Q444 Mr Murphy: The numbers were quite significant, in the thousands rather than the hundreds. Indeed, your officers on the ground said that the place had been transformed, that they were able to walk around the estates one at a time and speak to people, and that had never happened previously, so the schemes are delivering on the ground.

Mr Harris: Certainly that is the experience of the Kilcooley project, a very positive experience there. There have not been similar experiences certainly in relation to CRJI. We do have good relationships with Alternatives in terms of North Belfast but it still remains a very difficult policing environment and there is a lot of crime.

Mr. Dave Anderson: We heard from CRJI that they reckon their recidivism rate is about 8% and the numbers in Kilcooley were nearly 2,000 young people, nearly 2,000 victims and they said what you are not getting, which you were getting before, which is measurable is people being taken behind the shops and getting their legs broken or a bullet through the kneecap. The schemes seem to be working without the bureaucracy of the police being involved. I am not saying that in a bad way but there is a reality that it is working. One of my worries, particularly from the CRJI point of view, is given the fact, whether we like it or not, there is not the confidence in police, and it is historical and perhaps it should not be there, if they are forced to sign up to these Protocols people will stop coming and putting their faith in CRJI or they will fold altogether, so that would be a retrograde step. When we spoke to them on both sides yesterday it was a very, very positive situation. From the CRJI point of view I thought some of the work they have to do should be done by other statutory agencies, like social services, which are clearly not doing that to the extent these people on the ground are. Most of the things they were talking about was bad relations between neighbours, et cetera, but stopping it before it becomes a major situation. My worry is the insistence on going ahead with Protocols which you say are non-negotiable, and I understand where you are coming from, might have a detrimental effect overall and things might go backwards rather than forwards.

Q445 Chairman: Just before you answer that, I think it is important to put on record that Mr Auld giving evidence yesterday for CRJI gave an emphatic, unambiguous "yes" when asked whether he believed it was essential that there should be co-operation of the closest nature with the police, and he was taxed on that by several Members of the Committee.

Sir Hugh Orde: That would be Sammy!

Q446 Chairman: No, there were several Members of the Committee who asked it, and I also asked it from the chair and was given an unambiguous one word answer, which was "yes". In that context perhaps you could address some of the remarks made by Mr Anderson. He has moved us on to the area that I was anxious we should move to. The critical question that faces Northern Ireland at the moment, or one of the most critical questions, is Sinn Fein's support for policing and where we are going to stand if that does not materialise. Perhaps you would address those issues.

Sir Hugh Orde: First of all, will the systems go backwards if police get involved? Point one, confidence in policing is growing across the piece, that is manifest in a number of ways not only in rising reported crime rates in nationalist communities. When I was out on patrol quite recently with my officers in West Belfast and places, they are getting more and more feedback from those communities who are pleased to see us because the old world is falling away. If we do not now say that we need to move on, CRJI is a process in transition but we now need to nail our colours to the mast and there can only be one police service in Northern Ireland, and it is the one that I have the privilege of commanding and we need to engage. It is very positive that Jim said those things. Jim Auld and I have shared a Sunday radio programme studio on these sorts of issues in the past and he has turned up at a lecture I gave at Queens, so this is not a man who is against policing, I fully accept that. We have got to make that leap of faith, as has he, and say it now needs to be embedded in the system and not ancillary to it. We have got to bite that bullet and move on in that way. The point is well made around what is not happening any more, which is punishment beatings across communities are down substantially, not universally but down substantially. Last night I was looking at the figures for the last ten years and in the republican community the trend is downhill and unstoppable. I think there is recognition that those things did not work, it did not stop people committing crime, and probably it made them more criminal, so the world has moved on. In terms of where we will be if Sinn Fein do not join policing is we will be where we are now, we will continue to push edges, and I think this is one of the edges we need to continue to push. Just because a party does not want to engage, for whatever reason, that is not a matter to stop any of this in my judgement. If they do join it makes it all a lot easier because it helps my officers and they will be seen as more acceptable to the wider republican community and that will give us more access. As I have continually said, all I am asking to be judged on is what my officers do today, not what they did a third of a century ago.

+++

Q466 Mr. Dave Anderson: I just want up to pick up on a point you were asked before about the involvement of paramilitaries. I know this is the leap of faith stuff but for some of them, in a sense, are they not a role model saying, "Look how I destroyed my life". If the description that comes out in these regulations says anybody who has done time for paramilitary offences, et cetera, cannot get involved, are we not losing something that may well have an impact on certain people? There is a risk that people might come through who might use it the other way.

Sir Hugh Orde: It is the same principle as drug users and all this sort of thing.

Mr Harris: Some of the feedback we are getting is that the people with terrorist convictions are getting older and there is a generational gap between them and the young people. The challenge for them is how they re-engage and refresh themselves. People with terrorist convictions are in their 40s-plus now.

Q467 Lady Hermon: That is very young.

Mr Harris: There is a new generation.

Q468 Chairman: Very young indeed, yes.

Mr Harris: Not to a 15 year-old. Yes, it is very young but not to a 15 year-old. There is a relationship that has to be developed. I take the point you make but there is the aspect that the community finds this is suitable to take this work forward, because it is difficult work.

Mr. Dave Anderson: I agree totally but from the way I read the Protocols it could be that you could come out and say nobody who has got a paramilitary background should be involved and I think you would be losing an opportunity. It might not work for 100 15 year-olds but it might work for one. I think by saying they are out is a big mistake.

Lady Hermon: Could I just add to the point David has made. It is a fact - a fact - that in Kilcooley with the IMPACT scheme your police officers, with the greatest of respect, PSNI police officers, have been working hand in glove together very closely on the management committee of the IMPACT scheme. Two of the members of the IMPACT scheme, obviously not of the PSNI, do have convictions.

Chairman: Substantial convictions.

Q469 Lady Hermon: They have had a past, they are entitled to a future and have made a very positive contribution. Why should there be a difference when the Protocols come into place when they have actually proven their track record and their contributions to the community and to the scheme in Kilcooley?

Mr Harris: In any vetting process you are looking at people's past behaviour and making assessments as to the risks there are. We are talking about children and probably vulnerable adults here and it is the risks we take when we allow people with serious convictions to deal closely with them. There is no question on a whole range of offences, such as sex offences or sex crime, of those people being involved and getting through the POCVA process, but when it comes to crimes of violence, and when you look at people's criminal records they are not clear-cut, there will be a mixture, serious criminal records are always long criminal records, and there will be a history of violence, robbery, murder and so on. You can look at a terrorist's convictions and that is what you see. It does not say "as a result of terrorist action", it says "murder" or "robbery". That is what we are forming a basis on. We know something of the individual, we will go into the background and the Protocol makes a judgement about the Good Friday Agreement, and it is for the vetting panel to exercise their judgement. We will present information that we have and it would be wrong for us to second-guess what the panel is interested in.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT