I am no blind defender of the PSNI and I have been vocal in articulating the problems in the organisation.
However, Brian Feeney’s opinion piece - There is much evidence that the PSNI is not a welcoming police service for Catholics - is wide of the mark and devoid of the evidence the headline promises.
Indeed, it has the potential to further deter Catholic recruitment at a time when attracting the brightest and best has never been more important.
The PSNI is beset with major problems, but sectarianism is not one.
These include poor senior leadership, rock bottom morale and a breakdown in trust between leadership and rank and file.
These problems manifest themselves in high levels of employee litigation, stress and sickness. Retention is a major problem, probationers are resigning in record numbers, medical retirements are the highest in UK policing and fewer officers choose to remain in service after pensionable age.
Read more
- Brian Feeney: There is much evidence that the PSNI is not a welcoming police service for Catholics
- Dissidents have information from data breach, PSNI Chief Constable says
The PSNI suffers from entrenched risk aversion in senior leadership ranks which inhibits decisiveness in defending its reputation, being candid with partners and being fearless in tackling politically sensitive law and order issues.
Too often, enforcing the rule of law is sacrificed on the altar of ‘keeping a lid on things’ or trying to square the circle of competing political pressure. Operational passivity often results, causing the rank-and-file immense frustration.
A systemic inability to be assertive with partner agencies results in officers spending an inordinate amount of time in Emergency Departments, children’s care homes and dealing with mental health crises that are properly the job of other agencies.
The frustration created by doing other agencies work turns to disillusionment when officers are prevented from dealing with law breaking because a commander is watching over his or her shoulder for political fallout. This is not the job officers sign up for and so they become demoralised and look elsewhere.
Perhaps the extreme level of accountability that the PSNI faces from the media and formal accountability bodies have conditioned its leaders to be supine and defensive.
It is counterproductive that the body that holds senior officers to account is directly responsible for selecting them for promotion. Senior officers should be able to engage candidly with members of the Policing Board or make tough operational decisions without worrying that their cards are marked at the next promotion competition.
The ingrained defensiveness of PSNI leadership is evident in declining media appearances, so criticism goes unchecked, good news untold and false facts unchallenged. Often the only time senior officers appear on the media is to apologise for failings or to criticise junior officers' conduct.
There is huge resentment at what is perceived as a two-tier standard of accountability, whereby junior officers' mistakes are punished but senior officers' errors treated as learning opportunities. Honest officers are worn down by a misconduct regime, beset with delay and often focused on the wrong people.
Catholics are unhappy in the PSNI, but so too are Protestants and dissenters alike. The whole workforce is demoralised. It would be a mistake to conflate this with religion. Underlying causes cut across all community backgrounds.
Several specific points in Brian’s article require a response.
Firstly, there was never supposed to be an accelerated promotion scheme for Catholics in the PSNI. The only positive discrimination proposed by Patten and legislated for was initial recruitment; all promotion was to be merit based.
Brian’s assertion that there is "hostility and obstruction in the PSNI to the Police Ombudsman’s Office" is puzzling. The PSNI leadership accepts virtually every conclusion the ombudsman makes, even very dubious ones. The ombudsman has the legal power to direct the PSNI to implement misconduct proceedings if their disciplinary recommendations are unreasonably ignored. Unlike their counterparts in Britain, the ombudsman has never felt it necessary to exercise this power.
Most importantly, I don’t recognise the description of sectarian behaviour in the PSNI that the article paints. In many roles, including as Head of Discipline Branch, I’ve dealt with various allegations from a cross section of officers; but sectarianism never featured.
Managers don’t ignore sectarianism; everyone is aware that dismissal is the outcome of such behaviour. No independent reviews, ombudsman reports or employment tribunal findings support the claim that a sectarian culture exists in the PSNI.
It’s true that Catholic recruitment is declining, but not because the PSNI is unwelcoming to Catholics.
Applications to the PSNI from Catholics peaked at a healthy 44 per cent but began steadily declining after 2007 when dissidents shot a Catholic officer as he dropped his child to school in Derry.
Dissident groups began targeting off duty Catholic officers in earnest from this point onwards, murdering Ronan Kerr and seriously injuring Peadar Heffron. Application rates from Catholics declined long before 50-50 recruitment ended, it simply papered over the problem.
Policing is a vital public service and our society needs to attract the finest police officers to meet the challenges ahead. I would not want one single person to ignore a noble calling through a misplaced fear of entering a sectarian workforce, which I know the PSNI is not.
:: Jon Burrows is a retired senior PSNI officer.