Welcome to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee session on policing and security in Northern Ireland. Would you like to introduce yourselves and say who you are?

I am Sinead Simpson, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Good morning.

Good morning. I am Mukesh Sharma, chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

Good morning. I am Brendan Mullan, vice-chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

As we reach the 25th anniversary of the PSNI this year, how would you assess the current position of the force against Patten’s principles of policing with the community, representativeness and accountability?

Thank you for the question. Before I move to the question, can I record the extraordinary progress that has been made over the course of the last 25 years and all the people who have played a very important role in the change process and embedding the new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland? The framework provided by Patten has proved timeless. It is valid today as much as it was at that time, bar a few renewals and updates because of changing traditions, demographics and crime in the country. Policing remains an essential component in our peace process in Northern Ireland and is central to the safety and security of all communities across the country. There are challenges. There are challenges that we still continue to face, and 25 years is a time to reflect on the past and look at what is needed for the future. Those are just some of our own remarks on the issue of 25 years. We are looking at the positives, not to be complacent. We are the safest region in the UK, and that is based on recorded crime rates per head of population. Antisocial behaviour is at the lowest since records began. We have a continual reduction in national security attacks. We have moved from “severe” to “substantial” to “severe”, and now we are back to “substantial”. We look forward to a time when we can get to a moderate level of threat. On the other hand, there is still a dissident republican threat. Officer numbers remain low. These are some of the challenges we still have. There is a poor budget forecast, which is not helpful. As one of the Patten recommendations was, we do not have access to immediate mutual aid when required. I am going to look at some of the areas of Patten that we have not realised as yet. Broadly speaking, most of the 170-odd recommendations have been realised. Not delivered as yet is the normalisation of society—the terrorist threat and paramilitarism. Patten talked about policing service delivery in a peaceful society, softening of the estate and non-armoured vehicles and approach, and he recognised the paramilitary threat in terms of the continuation of attacks. We have not got there. That is a societal issue. That is a security issue. He spoke about a new policing college. That has not been realised, although it is on track with the purchase of the new Redburn site and rationalisation plans. The covert surveillance commissioner has not been realised as yet. Interestingly, that has come to the surface again after the recent McCullough report. That was one of its recommendations. We have, as a board, written to the Secretary of State in that regard, and we await the response. We have met the group of expert stakeholders in the whole McCullough review fairly recently—within the last month—and they are also very much in the space that it must be done for the future. There is the level of political and community support for recruitment in Northern Ireland. I am going to quote a line from Lord Patten in his 1999 report. He emphasised that “all community leaders”, including political leaders, local councillors, faith leaders, teachers and from sports authorities, all have a responsibility to encourage people from their communities to join the police. He urged these leaders to remove discouragements and make it a priority to support recruitment, aiming for a police service that truly represents the entire community in Northern Ireland. That is something we are still struggling with. It has been the focus of many recent discussions in the media. Routinely unarmed policing was another recommendation that has not been realised. Again, it is down to the current level of threat. Inability to deal with public order situations came to the fore. I spoke earlier about one of the recommendations being about immediate mutual aid. The disorder in Ballymena meant that we had to get mutual aid from Scotland. Patten’s recommendation was that Northern Ireland police should have a capacity within its own establishment to deal with public order emergencies without help from other police services, and without more than the present level of support from the Army. That is something where, over the years, we have had to bring in mutual support for various areas. On realisation of police numbers in terms of full-time and part-time officers, he recommended 7,500 full-time officers and 2,500 part-time. There have been a number of exercises carried out by the PSNI. There is another one being carried out now to establish the exact number that we need, but it should not be based on numbers alone. There are rationalisation plans for the PSNI. There is the use of artificial intelligence. There are emerging crimes of a different nature. There is new technology. All of that needs to be taken in the round before we get a final figure. That is being worked on, I believe, right now. The final one is neighbourhood policing. Patten recommended that every neighbourhood or rural area should have a dedicated policing team. Our neighbourhood policing teams around Northern Ireland are down to, in some cases, 50% or lower in some regions. Neighbourhood policing is the lifeblood of any police service. It gives intelligence.

We met officers as well on our last visit.

It feeds right up to all departments in the service and is a big builder of confidence in the police service. Visibility is always considered a big builder of confidence for police, and we do not have that. Many times, those neighbourhood police officers that are there are being abstracted from their normal duties into other areas. That is a quick summary of the 25 years that you were talking about.

I had the privilege of working at the Policing Board when it was first established. I went away and did other things and came back four and a half years ago. I know Mukesh has outlined a lot of the challenges that remain. I will not go through the statistics. I am sure you have them, but I can share them. If you look at the statistics that there were around how people felt in terms of their treatment by policing, so satisfaction levels and confidence in policing in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, and compare that with now, there have been significant increases. The accountability arrangements and the policing style that was laid out in this Patten report have stood us in good stead. The board, the policing and community safety partnerships and the police ombudsman have all had a role to play in terms of building a service that is more open, accessible and accountable. While, as Mukesh says, we have remaining challenges around representativeness, there has been significant progress made in terms of the representativeness of the service. Those are all things that help to build trust and legitimacy. The whole policing arrangements and the blueprint that Patten gave us have stood the test of time. It is a model that we are asked to give presentations on nationally and internationally. People come to look to see. It needs hard work. It continues to need hard work, but it absolutely is one of the success stories of the peace process in Northern Ireland.

That is good. Do you have anything to add, Brendan?

At a very high level, if you look at the framework Patten set out, which was very much about community focus, democratic legitimacy and human rights, it is absolutely embedded in policing in Northern Ireland today, and we are reaping the benefits of it.

Good morning, folks. Thank you very much for that very quick overview of the past 25 years of policing in Northern Ireland. I do not think any of us underestimates the dedication and support of our officers, the work of the board and especially, as you say, that political leadership that is needed. Representing a party that is now led by a former PSNI officer, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that as well. On a slightly different tack, the independent review of the Policing Board found and stated that the real or perceived dominant political culture on the board is preventing collective responsibility and purpose. Coming from your point of view as independent members and the chief executive, do you accept that assessment? What options are the board considering to address that?

The first thing I would like to highlight is that the Sweeney independent board review absolutely underscored the importance and the value of the board’s role. One of the quotes is that there is virtually unanimous support for the continuation of the board. 2023 was a very difficult year for policing and for the Policing Board, so it was good to get affirmation that the structures set out in Patten continue to stand the test of time, but he said that there was scope to enhance effectiveness. From a board point of view, for all of us who were living and breathing 2023, we knew there was scope for effectiveness. We also very much wanted somebody independent to come in and look at that. The authors talked about perceived political dominance. From a personal point of view, the Patten structure is 10 political members and nine independent, so there is a skewing towards the political members at the very outset. That was designed into the process. In terms of how we have been responding to that particular element of Sweeney, we have had a number of working groups of members, made up of political and independent members, to look at all aspects of the board review but, on this one in particular, to really unpack why. To be candid, some members felt there was political dominance, and other members did not. Everyone accepted that there is a perception of it, so we need to deal with that perception. We have been doing work on a couple of fronts—very simple things—looking at what it is that might, very practically, be contributing to that. One thing we have changed recently is the seating arrangement at the board. We have a public session, as I am sure you know, and it is livestreamed. Historically, the two main political parties would have sat on either side of the vice-chair and me. We have now changed the seating arrangement. There are questions that come in from members. As chief executive, I would always try to rotate their order, but I also try to be mindful of the strategic topical issues of the day, but we have had a look at that. A very significant thing that we have looked at is the election process for the chair and vice-chair of the board. The board, just over the last couple of months, has agreed a new process. The chair and vice-chair positions are renewed every two years, so they are due to be renewed in April. We now have a new process in place, which I think members are satisfied is more inclusive. It is something we will continue to keep under review. From a board member point of view, members are satisfied with the actions that are being taken to address that particular issue.

Following on from that point, Sinead, and no reflection on anybody currently in post or previously in post as chair or vice-chair, it is a very small pool because it is only from the independent members. Is there any consideration of looking for the chair and vice-chair as an independent recruitment process, possibly with a longer tenure? Is that something the board has considered?

The very first chair and vice-chair—and it is written into the legislation—were appointed by the Secretary of State. There was no devolution then. Sweeney recommended a different process, a public appointments process. He has a number of options in his paper. It would not be for us to make a decision and take that forward. That is something that is with the Minister of Justice at the moment. I do not think our members thought that any one of those options stood out as an ideal way forward. There is an acceptance among members that these are significant public positions. It is a difficult board to be the chair or vice-chair of, and a particular skillset is needed. Members absolutely supported the tenor of Sweeney, in terms of, “Yes, there is a particular skillset that is needed”, but there is a process by which you go after that. The balance here is that there is a real strength in being selected by your own members and having the support of your members. We await the Minister’s response on that and will work through whatever comes from it.

I appreciate the steps you are taking to remove that perception of political involvement. Is the political involvement in appointment and recruitment of every position at ACC and above something that the board has considered maybe taking a step back from and allowing a more operational appointment?

No. Again, I would go back to Patten. The arrangements we have in place originated in Patten. In terms of the actual process, yes, we have political and independent members of the board there. It is important that the senior team have the support and have been selected by the board that is then going to hold them to account. We have input, depending on who we are appointing. If it is a chief constable, we would have input from HMICFRS. If we are appointing a deputy or an ACC, we would have input from the chief constable. If it was for one of the civilian members of the team, we would go looking for whoever is a specialist in whatever area we are recruiting into. We have that operational input, if that is what you are getting at. There is no intention, on behalf of members, to move away from that.

Going back to the report, it also stated that the board has an excessive workload, often at the expense of sustained follow-up, strategic focus and direction, and achieving tangible outcomes. What changes in your operation have you made or are you making to make sure there is that more strategic oversight?

Patten was then turned into legislation. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the 2003 Act gave the board 50‑plus statutory duties. There was a strong sense from members that, while they completely could see where the reviewers were coming from—and I will come on to what we have done in relation to it—we have statutory duties that need to be performed, and they take up time at our board and our committee meetings. That is the first thing to say. Some of those things are really important. The Sweeney report gave us suggestions in three or four areas. Human rights is a critical part of Patten and of our work. Brendan has mentioned the impact that has made over the years, so we could not just put those things to the side. In terms of what we have done to respond to it, a policing plan is developed by the board and agreed with the chief constable. We would then monitor performance against that. We would do that through our committees. A lot of work is done by our committees. The public would have a sense that what we do is what they see in public once a month. An awful lot of work goes on at committees, as you will appreciate, behind the scenes. The policing plan was monitored through committee, so we have lifted parts of that up and now do those at the public session. That means that there is a clear focus to the public that a core bit of our business is that policing plan. That is one thing that we have done. In preparation for coming here, I had a look back over the last two or three months of questions that we have raised. I think that was a little bit unfair. The board focus on the public session. The questions are quite strategic. In the last couple of months, there were 70-odd questions: 13 on the recruitment process, 10 on money and resources, and about 20 in relation to PSNI strategies or legislative change that was needed. One criticism in Sweeney was that we were down in the weeds in terms of our questioning. I do not think the last couple of months would justify that comment. Also, sometimes things start out as small issues at the board. One that springs to mind in the last year was the issue around surveillance of journalists. That started out as quite a small issue, and then we had quite a seminal report a year later as a result of that. We have taken steps to ensure that there is a strategic focus, but we have 50-plus duties that we need to discharge, so it is a bit of a balancing act.

I will add a couple of points at a strategic level. Patten was clear in terms of having 10 political members to give policing a democratic legitimacy in terms of oversight. That is really important. Those members are drawn from all political parties. There are 19 members around the board, so it is clunky. It used to drive me mad when I first joined it, in terms of the length of time it would take to reach a decision, but then I began to value the process where all those varying views and political angles are heard, listened to and then consensus is reached. In terms of a divided society and policing, that is really important. In terms of Northern Ireland’s history and the breakdown in the political structures because of disagreement, throughout all that the Policing Board has continued to operate without interruption. That is the cross-party support for policing, and it is really important. The other thing I think is important to highlight is that we are not a corporate board; we are an accountability body. There will be different voices around that table, as there are today, but in terms of the concept of corporacy that Sweeney said we should have, we are very clear that there is corporacy and cohesion in the delivery of the policing plan. Everyone is signed up to that, including the chief constable. The policing plan is strategic. It is victim-focused, community-focused and workforce-focused. In terms of victim-focused, crime is dropping in Northern Ireland, but where is crime increasing? It is in crime against the person, particularly violence against women and girls, particularly against ethnic minorities. There is cyber-crime as well. In the victim-focused objective, those are the key measures in terms of performance in those areas, so that is strategic. It is similar across the other measures, the third one in particular, in terms of a representative and enabled workforce. If we do not have that, we cannot deliver the other two objectives. That is very much about transformation and maximising the resources that you have. There are hard measures in that. That is strategic as well. I would not accept the suggestion that the Policing Board is not strategic. It is, but at committee—we are very clear at the scrutiny committees—we get into the detail and hold senior officers’ feet to the fire. That is our job.

Thank you, Brendan. That was an important intervention on political dominance, particularly coming from an independent member, so I thank you for it. The board has had more corporate coherence over the last number of years. The board feels less leaky. I do not see regular examples, as I used to, of individuals who are politically weak but egotistically mighty; they used to make themselves the story of the Policing Board regularly. They are gone now, and that is a good thing. On this question of perceived political dominance, I am asking this of you as an independent, if you do not mind, and because you have spoken up on the issue. Mukesh can chip in if he likes. Has there ever been, in your mind, a vote on the Policing Board that has split 10 political members on one side and nine independent members on the other?

No, never.

Does that not crystalise how there is no political dominance? Within a board of that nature, you will find people grouping together, agreeing with one another, disagreeing and then building a coherent consensus.

Correct. I am very clear that there isn’t political dominance, but I am also very clear that there could have been perceived political dominance, and we are now alert to that. Sinead highlighted the most classic example of it. In the public session, which is the only bit that the public see, you have Mukesh, Sinead, me and then DUP and Sinn Féin right at the heart. The independent members are round here somewhere and nobody can see them. We have changed that now. It is random seating that revolves. We would accept that, definitely, but it is perceived, as opposed to reality.

Could I add my own perception before I joined the board? I did have, although not as strong as has been made out, a feeling that there is a lot of politics around the whole area of the board. When you are actually there, you do not realise it. I have never felt that there was any dominance from the political members. The other side of the Sweeney report in that regard is that we do not know who actually said that they see political dominance. The people who have been interviewed in that process are from various backgrounds. There are community backgrounds, other stakeholders in policing, other politicians and other independents. We do not know where that has come from, but it is the perception that we are trying to kill, whether that is within or outside. The majority of the board members do not feel that there is political dominance.

I want to add something to what I said earlier, which I forgot to mention. The conversation we have informally around the table, within political and independents, has been really helpful. If one person has a perception, it is important that we have the conversation. From my point of view, as the chief executive, it has been really good. The chair and vice-chair of the board are both independents. The chairs of committees are held by politicians, but the vice-chair position is held by an independent. From the political member point of view, that was part of the conversation and a point they raised when we were having it.

There is nothing to stop them being chair or vice-chair.

The two most important positions, if you like, are held by independents. I do not want to diminish that. If there is a perception, it was important we had the conversation. I hope that what we are doing is addressing that. To go back to the strategic point, one thing I forgot to mention is that, on the back of the Sweeney review, we have taken an initiative, over and above the 50 duties—all the things that we need to do, the policing plan and human rights—to pick a couple of themes on which to do a deep dive. We have a couple of workstreams underway. Apologies, I forgot to mention that in answer to the earlier question.

Thank you very much for being here today. We are politicians as well. In the 24-hour news cycle, if something kicks off in our constituency, we are often asked to comment straight out of the gate. I had three arrests in my constituency for firearms and drug running yesterday. It is the biggest irritation for us when these investigations go on for a long time and we have to say nothing and keep saying nothing. You cannot have policing without fear or favour if we weigh in. Justice Scoffield, in 2023, had concerns about politicised policing. Can you outline what his concerns were about politicians weighing in on live incidents?

I think his concern was that the politicians were influencing police decisions by weighing in. The Sweeney report suggested that no member of the board should be engaged with the police during a live incident to avoid that happening.

Why were they not kicked off for interfering with a live incident?

Brendan, you might have to give a precis as to what actually happened—Simon Byrne and Ormeau Road and so on—because I am not sure there is awareness.

There was the Scoffield judgment in the summer of 2023. I cannot remember the exact timing. It was August-ish. We had had a data breach, and then we had the Scoffield judgment. The Scoffield judgment said that, in relation to the disciplining of two officers who had attended an incident on the Ormeau Road in Belfast, the disciplining of them was unlawful. That judgment was then debated at the board in a couple of meetings in, I think, early September 2023.

The judgment was debated?

Yes, the judgment was, and the implications of it and what it meant in terms of the chief constable’s decision-making and how he was influenced by politicians, as his notebook showed, and then also the relationship between him and the deputy chief constable and issues around the handling of misconduct. The chief constable resigned the weekend after those two meetings, and that resignation was accepted by the board. On the issue of political interference or operational responsibility, again, Patten is very clear: the chief constable has operational responsibility. It is our job as a board—politicians and independents—to hold them to account after the fact. There is nothing in Patten to prevent politicians from giving a view and giving a community impact assessment. Indeed, the College of Policing has guidance for police officers. Sometimes, as opposed to offering it, the police come asking for it, and that is entirely appropriate. I suppose the issue then is that it needs to be perfectly clear that you are giving an impact assessment but the decision rests with the chief constable. The current chief constable is under no illusion. He clearly knows that he has the decision-making power and has told the board on a number of occasions, “That is my job, not yours”.

He has told politicians as well.

Do you think members of the board have an idea of their boundaries now when it comes to live incidents? Is it getting better? Is it being addressed?

Yes. While 2023 was difficult, it absolutely has helped reset a lot of things. One other thing we are doing on the back of Sweeney is having a look at our code of conduct. All these issues are there, but we are looking at exactly how that is phrased. We are looking to strengthen it to make it absolutely clear. They are clear, but also the current chief constable knows exactly where the lines are and would not allow them to be crossed.

In relation to that code of conduct, it has taken on a number of other issues. You mentioned leaks earlier, and the consequences of that. There was no provision within the previous code of conduct for a number of things, and there were no consequences for breaching the code of conduct that was there. We are looking at tightening that. The issues that you are talking about in relation to Scoffield will be embedded into it to ensure that everybody is aware of their boundaries.

As you have explained from your own background, it is usually politicians that the public would come to and give a view on things. Members will continue to give community impact assessments, and they are entitled to do that, but they understand that they are just giving an assessment. It is not within their gift to tell any police officer at any level how to handle a situation.

We have had the Sweeney review. We have had the Scoffield judgment in 2023. Mr Justice Scoffield did a quite lengthy review into the Policing Board at your request. You commissioned him to do extensive reviews. Following the review, the Department of Justice has published the independent review to the board, but what about their view on the review?

Do you mean the Department of Justice’s response?

Yes.

We have not yet had a response.

Why?

We have asked for a response on a number of occasions, but we have not had a response. We have listed our response to each one of the 18 recommendations.

How long have you been waiting?

I guess 12 months.

It is 12 months.

The Department of Justice knows the importance of policing, community involvement in policing, and community support for and trust in policing. It knows that the review was commissioned. It even published the outcome of the review, but it has not given a view in 12 months.

In the absence of that response, we have continued with the review and addressed all 18 issues that are there.

We are happy to share our response with you. We have not published our response, although we have been acting on the recommendations, because we have been waiting on the Department.

You have given courtesy to the Department of Justice, which is seemingly showing no interest whatsoever. Have you spoken to the Justice Minister about this? What has Naomi Long said?

Yes, on a number of occasions. We have a board development event annually—the last one was just at the end of January—and Department of Justice officials and the Minister attend. I understand that the reply is imminent, but I accept that we are 12 months down the road. I think it has taken comfort from some of what we have already been progressing. At that development event, we had a conversation around some of those bigger issues that are within the Minister’s gift. Members pushed for a response, so hopefully we will get one soon.

Sinead, with the greatest respect to you—and you are being diplomatic about this—the Department of Justice breathes down your neck all the time. You are the fall guy for the McCloud judgment. You are the fall guy for injury on duty awards. You are the fall guy for doing all the pension stuff, even though you are not resourced to do it appropriately, and yet here you have a review commissioned and published and, 12 months later, no response.

We would be deeply concerned if our actions in response to the review are questioned, in the absence of a response from the Department. We are comfortable that we have carried out a response to all 18. We have carried out all the recommendations that are there.

We are taking forward the actions within our gift.

Chair, you can follow up on this. It is appalling, when we hear continually about delays in implementation and so on, that the sponsoring Department, and the Department that has responsibility, has not even given a view, after 12 months, on the importance of policing in this review.

Brendan, you said it has not been published but that you are willing to share it with the Committee.

Yes, we are happy to share it.

We would really appreciate that.

That is the Policing Board’s review, but there has been silence.

Sinead, you used the words that you are taking comfort. What is that in regard to?

It might be. The Department might be. I am only surmising. The Member was asking about the Department’s lack of response.

What happens if—and this is a hypothetical “if”—the Department or the Justice Minister came out and was critical of some of the steps that you have taken in the last 12 months or said that they have not met their expectations? As Gavin said, it is leaving you carrying the can at this minute in time.

I do not believe they would do that. They have been well informed in terms of what we are doing and have not raised any objections to us.

Have you been engaging with Ministers or officials on this?

Both.

Both.

Have the officials given you any sense as to their delay?

They have resourcing challenges, like right across the public sector.

As the board has as well.

The board has too. Do the officials have a draft to the Minister?

I think so.

How long has that been the case?

I am not sure. I cannot remember.

When do you think you understood that to be the case?

Certainly around the board development event I very much had a sense that this was with the Minister.

When was that?

That was just at the end of January.

Just at the end of January, so three weeks.

I do not know how long—

You do not know how long after the publication—

It was four weeks ago. That is 11 months to get to the Minister’s desk and four weeks to sit on the Minister’s desk, aside from being imminent, which, in political terms, can mean months.

I cannot speak on behalf of DOJ. I work with the officials. I know they are under resourcing pressures.

It does not sound like political dominance in this case. It sounds like political absence.

That is not for her to comment on.

Good morning to everyone. It seems like 2023 was a particularly difficult year for the PSNI and the Policing Board. One key issue that made national headlines across the UK was the data breach published at the end of 2023. I suppose the simple question is whether you are confident that PSNI has now implemented the necessary changes to prevent any similar such incident from happening again in the future. Why are you confident about that view?

Could I contextualise 2023? We have heard that year mentioned a couple of times. It was an ideal storm. We had the data breach. We had the resignation of the chief constable. We had a deputy chief constable who was in ill health and was not in situ. We had no executive. We did not have a Minister in place. All that was going on at the same time. That is to put it in context for anyone who is not familiar with that situation. We had the attack on John Caldwell at the same time, who was shot. In terms of the work of the board on the data breach, Pete O’Doherty, a specialist in this field, was commissioned to do a full review of the way PSNI handled all of its data. He has made several recommendations to the PSNI in relation to that. We are getting updates on how many of those recommendations are being done. We are inviting Pete O’Doherty back to us to give a final analysis of where he feels the PSNI is. We take comfort from that process. In terms of having any solid guarantees, I do not think we will ever have any guarantee in relation to data in any area because of the way technology is moving so fast and infiltration is happening. There is always a risk. When we get the final end of that review and Pete O’Doherty has gone back into the PSNI to analyse what levels of security have been embedded into their systems, we will look at what level of comfort we have.

We jointly commissioned the review that Mukesh has referred to, the O’Doherty review, with PSNI. He made 39 or 40 recommendations. There was also a role for the ICO, which made a number of recommendations. In terms of comfort, there is lots in those recommendations, but one key strategic recommendation was the establishment of a service data board. There is now a governance mechanism in place within the service. The last update we had to one of our committees shows that, in terms of the recommendations, 29 of the 40 have been done. A number—about five or six—are in train and then there are a number that are funding-dependent. Given the most recent update they gave to the committee, I hope there will be money this year for some of those to be delivered. We take comfort from that. We take comfort from the structural governance changes it has made within the service. As Mukesh has said, Pete O’Doherty is actually back at the moment. He and his team are on site and we would expect a report. We have been getting a number of updates over the last year from PSNI, but the Pete O’Doherty work will be independent validation. They are experts in their field, and as a board, we have to take assurance from the expertise of others. I hope we will get an added layer of assurance from Pete’s report in the next month or two.

Sorry to interrupt, Sinead. As you await those recommendations—and bear in mind that the breach itself was late 2023—do you feel you have the confidence, or not, that it is still technically possible for such a breach to happen again? I understand that clearly this is an operational issue and, at the Policing Board, you have strategic oversight. I recognise that distinction. At the same time, the breach itself did not come from hacking or an external attack. It came from an internal mistake. I am not a technical person, but I know there are technical means by which you can implement systems that stop, at least as much as possible, such mistakes. Do you have the confidence, as we sit here, that it could not happen again tomorrow?

They have taken steps to make sure that the release of that spreadsheet, which somebody did not realise was embedded behind a document, cannot be happening. In fact, a lot of us in the public sector have looked at what came out of that to make sure that we were not carrying risk. On the wider point about whether there could ever be another data breach because of some other issue or weakness in a system, I do not know that even Pete O’Doherty would be able to give us that assurance. The particular reason why that data got out has been locked down.

Just to finish, in that sense—and you have partly answered some of this—what role do you see the board having, or do you envisage, such that another breach could not happen again? What is your role, in relation to PSNI itself, in ensuring that this could never happen again?

We will get the report. A lot happened in 2023, but this was massive. There was a massive payout, so we have kept this on the agenda. We will get the Pete O’Doherty report and have a good scrutiny session around that. The deputy chief constable leads on this, so we will have a conversation with Bobby. One key thing is that, in the same way as Pete O’Doherty said that the service needed to embed data and view it as just as important as its people and estate, the same message was coming to the board. It is now integrated into our resources committee agenda. We will continue to get updates on the work of the service data board. That is our way of making sure that we continue to have those conversations with the senior officers to understand, “Where are the risks in your system, and what are you doing to try to minimise those?”

Ultimately, we rely on its governance and risk framework. We are an accountability body. We are not running the PSNI. We need to take assurance from its framework, internal audit processes and audit and risk assurance committee, and we do.

Presumably you are cross-checking the systems that it has. Sorry, I was about to finish, but you have made me interested again.

It is an important point.

Again, there is a distinction between the operation and the oversight. Clearly, from an oversight and strategic perspective, you must take an interest, as the board, in the overarching systems and processes.

Yes.

I am going to move on to funding. I was wondering what assessment the board has made of the PSNI’s funding settlement from the Northern Ireland Executive.

Brendan is an expert on that. That is his bailiwick.

Thank you for the question. Not that I have to give you the context, but in terms of the challenges facing public sector funding in Northern Ireland generally, they are severe, to the extent that the police service is picking up the balls that have been dropped by other aspects of public service in Northern Ireland. It is responding to ambulance calls and handholding people with mental health issues in A&E. Something like 33,000 hours a year are spent doing that. That is all contextual. In terms of funding, the budget is around £940 million. Some 75% of that is payroll. Non-pay costs in 2010 were £178 million, and this is a very key point in terms of the transformation and efficiency agenda we are driving. Today, they are £178 million. That represents a 40% reduction in real terms. That is the transformation and efficiency that has been driven in relation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. A multi-year budget was issued for consultation, as you know, in January. The board and the PSNI have now been notified by the Department of Justice on the draft allocation for policing. The budget allocation allows for the recovery plan, which is great, but it has not given an uplift in the baseline, so there is still a gap. The projected gap in the current year is £65 million. In 2027-28, it is £98 million, and in 2028-29, it is £170 million. That is because it is a flat baseline. You might have, “Here is extra money to do the recovery plan”, but the baseline is still where it was. That is a feature in terms of the historical funding of the PSNI, where the baseline has been low. The budget has reached breakeven each year through the monitoring rounds. In 2019, 2% of the budget was met through in-year monitoring. Last year, 15% was met through in-year monitoring, so you are starting the year off with a 15% gap in your budget. That is a huge challenge for policing. It gives a huge challenge for the chief constable in terms of meeting his responsibilities as accounting officer and balancing his budget, but also meeting his responsibilities as the chief constable to keep people safe in Northern Ireland. That is a circle that is very hard to square.

What would you like to see agreed for the PSNI in the forthcoming budget?

I would like to see the baseline increased to the current level. Ideally, that baseline rises with the cost of living, so that you are not starting each year with a gap.

You mentioned non-pay costs and the reduction there. There is obviously some effective spending of money then. Are you seeing that across the board? Obviously you cannot cut back on pay.

No. Yes, and we have not taken our eye off the ball on that either. Transformation and efficiency continues. There are currently 22 transformation projects within PSNI from estates, digital and fleet. Those are all about keeping those non-pay costs as low as possible and embracing technology to its fullest extent, to then also maximise the time of officers, in terms of making their job easier.

One thing our predecessor Committee recommended was a rethink of the PSNI’s fiscal framework by the Executive, Treasury and NIO, because it cannot borrow money or carry over funds. I was wondering what your view on this is.

At the end of the day, the budget for the PSNI is linked to the Northern Ireland budget. That is the one that has to be sorted first and then the PSNI will benefit from that, as will public sector services. However, in terms of the broader funding model, as I have already mentioned, the baseline needs to be uplifted. The other point I would make is that we are probably the only police service in these islands that is having money taken out of its operational budget to pay for legacy costs. That needs to change. The other change that we would like to see is ringfenced funding for legacy. That is nothing to do with delivering policing. There has been something like £167 million spent on legacy since 2014, and £24 million was spent last year on legacy. There are two public inquiries coming up. They are likely to be in excess of £20 million each. That is coming out of day-to-day policing, which has a budget that is already being met through in-year monitoring. Ringfenced funding for legacy would be important. Another one that we think can be looked at is income generation by the PSNI. Where it is providing services to the private sector, such as large concerts in Belfast, they should be paying market rate for that. That is not the case at the minute. There can be a legislative change that gives it capacity to charge what it costs to police those types of events. One that might be for another day but is in Patten is the concept that local councils could add 3p to the rates and buy additional local policing services through that income. In terms of neighbourhood policing, should that also be explored?

Brendan, you mentioned the transformation projects that PSNI has on the go at the minute. When the Executive was reformed in January 2024, there was a transformation funding pot allocated to the Executive. Has PSNI been able to access that, bid for it or get any money from it?

Yes, it has.

What was that for?

I think it is around IT systems, if I am right, so it is on the digital end. It has, yes.

I do not have the detail with me. I think it had successful bids going into the second round, but we can certainly get that for you. I do not have the exact details.

It has been successful in the second round?

It has been successful, yes.

It is in process.

On legacy, as a board, one ask we would have of this Committee is whether there is anything you can do to advance that. We have written to the Secretary of State in relation to legacy costs being taken out of the day-to-day policing budget. The response has been that it is a devolved issue, but it is not a devolved issue. That would be a big step change. Brendan mentioned in-year monitoring. Policing and the safety of communities is too important to be left to scraps of public money that might be available, as I have said in public sessions as well. It needs a higher baseline, as Brendan has said. Relying on what might come round the corner in three or six months’ time does not give a police service the confidence to police a community. I wanted to add that.

To acknowledge the point on legacy that Brendan was making, that other police forces are not required to pay for historical legacy issues, this may be a slightly unfair question, but the conversation seems to go round in circles. The national Government give increasing devolution settlements overall to Northern Ireland, and they say it is therefore the Northern Ireland Executive’s responsibility. The Northern Ireland Executive says, “We do not have enough money, and we cannot do it. We need it from…” Where should the money come from?

It should come from Westminster.

Why?

Legacy and policing at that time was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office, which is part of Westminster. It was not part of the Assembly. Policing was not devolved. It was held by Parliament. The frustrating thing for us is that we are just hitting a blank wall in terms of a response from the Secretary of State. There is a complete refusal to sit around a table and discuss this. It is just, “Northern Ireland has its money. It decides how to spend it”, which is not actually listening to what the issue is, in terms of the fact that these are historical costs and need to be met from a different pot. That is falling on deaf ears, and it is very frustrating.

Mukesh, to clarify, we have recommended as a Committee in our legacy report—Gavin has given me the words here, so I shall read it out—that there should be a “ringfenced Government funding stream to meet legacy costs within the PSNI”. We are very aware of the situation that you and the PSNI find yourselves in around legacy issues. We will keep in touch on that.

Mr Sharma, when you started, you said—I paraphrase slightly, because I did not get the beginning of it—that Northern Ireland is a safer place than ever, or something along those lines. You also said that it has some of the lowest figures of ASB, and that there is now a reduced national security threat, which we are all grateful for. There were several other things you said, but I did not write them fast enough, hence why I was getting some more paper. Northern Ireland still has the highest number of officers per 100,000 of population, and there are PSNI warnings that numbers remain dangerously low. Can you tell us the justification for higher numbers when there are those several points you raised at the beginning of your contribution and that demand that still exists today?

I will start with the word “legacy”. It still overhangs day-to-day policing. The terrorist threat that I mentioned is still there. My understanding is that almost a third of the policing budget today is there because of the security implications of the past that still exist. That is the reason why we need a higher number of police officers per capita.

There is security. Also, PSNI has to police a land border, which would not be the case for other services. While it has the ability to call on mutual aid in extreme circumstances, there is not the free and quick access there would be for other services. The other thing to mention is that PSNI is not able to call on the sorts of centralised teams that there would be here, such as the ROCUs and other Home Office initiatives. That all has to be developed from within. We had a bit of a sense of that, but then, when you see the national police reform agenda and what is going to be centralised, you realise—and it is good—how much is available to police services from the centre. PSNI has to be self-sufficient. Patten said that it should be self-sufficient, so I am not saying it is a bad thing, but that contributes to the numbers. To build on that further, the chief constable came to the board recently and is keen to take forward a piece of work to look at exactly what those numbers should be. Patten said 7,500, plus 2,500 part-time reserves. We had NDNA, which said 7,500. The chief commissioned his own report shortly after he took up position that took figures between 7,500 and 8,200. What exactly are the numbers? We have told you why we think that Northern Ireland needs more. We agree that it needs more than it currently has, but what is that number we are going after? The bit of work that Jon wants to take forward will be really important. It is important that it is done independently. That will be able to look at the security situation. It is what it is now, but what is it going to be in a couple of years’ time? What is that going to mean for the doubling up of police officers, the unarmed service, the security that there needs to be, and all of those things that have money attached to them? Where is crime? As Brendan said, crime is different. It is online. Does that point to officers, or does it point to civilians with a different skillset? We, ourselves, sometimes fall into the trap of getting fixated on the numbers. A comprehensive bit of work is needed to tell us not just the numbers, but exactly the type of person that is needed to meet the demands that the service has now and going into the future.

Thank you. Ms Simpson, you helpfully answered my second question.

I am sorry.

No, that is very good. It saves your time.

Do not apologise.

Just to reassure you, it was not a “gotcha” question. We just wanted to understand. We have met a number of PSNI officers across Northern Ireland. We have seen their tenacity, commitment and hard work, so there was no attempt to try to dilute any of that recognition. It was just to try to tease out the figures and the stats, and what that means for service delivery and keeping people safe.

If I could just give you an example of how that legacy manifests itself in day-to-day policing, as recently as the last two weeks, the chief constable and some officers, on multiple occasions, were visiting schools in Northern Ireland. On one occasion, it was to promote recruitment. On another, it was just to go in and talk to pupils about the dangers online, and how to close down online harms. On at least two occasions, there were bomb scares after the police had left, in areas of Northern Ireland where policing is considered something that is not for them. That is a live and very recent example of why we need more officer numbers per capita than the rest of the UK.

It speaks to the challenge of policing by consent. There is almost a double challenge, is there not, of how you tear down those barriers but also allow for normal policing and keeping people safe, which is what people want. Thank you, and thanks for being here today.

That is good timing. I am going to talk about workforce composition. You will be very well aware that, in the last fortnight or so, there has been renewed focus on workforce composition. I know it is a rather outdated, quaint concept, but, whenever I phone the police, I am not interested in seeing somebody who looks like me, talks like me, worships like me or sounds like me. I want somebody who is in a uniform, is imbued with legal knowledge and power, and has the ability to engage with me with professional courtesy and to do their job. There has been a singular focus in the last number of weeks on the number of Catholic recruits. There is no mention, of course, of under-representation of working-class Protestants, and no mention of under-representation of ethnic minorities, but I understand the politics around it. Could you confirm a few things for me? There are currently 400 vacancies being recruited for.

Yes.

Yes.

There have been 4,000 applications.

Yes.

1,000 of those applications are from members of the Catholic community.

It is 26.7%, so yes.

That is just a little over.

Yes.

For 400 vacancies, applications from the Catholic community are more than 150% over that. That is a good thing. The reason why I am bringing it out is because it has been absent from the discourse. It would sound as if only a quarter of available positions can be filled by Catholics. Actually, more than 1,000 individuals from the Catholic community have sought a career in policing. That is a good thing, and that is something that has been absent. In terms of support for policing, we talked earlier about political dominance. Support from politicians in the republican community, in my view, has been severely lacking. It took 20 years for any republican to attend a passing-out parade, and you have just mentioned recruitment. I want to share with you the response given by a republican member of the Policing Board when asked about the very same incident that you talked about, which was disrupted by dissident republicans last week. That is it—silence. When we are talking about leadership in recruitment, how disappointing was it that, in the face of a recruitment exercise that was frustrated by dissident republicans in a nationalist area, where the school was happy that the police were just one component of an overall jobs fair, that has neither been challenged nor condemned by people in leadership on and outside the Policing Board, when they should be supporting aspiration within their own community to join the police?

First of all, any attempt to endanger life should be condemned by everybody, and it is disappointing if it has not been condemned. That whole area of recruitment, as you quite rightly say, has been in the public focus for quite some time now. A lot of steps have been taken to try to encourage more people from all areas to apply, and specifically, as you quite rightly say, from the Catholic, nationalist and republican communities. I have often raised the point that you have raised today in terms of responsibility. As I quoted earlier, Patten has said that every politician and councillor has a responsibility to stand behind recruitment for the PSNI. That is not happening. It is not happening beyond that, either, in terms of schools or religious leaders. All of those areas of society need to step up behind it, and it is not happening. It is hugely disappointing. There are some political parties that will and others that do not, and that is frustrating and very disappointing.

Yesterday, Deirdre Hargey of Sinn Féin was asked, on the BBC, if a young person from her community came to her and said they wished to pursue a career in the PSNI, whether she would support them. Her response was that, if that is what they want to do, that is okay. I understand that this is uncomfortable when it is a member of your board. Do you understand the difference between acquiescence and support, and the damaging impact that such lack of grace has whenever we are trying to encourage people from their own community to see the benefit of a career in policing and to see policing as being more representative and reflective of our entire community?

I am very much an advocate of sharing real-life situations. Brendan and I alternately attend attestations and student officer events. On more than one occasion, we have met newly attested officers with their warrant card. It is always a very happy occasion. It is a very proud occasion, not just for us on the board and not just for the PSNI, but more for the families and the individual. We have seen individuals who have come through who have not had any family with them, because they have been disowned due to their commitment to the PSNI. We are still in that society, and we still have that background going on in terms of that fear from communities, and police officers joining the police service whose family, neighbours and friends do not know what they do in real life. We commend those people for their commitment to public service. We commend them for their commitment to the PSNI, but there is a sad element there that you look at. Some of these guys coming through the attestations are younger than my daughters, and that is what brings it home to you.

Northern Ireland is a complicated place. It is a society emerging from conflict. It remains a divided society. We have put in place through Patten, as we said at the very start of our session today, structures for policing that can draw confidence from all sections of the community, which includes a democratic mandate, and that is fantastic. In terms of the operation of those structures as well, and in terms of participation and contribution at the Policing Board and at a neighbourhood level through the policing and community safety partnerships, all political parties are pulling their weight, and that is to be commended. For all of us, there has perhaps been complacency around recruitment and the extent to which you have to go to change behaviours. One side of the community in Northern Ireland has no tradition of joining the police service. We go to student officer first sessions and talk to them. If we ask those who have a family member to put their hands up, you will have student officers whose uncle, father or brother are all in the police, and then others who are just taking that first step, so there is a barrier already. You then also have a dissident threat in terms of people wanting to join the police. I heard a—I was going to say “funny”, but it is not funny at all—story of a female superintendent running a programme for the camógs—the GAA women’s team—on violence against women and girls, and the whole issue of consent, et cetera. A 15-year-old girl came up to her at the end and said, “I would like to join the police”. Her mother said, “No, you will not. I will have to move house if you do”. That is Northern Ireland. It is a complicated place.

I get the point you are making, and I understand the complexity. I can be political about what I say, and you will not. I get all of that, but all it took was for a member of your Policing Board to condemn a bomb scare and to condemn dissident republicans who are trying to create the atmosphere that precludes young members of their community from pursuing a career. That is a failure in leadership. It is the same as a failure in leadership to say that people will not join the police because there is a lack of transparency, and yet the very same person was suspended from their own party over the failure of transparency on the murder of Robert McCartney, which is all on the public record. There is a failure in leadership. If that had happened in my constituency, if I had not been standing at the front door welcoming the police and showing political leadership the next day, I would have been castigated. I have not seen the First Minister or members of your Policing Board turn up at these events. That is the political leadership. I understand the complexities, but at what stage do we say, “We are going to face down dissident republicans who are removing opportunity from young people in our society”?

The dissident republicans were breaking up meetings of the police and community safety partnerships.

I was in one of them.

Nationalists and republicans did face them down at those local meetings, so it is happening.

It was in Short Strand. I was there.

As to the discussion on how we meet this challenge of representativeness, I believe that change will happen. I hope that change will happen.

This year is 25 years of the new arrangements. We are working with PSNI and the two local universities to develop a programme of events. To go back to Gavin’s comments, the whole issue is very real at the moment because of what the projections look like. The figures are still okay in terms of applicants, but the projections are what people are worried about, so this whole issue is going to dominate for the next number of months. We want to have a conversation. Why are we not there in terms of the normalised society that Patten set out? Policing is a difficult enough job. I have the hugest admiration. I have worked with police officers for 30 years. I could not do the job. It is already difficult enough. What is the role of all of us? Going back to Mukesh’s comment, what is the role of everybody in society to make sure that we have the normal society that means we can live and breathe a lot of what was in Patten? I just wanted to mention the 25 years, because it is absolutely going to feature and we want it to feature, because, while we will talk about digital developments and how the police service keeps pace, and transformation and our role as an accountability body, we absolutely want a big chunk of that conference to be about representativeness and how we stand up to some of what is happening.

We need to move on, but did you want to say something briefly?

Just briefly, you mentioned working-class Protestant areas. Robin, earlier you mentioned the Policing Board becoming more strategic, and Sinead mentioned the deep dives that we are doing. One of our deep dives is a piece of research by Ulster University on how we advocate in those difficult-to-reach areas in terms of policing and looking on it as a career. That is a piece of research that we are doing to add to this discussion that we are having.

Very briefly, Chair, with your indulgence, I feel it would be a bit remiss and cowardly of me—I am speaking in a personal capacity, not a party-political capacity, and as somebody who is Catholic and has a long tradition of people having served. I spoke very briefly last week about this online. You expect abuse, but it was from people who I would not have necessarily associated that with. The reason I got involved in politics was the murder of Ronan Kerr, because that could have been any one of my family or any one of my friends. It is a real shame and an indictment on us all, regardless of our party, regardless of our view and regardless of our religion, should it even be a thing, that we are having these discussions. What a real shame that we cannot simply have people who want to do a job, and who have a real commitment and a real desire from an early age to do that job. I just think to myself, “Have we moved on at all?” Policing is often cited as the success story of the peace process, and it was and it is, but I will be honest: I really worry that a lot of people are playing fast and loose with what was so hard fought for. You are talking about people within the RUC who were quite ready to go along with the process. They were prepared to say, “We will go through the pain of renaming. We will go through this process”. Thank God that we are now in a year where we are celebrating 25 years of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but I just think it cannot be incumbent on just one part. It has to be all of us, but there also has to be a recognition that we are not a normal society, and it is not just Catholics. It is people who are working class, loyalist communities, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, right across our community. I just felt it would have been cowardly if I did not say that, and I just want to pay tribute to everybody in the police service, regardless of their religion, but I do understand that it is something we have to work on. I am just going to touch very briefly on some of the issues around funding, and the additional security funding. One of the issues I am very passionate about—and we have had various discussions in Committee around this—is the issue of funding. We have touched already on legacy. The Chair has very helpfully outlined our role as a Committee, and the work we have done to date on trying to support, where we can, on your ask around that, but where is that money being used best? Is there appropriate scrutiny around that? Could that be done better? How is that supporting day-to-day policing?

There is a whole area where that security funding is used. We do not hold PSNI to account for what it does with it. We get reports from it as to what it has been used for. Brendan is on the detail of that area, so I am going to leave that to him.

It is an important piece of funding. It is £37 million from the NIO that is then matched by the PSNI, and that is in a separate budget line. I would like to say it is very scientific and covers all the additional security costs, but it does not. It is a contribution, so it is then a case of agreeing with the NIO each year what that contribution is going to be spent on. That is a conversation between the PSNI and the NIO. In the current year, I can give you the main headings for it. It is funding the terrorism investigation unit to the sum of £12 million. It is funding site security to the sum of £14 million. It is funding the close protection unit. At the minute, there are 19 individuals who have close protection in Northern Ireland—mostly judges—and that is to the sum of £14 million. There are pay costs in there of £19 million, and then small amounts of £1.5 million for air support, and £4.5 million for technical support. The chunky bits are the terrorism investigation unit, site security, close protection and pay costs.

I am not going to get the nomenclature correct around this, but there is a joint committee here on intelligence and those various issues, but one of my real concerns is the fact that there is an emerging level of threat around online radicalisation. We know the lessons from Prevent. We are aware of the ongoing issues around right-wing and Islamic terrorism. Northern Ireland is not immune from those threats. It would be completely foolhardy to consider that we are. One of the big issues I am particularly concerned about around funding for the police, not just within ASF but generally, is particularly around cyber-crime. We cannot divorce the lack of resource for the cyber-crime team from these ongoing and emerging threats on the national security framework. I know there is going to be support from the NCA, MI5 and others, but I really do worry sometimes. I do not want to put words in your mouth, Brendan, but it sounds to me like there could be even more additionality around those emerging threats. Also, let us be bluntly honest here. We are the only part of the UK with a land border with the EU, and the CTA is something that can sometimes be contentious. It is better for having it, but we also need to make sure that we are on top of the issues that arise specifically from that, as well as the ongoing issues that we have, just as any polity would within an island framework. Are we adequately prepared and equipped through that ASF to tackle those threats?

We are underfunded through the ASF, full stop. To give you some comfort in terms of the new emerging threats, such as right-wing terrorism and so forth, we receive a report from the terrorism investigation unit, and that is very much on its agenda. In fact, it is a topic of conversation, almost, in the sense of the dial shifting from dissidents to right-wing threats, so it is very much in the focus of the PSNI, but we are underfunded for additional security.

You can see the narrative in the conversations that we are having with the folk who are in charge of that bit of the PSNI business. As opposed to talking about specific threats, it is very threat‑agnostic. That is the language that they would use. They have the freedom to use the ASF to deal with whatever the national threat is, so it is not just wedded to historical terrorism in Northern Ireland. You can see a shift in that. Just to throw into the mix what is happening here nationally and what that is going to mean, and what it is going to mean for the NCA, all of these things are very live on our agenda now for the next number of months, but national security is not an area that we have an accountability for per se. We have visibility and we have conversations, but it is not an accountability area for us.

I would add that there is a concern around funding for the Paramilitary Crime Task Force, or PCTF.

We are possibly at risk of straying into the next question.

I am going to bring in Chris Bloore now, because this is the last question we are going to pick up on.

Thank you for all the evidence you have given today. I just want to touch on the Paramilitary Crime Task Force. Since its inception, I was going through some of the statistics and evidence of what the taskforce has achieved in the last nine years. It is quite impressive in terms of the number of searches conducted, the amount of controlled drugs recovered and the number of weapons and amounts of cash seized, et cetera. An incredible amount of work has been done, but there is an issue with its future coming up, with funding being taken away and it being, presumably, merged into the PSNI’s responsibility and budgetary process. What is going to come next? What are your fears or hopes? Moving forward, what will replace the taskforce?

We would have concerns about funding ending. We have asked the question, “What happens beyond that?” There is no clear plan, or certainly it has not been shared with us as yet. We would hope that the level of co-operation and the partnerships that the taskforce has embedded into its work will continue, whether that is in mainline policing or an element of the PSNI. I am talking about the NCA. I am talking about Revenue and Customs. I am talking about An Garda Síochána. I am talking about Border Force. All of those agencies play a big part in the work of the PCTF to tackle the ongoing and increasing threat from organised crime gangs. Our aspiration as to what happens is that that work continues. If the funding ends, we need to get clear guidelines as to what happens, because that is currently under ASF, and we want to know what is going to happen there.

One of the indicators in our policing plan is effectiveness in tackling the threat posed by terrorism, paramilitaries and serious and organised crime groups. I will not rehearse, because people in the room are better versed than me, but Northern Ireland is complex, and that blurring of the lines between paramilitaries and organised crime is something that we are all very alive to. As Mukesh has said, the conversations that we have had so far with the director general of the NCA, who comes to the board twice a year, have been about, “What is working? Just because the funding comes to an end, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can that co-location and collaboration be continued?” The NCA has thresholds when it is operating nationally. It lowers those when it comes to its work in Northern Ireland, which allows it to deal with the issues that are impacting our community. That is another thing that we would wish to see. NCA has a lot going on in terms of what is happening nationally, but I have no doubt that, during the next conversation that we have with Graeme in June, we will focus on that. For us as a board, it remains an indicator in our policing plan. We would wish to see those successes that you mentioned—and there are a lot of them—continue, even when the money goes, so we would be looking to see the service mainstreaming some of that good practice that has come about because of the PCTF, but, if you are pulling away a funding line, it is going to be challenging.

Is there a sense of urgency, though, in terms of those conversations? Throughout our papers and what I have been reading in the media, there seems to be a lot of mention of, “Discussions are ongoing”, but is there urgency attached to that happening? Just going through the 10 years of work that has happened, a lot of that is not mainstream work. It is specialisms. It is a lot of intelligence building, and then very calculated and detailed planning and execution. I imagine that that is not something that could just be absorbed into the general every day. Those skills are not readily available. Can you reassure me that the urgency on this is there?

When I talked about mainstream policing, I meant within the PSNI. I might have used that word. From our point of view, there is an element of urgency. We are asking those questions. We are not getting urgent responses, but we will continue to pursue that because it is an area of concern for us. In fact, having this conversation in the public domain helps on one hand. It might give the customers of the PCTF some relief, but I can assure them that there is nothing to sit back and relax about.

On the last visit, the Committee went to a team PSNI event. I have to say that we watched a video there that had Patten, the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister giving full-throated support to the PSNI. I have so much pride in what they do and what we have seen, and the collaboration with our Committee, that I would like to extend my thanks to the board and to Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, because it is a very important relationship, and we thank you for your time today.

Thank you. We will certainly pass that on. We are an accountability body, but we also advocate for good work in policing, and we stand up and do that on a daily basis, so thank you.

Thank you very much.

I was just going to say that, on the back of Sorcha’s comments, there are remaining challenges that you have articulated. As somebody who has been involved in this for a good number of years—there are people in the audience here who were some of the people who did the heavy lifting in the early days—the world has moved on significantly. There are huge issues that remain, but policing in Northern Ireland and community acceptance of policing is in a much better place than it was in 2001.

Just in terms of performance—not that we are keeping score—in England and Wales, the criminal justice outcomes for reported crime are less than 9%. In Northern Ireland, they are over 30%.

Can I ask you something very quickly on that? Recorded crime is an incredibly problematic way of assessing the level of crime. You talked about safety. Does the board use self-reporting studies? They are a far more accurate way of determining the level of crime, because, particularly in Northern Ireland, with the suspicion of communities, reported crime cannot be an accurate level of crime. Do you use self-reporting studies?

To inform the policing plan work, we use surveys that we conduct and those that are led by NISRA and by the Department of Justice, some of which include self-reported data.

What do they reveal in terms of the level of crime?

There is under-reporting of crime.

How does it compare with the rest of the UK if you look at self-reporting studies?

I do not know. I would have to come back to you on that.

That would be lovely to hear.

I will call this session to an end. Thank you very much.