Debate contribution: Police Ombudsman's Office: Operational Capacity
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Question for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Police Ombudsman's Office: Operational Capacity
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496732
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The office has advised that there will be no significant operational impact on the office's capacity as a result of the Police Ombudsman's absence. The ombudsman has delegated her powers to the senior director of investigations, pursuant to paragraph 9 of schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the case to which the Member refers. First, it is a personnel matter, and, secondly, it relates to an ongoing police investigation. I therefore have nothing to add to my original comment.
The ombudsman's office has been undertaking an appointment process to replace the chief executive and has identified a candidate for the role who has not yet started in post.
There is a legal duty on the ombudsman's office, which I mentioned during questions, to comply with requests from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, and the office will continue to do that. It has advised us that there will be no significant operational impact on the office's capacity due to the Police Ombudsman's absence due to illness. If that changes, I will expect the Department to be duly informed.
The ombudsman herself is a corporation sole, in that she is entirely independent and is appointed by the Executive Office. The office of the ombudsman has an oversight function from the ombudsman herself but also, in respect of its accountability and sponsor branch responsibilities, to the Department of Justice, I have kept the Executive Office updated on developments over recent months and am writing to it again today in light of the recent illness of the ombudsman to keep it informed. Any decision in relation to the future of the current ombudsman is a matter for the Executive Office and not the Department of Justice.
Our commitment will be to keep Members apprised as is appropriate in the current situation. There are legally complex matters at play, as well as personal matters, and it is important that we respect the privacy but also the process that is under way at the moment.
Whether the ombudsman chooses to step aside or not is, in the first instance, a matter for the ombudsman and, in the second instance, a matter for the Executive Office and the First Minister and deputy First Minister. With respect to the investigation, I am not sure what briefing the Member has had, but I am not aware that the investigation has been stalled. Moreover, it is important that, while there is a live investigation, people say less rather than more in respect of it.
At this stage, I have been briefed only on the new chief executive role, because that is the new role that is being brought to bear. The ombudsman had taken forward a process to recruit a new chief executive, and that has now been completed. It is a matter now for the ombudsman to run the office. In her absence due to illness, that is being done by a delegation of her powers to the senior director of investigations.
To correct the Member, I said that the ombudsman is now on extended absence due to illness. I said that the recruitment of a new chief executive had concluded, not started, and the ombudsman delegated her powers to the senior director of investigations pursuant to paragraph 9 of schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which she has the power to do.
575 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.51 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.46 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:47 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.