I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with two speakers.
Private Members' Business. - Door Supervisors Bill, 1997: Second Stage.
That is agreed.
I take this opportunity to thank my Front Bench colleagues for supporting this Bill. Its purpose is to introduce a central registration scheme for those who work as door supervisors, also commonly known as bouncers. The Bill sets out to address the main problem areas in this sector, those of violence and assault, drugs and the black economy. I have great pleasure in introducing Second Stage of this Bill and I thank all those who helped me to get this far, especially those who went to great lengths to further my knowledge of how serious this problem has become. I have established the extent of this problem with a substantial number of door staff or bouncers and I was motivated to act on this problem by the harrowing complaints made by many young people and their parents from my constituency who had attended discos. I was fortunate to be interviewed on this issue on Pat Kenny's show where I supported the call to introduce the licensing of bouncers to address the issue of the increasing number of assaults. Since then the information and help I received has justified my belief in the need to introduce a Bill such as this.
Newspapers are full of reports of the bad conduct of bouncers who are not accountable and can simply disappear into the night. Few cases are brought to court. Mr. Justice Tom Fitzpatrick on fining a bouncer £500 in a private prosecution was reported in The Irish Times of 7 October 1997 as saying that many security men were not properly trained and too many thought their function was to punish people for a disturbance they might have caused rather than simply ejecting them.
From my information drug abuse is one of the most alarming aspects of the problem. Most of the information I have on bouncers is anecdotal. However, Professor Dick Hobbs from the University of Durham said that when bouncers were instructed to search arriving punters and confiscate drugs the doormen moved into the business, initially they were paid off by dealers who were granted entrance to events and were able to operate a monopoly, later they merely confiscated everybody's drugs, set up their own dealership and there was seldom any trouble at those events because they were protecting profits, not merely reputations.
The same model applies here. We are not on top of the problem. I congratulate the Garda who have been successful in recent months in closing two drug dens in the capital. Most bouncers or doormen operate in the black economy. A large amount of money is being moved in this sector and the loss of State revenue is probably in the region of millions. I have been told special concessions have been given by Revenue officials to some operators in this business, which gives them an unfair advantage over others that operate legitimately. These problems stem from abuse of a position of authority and trust. This problem can be compared to a runaway train and it must be stopped. Our young people need protection from this abuse and it must be provided by way of appropriate legislation.
Last year I brought some of my findings to the attention of the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen. She asked me to meet heads of the Irish security industry who have been calling for similar licensing for the past 20 years. I did that, but the industry decided to distance itself from the area of bouncers. When I reported to the then Minister on the many meetings we had on the issue, she decided to set up a consultative group on the private security industry. However, I told her at the time I was disappointed there was no representative from the area of bouncers or doormen on that group. Those events galvanised me to produce this Bill.
There is support for the need to introduce a Bill, such as this one, from all quarters. The public have voiced their support through the media. Dance hall licence holders have offered support through the Irish Dance Hall Association which has approximately 140 members. Doormen have confided in me that a clean up is well overdue. Nobody has said this Bill is not needed. I have been informed by some senior security people who operate legitimate businesses in this area that they have been threatened in any attempt they have made to introduce regulations in this area and they expressed concern about the welfare of anyone who would be prepared to stand up and be counted. Dirty money voices are powerful. I trust the Minister will have the mettle to stand up and oppose them.
I do not know the Government's or the Minister's view on this legislation, but the Minister is the last person in this House who should oppose it given that he and his leader, the Taoiseach, went to the country with a policy on zero tolerance of crime no later than eight or nine months ago. It would be very beneficial to our young people if this Bill were passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Sections 1 to 5 deal with the interpretation of definitions and the appointment of an authorised officer and inspector. Section 6 provides for the creation of a register of door supervisors and an authorised officer who shall maintain the said register and his or her role shall be purely administrative. Sections 7, 8 and 9 cover the requirement for a certificate of personal fitness issued by the local Garda authority, an appeal regarding the refusal of which shall be made the District Court. Auctioneers, bookmakers and taxi drivers are familiar with this concept.
Every guard dog needs a special licence and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government regulates that provision on a continuous basis. Is it not odd that the dog handler in the security industry does not?
Sections 10, 11 and 12 deal with applications to be included on the register. Section 13 makes it an offence to act as or to employ an unregistered door supervisor. Section 14 covers regulations which deal with the form of a certificate of registration or licence with records to be kept — these will be of great help to the Garda and tax authorities — and standards of qualifications on training for people who want to work on special events. Section 15 deals with penalties for noncompliance. It is important when legislation is introduced that penalties are included for noncompliance, on the one hand for the individual who is prepared to work but does not go through the training to apply for the licence, and on the other for the owners of licensed premises to ensure their licences will be revoked in the event of them not employing registered doormen. There will be a need to amend the licensing laws if this legislation is passed.
Section 17 provides the public with the comfort that their complaints will receive proper attention. The final section gives inspectors and the Garda the power to enter any licensed premises to make sure all matters provided for in the Bill are in order. There is no point in introducing rules, regulations and licensing without providing the means to enforce them. A register, which would be available on a nightly basis of those who are properly trained, is the way to protect people attending such premises. Everyone would like to think their children are protected when they attend such premises. I costed the Bill using Department of Finance guidelines. The cost of five staff in central locations using the latest computer systems would be covered, with a surplus, by an annual licence fee of only £10. That fee can include the provision of a laminated card with a photograph which can be used by the individuals involved. Recovered PAYE and PRSI contributions would leave a large surplus which could be used to licence the entire security industry.
The benefits of the Bill would include improved public safety and confidence; it would lead to cleaning up or closing of criminally controlled venues; it would be self financing and generate revenue; it would raise the standards of professionalism up to the year 2000 and beyond and tackle the black economy. The Bill on its introduction would provide openness, traceability, accountability and badly needed protection for young people.
A similar Private Members' Bill is to be introduced in the House of Commons. Would it be nice for the Minister to lead rather than be led? Since I published the Bill in December 1997 I monitored the media's interest in this area. I remind the Minister that in January 1998 a man was shot dead in Finglas while stun grenades were used in a luxury apartment at 6 a.m. in Dublin city centre and gardaí were shot and wounded, the result of a turf war over door security. Many unsavoury practices are said not to exist until there is in-fighting. The veil of secrecy comes down with regular monitoring of various media reports on the transgressions of bouncers.
The problem is real and I have zero tolerance of this young person's issue. I hope the Minister as a parent first and politician second feels like I do. I fear the Bill will be dumped along with the report of the consultative group on the private security industry published in January 1998 and the fourth report of the select committee on crime, lawlessness, vandalism and control of the private security industry, of which the Taoiseach was a member in 1984. As a result of complacency 14 years of work has gone into the industry and nothing has been achieved to date. All these reports call for licensing and control, yet there has been no action. The legislative programme of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for 1998 and 1999 which was circulated recently does not refer to any proposals to introduce licensing in the security industry.
The Minister must not let this opportunity to introduce badly needed legislation pass him by. How many more tragedies must take place before he will be forced to introduce similar laws? On 11 February 1997 Garda chiefs were quoted in newspaper articles under headlines "Discos Must Prohibit Drug Use". Nothing happened following this. A report was commissioned by the North Eastern Health Board and 1,100 secondary school students aged between 12 and 17 were interviewed. More than 35 per cent of them who attended discos said they were offered drugs. In many cases the people on the doors know what is happening and there is a concerted effort to pressurise young people into taking drugs as money is given by drug barons to doormen to turn a blind eye and allow pushers in. That situation gave me the impetus over the past 12 months to introduce this Bill. Young people are under enough pressure to pass examinations and secure employment without additional pressure being put on them. We have a duty to enact legislation which will put this industry back on track and ensure that those who are supposed to protect young people in the event of adversity will do so.
In recent months a number of cases have highlighted the problems in this area. As recently as last week an Oireachtas employee saw a person being pulled out of a club by a bouncer. No person should have this power without being answerable to someone. This practice has gone on for too long and Ministers have not had the bottle to deal with it. This legislation, if accepted, can become the foundation for licensing the security industry which employs 16,500 doormen and thousands of people in other areas. I have attended nine meetings at which 12 security firms were represented. They raised with me the question of illegitimate firms which under price them for many jobs, including Government jobs. The members of the industry want rules and regulations so that people will work within the system on a level playing pitch.
Last night a member of one company gave me a substantial amount of information which enlightened me further. When I referred to the need for a level playing pitch he said they were all off the pitch scrambling, fighting and undercutting each other. He also said that at least 70 per cent of the people working in the business, particularly in the larger towns and cities, do this because they control the drugs brought into clubs. If the Bill stops the use of drugs in clubs then we will have done a good day's work by accepting it.
Our purpose is to provide help where there are problems and to introduce legislation which the Government does not have time to introduce. The Minister should not say there is no problem in this area. If zero tolerance means anything it surely means that people should be able to enjoy themselves in night clubs without being harassed. Even if some people are in the wrong, bouncers should not be entitled to take the law into their own hands. The reason laws are on the Statute Book is to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. Parents, children and those working in the industry want the industry to be cleaned up so that there will be a level playing pitch. I want the same rules and regulations to apply to everyone.
When the Minister was in Opposition he preached about the great measures he would implement in the area of justice on return to Government. I was a member of the Government at the time and thought he went over the top on many occasions. Many people will say that is politics. However, the ball is now in his court and he can accept this Bill. With all due respect to them, the officials in the Department have been moving the deck-chairs for 20 years and have not pushed a Minister to produce legislation in this area. The Minister now has the opportunity to enact this legislation. The Bill will clean up this industry and ensure that what happened in 1996 and 1997 and is continuing to happen on a larger scale will be brought to an end.
I wish to share my time. I compliment Deputy Farrelly on introducing this long awaited Bill which I hope the Minister accepts. If it needs to be changed, amendments can be tabled on Committee Stage.
Many bouncers think that because they wear a uniform they are like Al Capone, are above the law and can savagely beat up people. As Deputy Farrelly said, the law is there to deal with people who step out of line. It is not a matter for these people who think they are like Al Capone. They should be recruited to the Army and sent abroad where I am sure there is a place for them.
Deputy Farrelly referred to zero tolerance. I believe in law and order and that the law should apply equally to everyone. Will the Minister refer to the new zero tolerance policy being implemented in Connacht and Clare in relation to the licensing laws? The Minister has attacked publicans in rural areas and directed the Garda to put people out of public houses. This pilot scheme should apply to the entire country. If the scheme related to tax breaks the west would not be included. Why has the Minister targeted the west and rural pubs? If he had targeted discos I would support him. The law should apply across the board and there should be no variation in the implementation of the licensing laws.
The closing time should be the same for all establishments. However, we now have the crazy situation where public houses close at a certain time, discos close at a later time and clubs close even later. As Deputy Farrelly said, that is why we have problems with bouncers. People leave pubs and go to clubs and discos having had plenty of drink and are not able to control themselves. They pay whatever it costs to go into the clubs. We then have the further problem of drug pushers, many of whom buy one another off to have free access to particular clubs to try to get as many young people as possible to take drugs. At first they nearly give the drugs for nothing to get young people hooked so that they are potential future customers.
Any society must have rules, regulations and laws. Bouncers, door men and security people —— whatever they want to be called — must be subject to regulations so that owners cannot pick people off the street to stand at the door of a dancehall or club. Some people are not suitable for the job, although they think they are. They want to have fights and to beat people up but they should be locked up themselves. Those types of people apply for the jobs. Not all bouncers are like that; there are decent, honourable people who need to subsidise their income to raise their families and who do this on a part-time basis. They are forced into this work because their jobs do not pay as well as they should. However, when some thugs put on a uniform and start chewing gum, they see an easy mark in the queue and if he steps even slightly out of line they take him into the toilet and deal with him. The poor person is often so drunk he does not know what is happening to him until he ends up in hospital.
The Minister has a duty to ensure this is regulated and he now has an opportunity to do so. Deputy Farrelly has brought a good Bill before the Dáil, the Minister should take it on board and if it has to be changed this side of the House will be delighted to support him.
I also ask the Minister to say why he has targeted rural western pubs in his zero tolerance campaign. This issue will not go away and I hope Deputy Higgins and other western Deputies will take up this issue along with me, because what is happening is wrong. My area caters for thousands of tourists — I know the Minister would like them all to go to Kerry and we do not mind him getting his share. We want to be able to entertain tourists, we do not want them going to pubs at 11 p.m. and being put out at midnight. I do not say the law should be broken but I cannot see why a tradition built up over the past 40 years is being changed now. If the clubs and discos had been targeted I would compliment the Minister but that is not happening.
This is what is wrong with law and order at present — those who break the law in a small way are targeted. The people we want targeted are those who steal property or hurt people. Zero tolerance in this area will not work, I know this from talking to people — I am restraining myself from saying something I may regret for which I may pay the penalty tomorrow. It is easy to stop a car driving at 70 miles per hour but it is not so easy to catch someone who beats up or kills someone or the person who robbed my car or my house. These are the people we want targeted, not people who exceed the speed limit by a mile or two, although I do not condone that. It is easy to get revenue that way.
Why were the five western counties targeted in the zero tolerance scheme? The Minister should ask the superintendent, chief superintendent or assistant commissioner responsible for putting this measure in place to target either the whole country or no one. I do not say people should break the law but we should examine the licensing laws and the law should apply to everyone, without simply attacking rural people again.
I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on bringing this before the Dáil.
I echo Deputy Ring's sentiments about the zero tolerance clampdown in the west.
I was hoping the Deputy would not do that because Deputy Ring was out of order.
No one is suggesting that anyone break the law but if we enforce a measure we should not treat the people of the west as guinea pigs — we should introduce it throughout the country, not just in one region.
I compliment Deputy Farrelly for introducing the Bill. This aspect of the entertainment industry has been neglected by the legislature over the years. Many of the bouncers I know, especially in my constituency, do an excellent job and must be commended for the effective manner in which they do their work. However, as a young person who frequents night clubs and late night pubs and from talking to other young people, I am only too well aware of the inadequacies of the present system. There are many hair-raising stories of young people being treated as human punch bags, being assaulted or subjected to excessive force by a bouncer on an ego trip, an individual who can slip into the night and never be held responsible for his actions. This is due to the lack of accountability and informal working arrangements with their employers. The Bill will help to rectify this problem, as my colleagues explained earlier.
Another scenario which happens in many areas, especially the cities, is a kind of apartheid whereby people are discriminated against on grounds of age or clothing. A bouncer believes he has the God-given right to refuse entry to an ordinary law abiding citizen for no reason other than dislike of the prospective customer's socks. Young people must run the gauntlet of the men in black after queuing for 15 to 20 minutes — the queue is designed to give passers-by the impression that this is a trendy place. This is a regular occurrence on Friday and Saturday nights, especially in Temple Bar and other parts of Dublin city centre. On reaching the door, people often hear bouncers say they do not recognise faces.
There is also the problem — an isolated one, but a problem nonetheless — of bouncers dealing in drugs. As Deputy Farrelly said, many bouncers allow dealers into night clubs. Water is often turned off in clubs and young people are forced to buy it at the counter. Ecstasy tablets are being passed around like smarties in some locations. The Garda know about these places but it is hard to clamp down on them and the bouncers can be held responsible for this problem.
Under age drinking is as serious as the drug problem and it is bouncers who let young people into night clubs. It is true that young people under 18 do not have facilities but bouncers should not allow them into night clubs where drink is freely available. They are not supposed to be in any place with a bar extension. Young people have enough problems without having to cope with a bouncer dealing drugs. His duty is to maintain law and order, to protect the customer and to keep discos free of trouble makers. Young people need the protection of this Bill to avoid such abuses of power.
This legislation will also be of benefit to the publican who has in the past faced a guessing game in recruiting door men — he often does not know what type of person he is employing, especially in built up areas, because there is no register. The Bill should be applied to other sectors in the security industry, especially at sporting and concert events. Many bouncers think they are God Almighty and can decide whether young people can get into a club or will have their faces beaten in. There have been numerous cases of young people being thrown on the street for the ambulance to pick them up.
This whole area needs to be regulated and we should introduce some form of training scheme. A new training course for doormen who work in licensed premises was set up recently in Scotland where members of the police force, the fire brigade service and other professionals are brought together for training.
An incident occurred recently outside a fast food outlet in which an individual was robbed and beaten about the face. A bouncer standing in a nearby doorway did not even think to contact the Garda. The bouncer was not involved in the incident but there was an onus on him to ensure there was law and order even if the incident did not occur on the premises he was protecting. That young person spent two weeks in hospital and was on a life support machine for a number of days as a result of the beating he received on that occasion. I ask the Minister to accept the Bill which is important to young people in that it regulates this area.
I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on his work in producing this Bill. As I acknowledged recently in the House on a similar occasion, I am aware of the work and effort involved in producing a Bill such as this and the lack of backup facilities available to Opposition Deputies. It is right to acknowledge Deputy Farrelly's achievements in that respect.
I also acknowledge that Deputy Farrelly has had a long and keen interest in the proper regulation of the security industry. Indeed, the Deputy made a submission to the Consultative Group on the Security Industry which was established in the middle of last year. The submission was given due acknowledgement in the report of that group published recently and which obviously was given appropriate consideration by the consultative group in the formulation of its conclusions.
It is no secret that I and other Members on all sides have long favoured the proper regulation of the security industry. In that regard I welcome the spirit behind the Deputy's Bill and I understand the philosophy which underpins it. However, for reasons which I will put before the House in my contribution, the Government has decided not to accept the Bill. A careful examination of the Bill, and related issues of a significant nature, has led the Government to that conclusion, and I propose to outline the reasons in some detail.
A number of provisions in the Deputy's Bill, particularly with regard to access to employment, raise significant constitutional issues affecting the fundamental rights of individuals and the obligation which falls on the State to treat all citizens as equal before the law. In addition, the provisions of the Bill are somewhat restrictive in nature in that they do not address the wider issues which need to be addressed in any proposals aimed at regulating or raising standards in an industry such as recruitment and training requirements, monitoring working and employment standards, implementing international developments, inspections and all the general requirements which go towards ensuring a professional industry which is accountable for its performance.
There are aspects of the spirit of what is proposed by the Deputy which are welcome. However, the Bill is concerned solely with provisions for the registration, control and supervision of persons engaged as door supervisors, or "bouncers" as they are more colloquially known, acting on or in the vicinity of a licensed premises, defined in the Bill as any place for which a licence has been granted under the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, or the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1995. The Bill confines itself to this narrow aspect of the broad security industry which a recent estimate put on the scale of involving nearly 400 companies, employing over 10,000 employees and with a turnover estimated at about £200 million annually.
The survey to which I refer — carried out by FÁS in 1994 but also taking into account the strong growth in the sector since then — does not even include the door supervisor or "bouncers" sector which is largely believed to be part-time in nature and conducted mainly in the black economy. Having regard to the significant scale of the broad security industry, and the genuine desire and recognition on all sides of the House of a general need for consistent standards in the industry, adequate selection and training of staff and overall compliance with Revenue, Social Welfare and Company Law, the best way forward is to address all the relevant issues through a combination of considered measures related to the broad spectrum of the industry rather than by a narrow or piecemeal approach to particular aspects of the industry as proposed in the Bill.
When?
The Bill also makes certain provisions for the establishment of a door supervisors' register in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with local Garda district officers being responsible for issuing or refusing certificates of fitness on a number of stated grounds. Whatever about the Department having direct responsibility for the establishment of such a register — and I have serious doubts in that regard — there is no doubt that these provisions touch on a most sensitive and important part of any proposals to regulate any sector of the private security industry.
For that reason, it is clear that any proposals in this area would require careful consideration to ensure a consistency and a fairness in their operation which is not only universally accepted but is also in line with the constitutional requirements of natural justice. While I agree it can be argued convincingly that a criminal conviction would appear to be a good reason to prevent a person from gaining access to the industry, I wonder whether any offence against the person is valid in this regard. While it could be argued that any criminal conviction should debar access, it could also be argued that only robbery or dishonesty type offences should be taken into account, if previous convictions are to be taken into account at all.
There is also provision in the Bill relating to an applicant who is, by reason of his or her general character or known habits, not a fit or proper person to be given a certificate of personal fitness. This is a rather vague and non-specific provision which, under the terms of the Bill, would be required to be implemented with consistency by individual superintendents of the Garda Síochána to whom applications are to be made. Apart from the difficulty in defining general guidelines for the force to interpret such a provision, it is difficult to see how a matter of subjective opinion such as this could be applied by individual Garda officers in a uniformly fair and consistent manner.
Access to confidential information held by the Garda Síochána, for example, would appear to be essential to any system of vetting. The public is rightly concerned that any information held about them is treated in the utmost confidence. Access to such information is always governed by the general principle that no information is given to anyone, irrespective of their status, unless there are extremely serious public interest issues which would warrant departure from that principle.
Apart from disclosures of information which are governed by existing statutory provisions, it is not the practice generally to disclose information on convictions, for example, to employers. If it is proposed that information on convictions for certain types of employment be made available, the supply of that information by the Garda Síochána could give rise to serious legal and constitutional issues over the right to disclose information, its accuracy and the fairness or natural justice of it being disclosed.
It could also be argued that no distinction in that regard should be drawn between those employed in the security industry and those employed, for example, in the banking sector or on other similar duties which involve positions of trust or in the handling of money.
I refer to these important provisions of the proposed Bill, not to dismiss them entirely but to underline that the concept of "fitness to practise" within the security industry, if it is to be implemented in a proper and consistent manner, requires careful consideration as to its effect and the way in which such a concept is to be operated. Any such approach could involve the introduction of new concepts in Irish law which raise issues of constitutional rights and natural justice. It is important, therefore, that any such concepts be addressed in the context of general access to the broad security industry, and not simply in the context of access to one narrow aspect of that industry — that is, the employment of door supervisors, or "bouncers", acting on or in the vicinity of licensed premises.
It is important to emphasise the private security industry is under no special legal obligations and possesses no special legal privileges. That is to say, it is under no special legal obligations which do not apply to other employers, for example. Security personnel also have no special legal powers or, in particular, special powers to carry or use weapons which are unique to their jobs. Offences in this area, as Deputy Farrelly pointed out, apply to them in the same way as they apply to everyone else and there are no exemptions in law to allow security personnel to behave in a certain way simply because they are members of the private security industry.
Security personnel have no particular powers, either, to stop or arrest anybody other than those particular powers which apply to all individuals. Persons entering premises cannot be forced either to be searched or to open bags, for example, to satisfy door supervisors. I make these points because it is often assumed that security personnel using specially protected vehicles to carry large amounts of cash, or wearing uniforms, as Deputy Ring pointed out, or behaving in an aggressive manner at the doorways to public premises, are somehow representative of "law and order" and performing functions which are akin, for example, to those performed by members of the Garda Síochána. It is important for the public to clearly understand such personnel have no special powers. Any person pretending to have such special powers is clearly deceiving the public.
It is, of course, these very points which have long prompted questions about the control of the industry and, indeed, my own concern that, no matter how complex the issue, the question of some sort of control or regulation must be addressed in a comprehensive and considered manner soon. In that regard, I am in full agreement with Deputies Farrelly, Ring and Naughten.
Earlier in my contribution, I referred to the consultative group on the private security industry which was established last May to review activities in the industry and to provide a forum for discussion on the regulation of the industry. The establishment of the group stemmed from a review of the security industry which had been completed by the then Department of Justice at that time. This involved an analysis of issues such as regulation, the examination of ways in which such a broad spectrum of activity currently carried out by the industry could be regulated in practice, and consideration of regulatory practice for the security industry in other jurisdictions.
The consultative group was asked to take the work already done by the Department's review of this complex issue a step further by considering options for increased self-regulation, the possible licensing of companies and the case for statutory regulation of the industry. The group was also asked, in focusing on options for regulation, to include the costs and benefits to the consumer of further regulation, and to consider the prospects for improving standards within the industry.
In addressing these specific issues, the group acknowledged the industry covers a diverse range of occupational activities. The group attempted to identify these occupations and to categorise them. In a group described as being of primary concern were categorised occupations reflecting the broad spectrum of the industry such as security operatives; door supervisors or "bouncers"; in-house security personnel; security consultants, including advisers, salespersons and investigators; and installers of security equipment.
The group recommended that certain procedures should be introduced for all licence applications, including those in the category of company and company director, as well as those occupational activities which I mentioned earlier. The group recognised that complex problems needed to be addressed in any proposed licensing system and that no single solution will prevent, alleviate or solve all the problems within the private security industry.
I should mention that the report of the consultative group, which was chaired by Mr. Donal Hanley, financial consultant, was published at the end of January. I am very grateful to the chairman and all the members of the group, which comprised representatives of the industry, IBEC, SIPTU, the Garda Síochána, the Health and Safety Authority, the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and individual members representing the public interest, who gave generously of their time to consider this complex issue.
An important point emphasised in the report of the consultative group is that any regulatory framework for the security industry will not only have to deal with the question of access to the industry, but also with a whole series of issues aimed at having a significant impact on the industry in the medium and long-term. These issues are not addressed in Deputy Farrelly's Bill but were considered essential by the consultative group in professionalising the industry and in improving standards in employment and training generally.
If I illustrate these issues, it will give the House a clear idea why the whole question of regulating the security industry needs to be tackled in an integrated, comprehensive manner rather than in a singular and piecemeal way, as is envisaged by this Bill. Among the functions identified by the consultative group as requiring consideration in the development of any regulatory framework are advising the Minister on matters relating to the industry; issuing licences to companies, directors and individuals and maintenance of a publicly accessible register of these licence holders; specifying minimum standards for certain sectors; laying down training requirements for licence holders; designating approved training courses and institutions; carrying out research into any aspect of the industry; maintaining records for research, planning and manpower; holding fitness to practice hearings and appeals; implementing relevant EU directives or regulations; monitoring international developments in relation to the industry; publishing an annual report on the industry; conducting on site inspections and dealing with complaints.
Any comprehensive approach, it is suggested, cannot be confined, therefore, to simply regulating access to the industry or, as in this Bill, to one particular sector of it. I am on record on a number of occasions as favouring the "proper" regulation of the private security industry. I am still of that view, but I would lay the emphasis, without taking in any way from Deputy Farrelly's Bill, on the word "proper", which I envisage as requiring a comprehensive and integrated approach to this complex problem.
The report of the consultative group is a significant step in advancing this desirable public policy objective. I am giving the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report detailed consideration. I acknowledge that if effect is to be given to its central recommendations complex legislation, introducing new concepts, will be required. I intend in the immediate future to consult with my colleagues in Government who will have an interest in the recommendations of the consultative group which impinge on their areas of responsibility. When I have completed that consultation I intend to bring proposals to Government which will recommend an appropriate course of action.
It is incumbent on me to ensure that there is no other vehicle which could advance the regulatory issue. I must be sure that the potential for all other possible approaches to regulation has been fully explored before committing taxpayers' money to the setting up, for example, of a new State agency. While I may see the logic in it, I must persuade my Cabinet colleagues, especially the Minister for Finance, that the consultative group report is the only way forward. There must also be an efficient and cost effective way of enforcing any regulatory system and these implications must be considered seriously.
In general terms, the Government should only regulate where there is a clear need to do so and where the public interest will be served by such regulation. It is, of course, in the public interest that the security industry generally operates to the highest possible standards and, if international examples are to be followed, I expect we will see an increasing range of functions being carried out by the industry in the years ahead.
We will also see further expansion in the scope for public and private co-operation in crime prevention strategies. For example, a number of developments are taking place which will have a significant impact on the industry in the medium and long term. These include developments at EU level of certain standards in relation to work, working time, training, health and safety and so on. These developments will also have to be taken on board and the implications of regulatory standards in particular will have to be assessed in so far as they impinge on the private security industry.
For all of the reasons I have outlined I regret that the Government has decided not to accept the Bill at present. I appreciate and acknowledge Deputy Farrelly's concern in this area, which I have shared for a long time. There is no doubt that the public also shares it. Given the recent growth of the industry, and having regard to the fact that it is becoming more visible in everyday business and lives, that concern is understandable. It is not surprising that there should be demands for some kind of control over an industry which is involved in so many sensitive areas and which, because of the nature of its work, is considered by many to carry out law and order functions. However, this complex area can only be addressed by a comprehensive approach to the variety of issues which I have touched upon and which are not addressed in the narrow scope of this Bill.
Some of the points made tonight and which doubtless will continue to be made during the course of the debate have been made before. There is nothing new in most of them. Indeed, I have made some of them in the past. It is important they be addressed now. They will be addressed in the continuing examination of the report of the consultative group and in the light of the findings of the crime forum, which finishes its Dublin sessions this week. When that examination is completed I will immediately bring proposals to Government recommending what I consider to be the most realistic, effective and appropriate course of action to cater for a growing industry in a holistic and integrated manner which will take account of future developments and which will also take account of the contents of the Bill.
I said at the outset that I understood and appreciated the philosophy which underpinned the proposed legislation and I indicated that it was a matter of regret that I could not accept it. I have also outlined why it will be necessary to address the question of the regulation of the private security industry in a comprehensive and integrated manner.
Deputy Ring referred to a matter which is extraneous to the legislation but which is close to his heart. I have always been of the view, rightly or wrongly, that people sometimes engage in mischief when their faculties are not fully stretched elsewhere. It is a practice in which I perhaps engaged in the past.
The Minister was good at it.
The Deputy is aware that operational matters are a matter for the Garda Commissioner and the Garda Síochána.
The Minister is taking the soft way out.
Policy is a matter for the Minister of the day.
The Minister is not answering the question.
I acknowledge Deputy Farrelly's contribution to the debate and I assure him that his legislation will be given full consideration in the context of the comprehensive approach which will be taken to this matter. In the context of the operational decisions which the Garda Síochána decide upon, it is a matter for the Minister of the day to introduce legislation or amending legislation. In this context it is my intention to host a seminar on liquor licensing law reform on or about 24 April 1998.
Will there be any bouncers in attendance?
If Deputy Ring should wish to attend and make a submission he will be more than welcome.
I will be delighted to attend if the Minister sends me an invitation.
The question raised by Deputy Ring regarding the possible amendment of the intoxicating liquor laws, which is a different matter from the question of their enforcement, will be addressed at that forum. I look forward to a fruitful debate on this important proposal.
Dr. Upton
I very much welcome the Minister's proposed initiative on the intoxicating liquor laws. Only today I tried to contribute to that debate, and I am very glad the Minister is preparing the ground with a view to making some changes. I hope in the near future he will have the opportunity of responding in this House to the Labour Party's proposals in this matter.
I compliment Deputy Farrelly on his work in preparing this Bill. Preparing a Bill requires quite a lot of work. Those who go to the trouble to research a Bill to the extent that Deputy Farrelly has deserve congratulations.
I welcome the spirit of the Minister's speech to the extent that he acknowledges the need for legislation. I would have preferred had he accepted Deputy Farrelly's Bill, but we have to live with the way things are. It is good that the Minister is at least facing up to the need for change in this area. That is very much what the public also feel.
The Bill seeks to address an issue that is relevant to the lives of many people, especially the young. Those who use places of public entertainment on a regular basis frequently encounter bouncers, or door supervisors as the Bill calls them. These people provide an important service, and the work they do is difficult and hazardous. From time to time they have to deal with people who have consumed excessive amounts of alcohol and who may be agitated as a result of factors that have nothing to do with the club or public house they are seeking to enter.
I am sure nobody would argue that the service provided by door supervisors is not necessary. Indeed, many public houses and clubs could not function if some people were not excluded from the premises. There is an adage in the pub trade that if certain people were not barred the place could not function. In some areas the capacity of the management of the public house is indicated by the number of people who are excluded, some very properly but some, unfortunately, wrongly.
Ireland is now in a minority of EU countries which has not legislated to control and regulate the standards of the service provided by door supervisors. All EU countries, with the exception of Greece and the UK, currently have regulations. It seems there is now an unanswerable case for Ireland adopting a similar approach to that of the majority of our EU partners.
There is another reason for introducing regulations. This relates to the reality that the service provided by door supervisors is likely to be a growing one. Those who work as door supervisors number less than the Garda Síochána. On the figures given by Deputy Farrelly, they number rather more than the Garda Síochána, and I am sure Deputy Farrelly has good grounds for his estimate, but I am working off a different set of figures.
Is the Deputy talking only about legal operators?
Dr. Upton
I am talking about the legal ones.
It is the figure in the report which has informed my view. One way or the other, if Ireland follows the trend seen in other countries, those involved in this aspect of the security industry will significantly outnumber the Garda Síochána in a few years. For example, in the US, people involved in law enforcement are outnumbered by a ratio of about three to one by those engaged in the security industry. While at this point it is not possible to estimate with accuracy the total number of people engaged in the provision of the service of door supervisor, one estimate indicates as many as 10,000, with as many as 2,500 to 3,500 in Dublin, if one accepts the upper range of the estimates.
The Bill is welcome because there are a number of aspects of the industry which now need to be addressed urgently. It is essential at this stage that standards are set for the industry. The industry is now of a size that the welfare of the public demands that it is no longer allowed to regulate itself in the manner which has evolved over the years. The industry is one which has grown considerably and, to some extent, in a haphazard manner over the years. It is estimated that there are about 400 companies which provide security services and that the industry has a turnover of the order of £200 million. By any standards this is big business.
There is also concern about the manner in which some parts of the industry does business. The industry is characterised by low wages, in some cases by low standards, by a big turnover of staff and by long working hours. Having said that, I acknowledge that there are many excellent firms who provide security services. Some of these are international companies which adhere to the highest standards. Many of the Irish companies are also excellent. However, there are some companies whose behaviour gives rise to a good deal of concern. There is evidence that some companies work to low standards. With some companies there have been difficulties arising from their failure to meet their obligations to the Revenue Commissioners and their obligations under social welfare legislation. There can be little doubt that many companies who provide a security service do so in the black economy, and that is something which we should try to eliminate.
Another major cause of concern is the considerable body of evidence suggesting that criminal elements have become involved in the industry. Some of these elements have operated in a very aggressive and heavy-handed manner which is totally unacceptable in a civilised society. Some of the people engaged in the provision of security services as bouncers are totally unsuitable for the type of work involved. There is an element among door supervisors who are, of their nature, aggressive and obnoxious, and who seek to aggravate at every opportunity. Such people are in many ways a provocation to that small element of the public who themselves are prone to aggressive behaviour. It is very important and desirable that such people should not be engaged in the industry. Their engagement in the industry can only lead to trouble. It is essential to emphasise that in a well regulated industry the avoidance of trouble at doors of clubs and public houses should be a priority.
There is also concern about the manner in which some companies have adhered to the provisions of company law.
It is obvious that some element of training for the personnel who provide the service is essential. Those who work in this service need, as a matter of urgency, to be trained in psychology and best practice in handling the public in difficult situations. There is no doubt that people in this industry on a nightly basis for one reason or another, have to refuse entry to places of entertainment. People can be refused entry to clubs and public houses with tact and in a manner that does not give rise to confrontation, or they can be refused in an aggressive, hostile confrontational manner. Those who are experienced and trained know how to handle these situations effectively and in a way that minimises aggression and violence. There have been many cases of violence at the doors of places of entertainment which could have been avoided if a little more tact had been used by the door supervisors. Some speakers from Fine Gael placed considerable emphasis on this type of behaviour. There is no doubt that they are correct. The people who become the victims of this behaviour are, to a large degree, young people on low incomes, who find themselves at the mercy of these obnoxious creatures who, when they find themselves in a uniform, become aggressive and hostile. Such persons have no place in the industry.
There are other reasons door supervisors should be trained. In the event of emergencies it is essential that door supervisors should have effective training and know how to supervise the safe evacuation of premises. It is also important that they be able to recognise and prevent fire and other hazards. In difficult circumstances, a properly trained staff can make all the difference by preventing serious accidents and ensuring that events are run safely.
In the case of large events such as concerts, it is especially important that those who man doors are very well trained. There have in the past been serious accidents which could undoubtedly have been prevented if the workforce had been better trained. It is important that the service provided by bouncers or door supervisors is viewed as vital. It is in the public interest that those who provide the service are well trained. Good training provides an element of protection for the public, which is most important. A workforce of trained door supervisors will cost more, but it is worth it in terms of making life pleasant for people, preventing accidents and, in some cases, dreadful tragedies.
The provisions of the Bill tabled by Deputy Farrelly are in broad accord with the contents of a report commissioned by the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, and published by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, in January this year. The report is good. It is relatively brief but it deals with the issues in a succinct manner. It provides a good analysis of the position in the industry in the context of the grossly inadequate information available about it. The membership of the review group is broadly representative of the industry and its recommendations are sensible.
The proposal to establish a licensing authority is relevant. I accept some of the concerns expressed by the Minister. However, I presume he expressed them on behalf of the Minister for Finance given the nature of the Department of Finance when any new type of authority is proposed. Such suggestions give rise to a reflexive refusal which leads to a long series of persuasive moves. However, the proposals are good.
It is most important that the Garda is involved in a vetting process, as suggested in the report. This would provide an important element of protection in terms of excluding people who are unsuitable for the type of work carried out by bouncers. More importantly, it would curb criminal elements who engage in this type of work for reasons and agendas which are in many cases different from what they appear. Many ancillary types of criminal behaviour are involved and the remarks made by other speakers about drugs are most relevant in this regard. There is a tendency among certain criminal elements to diversify when the forces of law and order curb them and diminish their capacity to make progress in certain areas. An element engaged in this industry plays a role in facilitating that type of undesirable diversification.
It is most important that "heavies" are precluded from involvement in this industry. The licensing body should take special care to ensure that such people are excluded. There is already sufficient opportunity for what may be called the "heavy" element of society to make itself a menace to the public without allowing it to be involved in this industry where it would have an excellent level of opportunity. Such people are already a nuisance and there is no point facilitating them by allowing them to engage the small number of people who have usually consumed excessive alcohol and are seeking aggravation.
The Bill provides for an appeal system where people feel they have been treated unfairly when their applications are rejected. It is important this provision is included in the proposals. The idea of an appeals system is good even if it would cost more and make matters more cumbersome.
The review report includes a discussion of the categories of individuals who should be excluded from this type of work because of their records in relation to illegal activities in which they engaged in the past. The report is discursive on this topic and presents a series of options regarding the manner in which this aspect could be handled. A series of categories of offences are mentioned which would automatically lead to the exclusion of applicants. There is also another series of categories of offences which, of necessity, would not lead to the exclusion of applicants.
It is important the Garda is given an element of discretion in this area. Undoubtedly, a certain type of individual should be excluded. People who have been convicted of certain offences should also of necessity be excluded. However, there is another element of society who may have engaged in illegal activity in the past but who have mended their ways. It is important such people are given the opportunity to return to the normal workforce and earn a decent living on the basis that they have mended their ways and the risk of them becoming involved in illegal activity once more is insignificant. Ultimately, this matter should be decided by the licensing authority on the advice of the Garda.
The Bill is relevant to the lives of many people, particularly young people who must face these individuals at weekends. I often wonder why people are so anxious to enter places whose doors are manned by unpleasant individuals. I presume it is because an illusion is created that something important or interesting is taking place because entry is restricted. I am sure people are greatly disappointed once they are allowed into such places.
The Bill addresses an important and relevant topic. Although I am disappointed the Minister did not accept the Bill, I am pleased at his attitude. We are all facing in the same direction in terms of introducing legislation to control this important service.
I read the Bill before Christmas when it was published and I saw merit in it. I had the opportunity to travel to Glasgow in February to consider the licensing laws and measures for the control of alcohol in public areas there. I spoke to the Glasgow licensing authority and a superintendent attached to Strathclyde police force. A number of measures have been introduced in Glasgow in relation to the control of drinking in public places and on streets. An important point is that the Glasgow licensing authority does not grant licences to pub owners or nightclub operators unless they have door supervisors or bouncers who have undergone a training course. I was most interested in that aspect and I intended to bring it to the attention of the Minister. The Minister outlined why the Bill cannot be accepted in terms of its possible effects on constitutional provisions. However, I ask him to consider the feasibility of introducing regulations under which publicans and their employees must undergo a training programme.
I am no longer a person for late nights, but I am sure Deputy Farrelly accepts there is tremendous movement of young people after the pubs close at night in major urban centres, particularly Cork. Many people are on the streets, going to nightclubs. The danger of so many people converging on so few nightspots at the same time is that there could be much conflict. Therefore, it is important that the door supervisors or bouncers are well trained and able to take care of people who may be unable to take care of themselves. The extent of movement of people at that time of night causes tremendous problems for the Garda.
Debate adjourned.