what you are saying, Jim. I have sympathy with it. I have sympathy with those families. I too lost friends and loved ones in the year that you are talking about, but much of that happened when I was at primary school, and I am as frustrated as other people with our collective inability to deal with the past. Constantly looking to the police and shouting for individual cases to be prioritised is not a sustainable solution. We need to have a proper structured approach with political consensus as to how we address these legacy issues.
My frustration is that we came so close to it with the Stormont House agreement, the four pillars and the infrastructure that was going to be established to deal with not just the criminal justice elements, but the broader elements. That was a time of optimism. I would love to see the politicians getting us back to there and giving us the leadership that will land those institutions.
Stephen will hopefully address the cyber point.
Stephen Martin: At the outset, it is important to say that we are part of a national, joined-up approach in relation to cyber. We would say that we are at the forefront of police services across the UK in terms of preparedness in relation to cyber and the investment that we have been putting into it over recent years.
Indeed, in early 2018, we will see a new cyber centre opening within the PSNI estate. That will put us right at the forefront of police services throughout the United Kingdom.
Ciaran Martin, whom you referred to in your question, is head of the National Cyber Security Centre. Another statement that he has made recently is that Northern Ireland infrastructure has been hit by significant online attacks from hostile nations. He estimated the annual cost of cyber-crime to the Northern Ireland economy to be about £100 million. Every day, there are cyber-attacks in Northern Ireland. The PSNI’s systems are regularly attacked. Thus far, no attacks have been successful against the PSNI, because of the investment we put into our own security.
There are two types of cyber-crime. There are cyber‑enabled crimes. That refers to conventional crime types that can be conducted both on and offline: fraud and drugs supply, for example. You do not need cyber-technology to engage in drug crime, but you can use cyber-technology to carry out crime. Those are referred to as cyber-enabled. The thrust of your question is more around cyber-dependent crimes, which can only be committed using computer networks or information communication technology.
There are a number of different types of cyber-dependent crimes. The first is the installation of malicious software known as malware. This is intrusive, unwanted software that becomes installed on a computer without consent. These sorts of attacks can carry the risk of very significant financial loss to businesses and disruption to business services, as well as the potential for major reputational damage. The effects of such an attack were very clearly demonstrated by the chaos and widespread disruption caused to the National Health Service in May 2017 when it was targeted by this type of attack: a global WannaCry cyber-attack, as it was referred to.
There are three others. The first is business email compromise. This includes phishing, a term you will have heard, where targeted fake emails are sent to employees. They have malicious attachments containing this type of software that, when it is opened, will attack the business networks. Another is distributed denial of service. These attacks are designed to bring down websites and networks by overloading them with requests. The final one is network intrusion, which relates to the unauthorised access of computer networks, allowing attackers to take control of servers and manipulate the data: for example, changing bank details and creating fake identities.
It is a very fast developing situation. We have in recent years trained a number of individuals to very high standards. We are continually looking at the different levels of training our officers need, right from the constable on the ground, who is increasingly encountering cyber‑enabled crime. This cyber-dependent type crime that I think you are more interested in is a very specialist area. Our cyber-crime centre that is opening next year will be right at the forefront of that.
You can never be complacent, and unfortunately the prevalence of these types of crime is such that some will inevitably get through at some stage. You have organised crime groups sitting around the world actively developing their technology, planning to attack and attempting to attack daily. Some of them will inevitably get through, but in terms of Northern Ireland and the PSNI’s readiness I would want to reassure you we are fully connected nationally and are right at the forefront.
Q30 Mr Campbell: Chief Constable, you are aware I have written to you recently on a number of occasions about the increase of terrorist activity in the north-west on both serving and former personnel who are under threat. I thank your office for work it has done thus far in helping with that.
A number of us have raised the issue of the ATO. They are, by and large, located on the eastern outskirts of Belfast. Unfortunately, as the reality has been in past 15 months to two years, they are more often tasked to come to the north-west than much closer to where they are normally based. Depending on traffic congestion, it can take an hour and a half to an hour and 45 minutes for them to arrive at an event. They are now doing that, according to answers to my questions for the past 15 months, virtually once a day throughout the year. That is not always to the north‑west, but the north-west is high on the agenda of dissident republican terrorists.
Have you expressed any view to the military authorities about the ATO at least having a base more closely aligned to where they are more regularly being called out to go, as opposed to always having to make that hour and 45 minute journey, and an hour and 45 minute return after the incident is over, only to have to possibly come down the next day and do it again?
George Hamilton: We have not been engaged in any discussions with MoD colleagues around a permanent satellite station in the north-west for the ATO, but we have enough agility in certain circumstances to forward‑base the ATO, at particular times around big events or where intelligence indicates that something might happen. They do not always come the full distance. On the more spontaneous, unknown, unpredicted events, you are right: they have an hour and a half journey.
Stephen can talk to this in more detail than I can, but the problem is that, given the violent dissident republican activity, there is no doubt a high demand created around that in the north-west. In other parts of Northern Ireland, in terms of the geographical spread—thinking of Craigavon, parts of Armagh, South Down and so on—there would be very regular deployments there as well, unfortunately. Not all of these get widely reported. If they do, it is a half‑day wonder on a news website or something.
We could give an undertaking to look at this and discuss with military colleagues. It is important to put on record that the level of support we get is outstanding. Their agility, flexibility, tone and style in all that they do certainly enjoy our full support. We are grateful for their contribution to helping to keep people safe. We have very good relationships. I had dinner with the brigadier a few weeks ago. There are things, such as this, that we may need to discuss to make sure there is the required flexibility and agility within the system, but I need to stop short of promising you an ATO in Londonderry. I am happy to have a look at the deployments.
Ian Paisley: Put it at Ballymoney—that would go halfway on it.
George Hamilton: We could have a discussion, to look at where the deployments have been and if there are any lessons to be learned from that in terms of forward‑basing and whether they are in the right place.
Mr Campbell: Very recently, there was a deployment announcement that occurred. The police did the obvious safety-first issue of taping off an area. Some footage appeared on mainstream news media and social media of people wandering through the taped off area simply because the ATO had not arrived and the police were in the process of finishing taping off the area. There was a device there: a genuine, viable device. If you add an hour and a half to two hours on to that on a regular basis, it seems inevitable to me that, at some point in that window when you are waiting for an ATO to arrive, something will go badly wrong. Then somebody will say, “Would it not have been an idea to have these people a bit closer to where they are regularly being called out?” I am happy if the chief constable is going to have a look at it and have some discussion.
Q31 Lady Hermon: We have touched upon dissident republican activity on a number of occasions. How concerned are you about increased recruitment by dissident republicans, not just in the north-west but in South Down, around the Craigavon area? Are they recruiting from former Provisional IRA members? Does the list cross over now?
Stephen Martin: The threat from dissident republicans remains severe in Northern Ireland. Four national security attacks have taken place so far this calendar year in Northern Ireland. Those attacks have attempted the murder of police officers using guns, undercar booby traps and command wire‑initiated explosive devices or bombs.
Thankfully, they have not succeeded in their aim to kill police officers, but one police officer was badly wounded in a shooting attack in January and on one occasion underwent 12 hours of surgery. He had a very significant injury. I am pleased to report that he is progressing very well. These dissident groups pose a severe threat. I would also wish to reassure you that, working collaboratively with MI5, we have impeded and thwarted other attacks in Northern Ireland this year, which otherwise would have occurred.
In relation to recruitment, all the dissident republican groups seek to recruit, and all the dissident republican groups that exist have recruited this year. Some of those recruits have been middle-aged people, generally but not exclusively men, many of whom will have been involved previously during the Troubles with other mainstream republican groups like the Provisional IRA. Regrettably, we also see some younger people, largely men again, but not exclusively, being suckered into these groups. That is a worry.
I would not want to overstate it in terms of numbers, but there are young people in their 20s, for example, who would have been toddlers at the time of the Belfast Agreement, who are now joining these dissident republican groups. We, working with MI5, do everything we can to thwart and impede them. That includes trying to strangle potential recruitment, but it is as much about communities rejecting dissident republican groups.
The chief constable has made remarks earlier about recruitment into our organisation and the advocacy we need. The communities from which these people are emerging and joining these groups also need to be strong in voice about rejecting these groups and giving them no social standing or local community status at all. If there are troubles or difficulties with antisocial behaviour and perceived drug crime, come to us. Do not go to those groups because, ultimately, we will see young men waste many years of their life in prison after potentially taking a life or ruining other lives in the process.
Q32 Lady Hermon: I also ask you, because I feel duty bound to do so and I am always very curious and concerned, about loyalist paramilitaries, which are also recruiting, I understand, in North Down. Could you say something about the age range of those who are being recruited into the UDA or various loyalist paramilitary organisations? How concerned are you about that?
Stephen Martin: Loyalist groups continue to recruit. Where they contravene the law tends to be around criminality. They do not pose the national security threat that the republican groups pose, but they intimidate members of their own community. We have seen them beat people and shoot people. They extort businesses; they engage in drug crime. We have regrettably seen a significant increase in recent years of people dying as a consequence of taking controlled and illegal drugs. Some loyalist paramilitary groups are heavily involved in that type of crime and continue to recruit.
There are people within those groups who genuinely seem to want to transition away and move to community-based peaceful activities. There are also people in those groups who are up to their necks in crime and I have no doubt will continue to be, until we inevitably catch them.
Q33 Lady Hermon: What is the age range of those being recruited by loyalist paramilitaries?
Stephen Martin: The majority of people joining loyalist groups would be younger.
Q34 Lady Hermon: Finally, I have to come back to the chief constable. I am reflecting on the opening comments and law commentary. Do you have confidence in the professionalism of the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman’s office? I do not want to personalise it. I just want to ask if you have confidence in it.
George Hamilton: The office of the Police Ombudsman is a critical part of the accountability infrastructure. It is absolutely essential, if we are to continue building confidence in policing, that it exists and is properly staffed. When I say properly staffed, we are all taking a hit around the finances. I am talking about the capabilities within and the quality, timeliness and prioritisation of investigations. I am the one literally being investigated, as it turns out now, but that is on behalf of the organisation. It is not up to us to comment on the specific professional expertise of the office.
Q35 Lady Hermon: I only asked about confidence in the professionalism.
George Hamilton: I have confidence. We have seen the Police Ombudsman complete investigations, with both positive and negative findings against the police service. I have confidence in the office of the Police Ombudsman, but when we get to the critical incident identification, for example in my own case, it gives me confidence that that has been identified. I start to have questions when, four or five months after I am notified about these allegations, I have not been interviewed or had documents that I am supposed to have fraudulently created seized.
There are specific things that I am left scratching my head about, but that is not a lack of confidence in the ombudsman. I just wonder when all of this is going to come to fruition and some sort of conclusion. I am also conscious that, on this personal complaint against me, the deputy chief constable and other senior colleagues, we need to respect the office and the need for it. It does not do us any harm to be exposed to this. Our officers at the front line are the subject of complaints routinely, and not always because their behaviour is bad. Many of them are vexatious and spurious complaints. Where there are genuine complaints that are upheld, they deal with that rigorously. I would not want me and senior colleagues to be treated any differently than the people doing the work at the coalface.
Lady Hermon: That is very good. That is very reassuring. Thanks very much for that.
Q36 Ian Paisley: Someone suggested, both here and outside of here, that it is inevitable that there will be a hard border in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the UK’s position is that it does not intend to put any other apparatus on the border, other than the electronic apparatus that was already there. If the EU decides or determines that one of its member states, namely Ireland, has to harden up its border and build installations, we hope it does not do so, but that is of course a matter for the EU. Do you accept that, during the halcyon days of the EU and our EU membership, border crime has been at an all-time high, has allowed massive amounts of fuel crime to take place and organised crime gangsters like Slab Murphy to run their writ along the border? Hopefully, with a change of pace, things will only get better for us in terms of combatting crime, as a result of a change to the border structure.
George Hamilton: I disagree with your hypothesis. In my view, a reinforced prominence of the border—
Q37 Ian Paisley: I have not suggested that, George. The only people who suggest a reinforced stronger border appear to be people in the Republic of Ireland and certainly not unionists. I like the border the way it is.
George Hamilton: The point that I am making, though, is this. Given the differentiation that may be created by the Republic of Ireland being within the EU and us outside, around tariffs, duties, movements and so on, my worry is from a practical policing point of view. This is not a political or philosophical position of whether we should be in or out; that is for others to worry about. We know that criminals and terrorists will exploit the border. They already do, as you have articulated very clearly. My concern is that, with Brexit, regardless of all the other potential benefits that Brexiteers may wish to advocate, the one thing that is going to happen with Brexit in some shape or form will be an increased prominence of the existence of a border. I am not talking about our infrastructure; I am talking about the fact that there could be different tariffs on goods, fuel and all the rest of it.
Q38 Ian Paisley: That is already the position with milk and petrol. It is already exploited to £600 million a year.
George Hamilton: My concern is, Ian, that I do not see the current outworkings of Brexit reducing that. I agree with you that it already exists, it is a scourge and we need to deal with it. At least at the moment, we have very clear, strong co-operation with revenue and customs and police services on both sides of the border. That informal police-to-police information sharing happens. I would not like to see any of that getting—
Q39 Ian Paisley: With us being outside of Schengen, along with the Republic of Ireland, that co-operation would continue.
George Hamilton: I hope that it would. I hope there are no unintended consequences of Brexit such that this co-operation is in some way diluted. To be honest, a lot of it is dependent on good relations between people in Stephen’s world, crime and security in the south and all the rest of it. If there was a desire coming from Government or wherever to reduce that co-operation on the basis that we were not members of the EU, the way they are doing that now, through international letters of request before they are necessary and all the rest of it, would be problematic. We are not saying that because of the quality of the relationships. My concern is that, in this period of change, the border, not necessarily physically, could become more prominent. I worry that that could play into the hands of—
Q40 Ian Paisley: Would it be right to say, characterising that, that we should talk the problem down as opposed to talking it up?
George Hamilton: Absolutely, yes. I want to see maximum co‑operation and nothing that presents either an excuse or an opportunity for terrorists and organised criminals to exploit whatever the consequences are of Brexit.
Chair: Chief Constable and Mr Martin, thank you very much indeed. It has been a long session. We are particularly conscious of the importance of this forum in the absence of the normal devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. Therefore, with that in mind, I fear we may have to put you through this again before too very long and probably within the 12 months’ absence that you have had from this Committee.
George Hamilton: I look forward to it. Thank you for the opportunity and the level of interest. It is much appreciated.
Chair: Indeed. We are very grateful for your patience today. Thank you.