Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 15, to delete lines 37 and 38, and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:“ “17. (1)The Authority shall, by order within 12 months of the establishment

day of the Authority, establish a code of ethics that—

(a) includes standards of conduct and practice for members,

(b) is fully consistent with the policing principles, and

(c) encourages and facilitates the reporting of wrongdoing in the Garda Síochána by members.”.

We discussed an aspect of the code of ethics earlier. The section regarding the code of ethics was in the 2005 Act but no Minister ever drafted the code of ethics despite the section being framed with the mandatory "shall". The introduction of the trade unions among the bodies the authority is required to consult seems curious as the Minister would not be required to consult with the unions if she had ever drafted the code of ethics under the 2005 Act. There is a requirement to consult the Garda Commissioner as the representative of An Garda Síochána. This we believe would have been sufficient. It is also curious that there is a requirement to consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform as setting standards of conduct and policing practice are hardly considered industrial relations issues.

There is a reference to the code of ethics being published but it appears that the Garda code is not available for public scrutiny. This seems strange. I noted in the report published last week that the Garda Inspectorate states:

The Garda Code provides standard operating processes and procedures for all members of the Garda Síochána, garda staff and student gardaí. It is a comprehensive document and the two volumes extend to almost 1,000 pages. The most recent edition of Volume I (5th) was published in 2005 and replaced a 1995 version.

The Code is intended as a mandatory guide for all work activities. Within the Code, a section sets out the generic roles and responsibilities for supervisory ranks. In particular, it highlights that supervisors have the responsibility for ensuring that all members under their supervision are made aware of and understand new policies and procedures.

The Code is not the single repository of information and is but one reference point. It is now available in electronic format on the Garda Portal [an internal search engine that the garda members can use to find the most current policy, legal decision or information on a particular issue] and this should provide details of the most up-to-date version of a policy or instruction.

During field visits, the Inspectorate was informed that some parts of the Code are now very dated, such as student training and firearms licensing. The Code does not contain details of the date that a particular section was last refreshed or when a section is due to be reviewed. The Inspectorate was unclear as to the value added of retaining the Garda Code, without maintaining an up-to-date version.

It is not maintained properly and I am not sure the Garda Inspectorate stated it at any stage but to the best of my knowledge, it is not accessible by the public which should know what the Garda code is. One might say that if it contains 1,000 pages not many will read it but that is not an argument and it should be accessible to those who want to access it. If the Garda Inspectorate states there is not much point in maintaining it unless it is updated, it is very important to maintain it but it also needs to be updated. Hopefully, that will be dealt with in response to the Garda Inspectorate’s report.

The biggest problem with the proposed legislation around the code of ethics is that there will be no sanction for breaching the code, which makes it a bit meaningless. If any Minister had ever published the code of ethics, as allowed under the 2005 Act, there was the potential there to introduce disciplinary measures. The position now is weaker than the 2005 legislation allowed. It is good that the new code of ethics will be published but it is paramount that some form of disciplinary measures are attached to it.

If there are none, I do not think it will change a whole lot. I do not see why anyone should change his or her behaviour if he or she does not have to worry about any sanctions whatsoever. Am I reading the legislation incorrectly? Am I right in saying there is not a disciplinary measure for a breach of the legislation? It would be good if the Minister could explain the rationale behind it.

A few weeks ago in the House, the Minister was pretty upset when I suggested that the level of discipline and accountability among some senior gardaí, although not all, left a lot to be desired. I said it was leading to problems in the force. I found it interesting that within days, the Garda Inspectorate report referred to much the same and did not disagree with what I said on the matter.

It should be pointed out that the code of ethics in Northern Ireland has a much stronger status and is the standard against which police officers are measured when an allegation of misconduct is made. The code of ethics there is drafted by its board but has a much stronger focus on human rights obligations - for example, the European Convention on Human Rights and UN codes - than the proposed one in this Government's Bill.

The chief constable in the North is obliged to ensure that all officers have read and understand the code. This requirement was in the heads regarding our authority but has been removed from the final draft. Also, the policing principles in the North set out that when carrying out their functions, police must be guided by the code of ethics, giving the code added status. The board also includes an assessment in its annual report as to the performance of the police in this regard, which is significant.

It has been pointed out by one professor that the legislation removes a function of the authority published in the heads, back in November 2014, relating to human rights and policing. In the Seanad, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin's explanation was that human rights in policing are more properly addressed by the IHRC than by the proposed authority. I do not really accept that stands up to much scrutiny, as the Northern Ireland Policing Board has a principal function of monitoring and supervising compliance with human rights standards in policing, which co-exists with the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

The Minister will recall that Professor Dermot Walsh was adamant that the failure to human rights proof all aspects of policing is a challenge to An Garda Síochána and a challenge to how we do policing in Ireland. It is something the Minister should reconsider.

See this speech in context