Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 1999

Vol. 512 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Private Security Services Bill, 1999: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Acting Chairman

Deputy Killeen is in possession and he has 26 minutes remaining.

I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy O'Flynn and Deputy Power.

A Bill of this kind needs to be put to the House – the Minister is also of that view. When Deputy Farrelly first submitted his proposals the Minister expressed his appreciation of his work in preparing and presenting his earlier Bill. He said he would introduce his proposals following a study of the final report of the consultative group on the private security industry and he will shortly present a Bill to the Government. The House will be aware of his views on this Private Members' Bill. I support his approach. We cannot afford to rush into legislation when dealing with such a complex issue. It must be addressed with extreme caution because it is a legal minefield.

Every Deputy supports the concept of security industry regulation, which is needed. Last year I spoke of the watchmen of the far off days of my youth. They were invariably elderly and spent their time guarding sites, sitting around open fires burning waste or scrap timber. In those days we needed only token security, but times have changed and security is now undertaken by approximately 400 companies employing more than 10,000 personnel. I understand the industry has an annual turnover of £200 million. In this context the Bill does not adequately address the regulation of security in today's Ireland.

The Deputy should read the Bill.

In drafting a new Bill we must study and take account of EU standards in the area of security and the proposals of the report of the consultative group should be included. This body has emphasised the needs for rigorous standards in the private security services. It states that all companies must be registered; its report concludes that voluntary registration will not suffice. It recommends the establishment of a statutory body, to be called the Irish Statutory Security Authority, which must deal with licences. The new authority's management operation structure should embody a chief executive, chief inspector and an inspectorate and it must put in place a mechanism dealing with fitness to practice, complaints and appeals procedures and training and education of those employed in the industry.

I have seen the effectiveness of a properly controlled and managed security system and I met with all local and interested parties during my official visit to Glasgow on behalf of Cork Corporation to consider the problem of street drinking and its related security problems. I saw the private security guidelines and observed the security personnel in action. In Glasgow the training of those who control the point of entry to any establishment must be set to the most exacting standards. The stewards must be advised on the guidelines that operate in the event of the denial of the right of admission to persons. They must also be responsive to complaints from the public and observe all the legal constraints in a situation where they are forced to eject a patron from a premises. They should note out of the ordinary events on the premises each night and any accidents that occur should always be entered in an accident report book. This must specify the actions taken by management and staff following an accident.

This whole area is wide open to litigation. This aspect, and the many others in Glasgow covered by the code of conduct operative there, should also be covered in detail in a Bill dealing with private security services for this country.

There must also be a strong regulatory framework for the private security industry. In certain quarters it is the practice to employ untrained and unsuitable bouncers to throw people out of establishments. They are paid under the counter and there is often no investigation of their background prior to their employment, except the casual word of mouth recommendation from a mutual acquaintance. Their fitness to enforce security is usually based on their large physical dimensions. That is not good enough. It is not the type of security regulation I want to see apply in this country, which must follow the views of those who expended so much time and effort in compiling and presenting the consultative report. This document outlines the framework for an industry working to the high standard of some of the most professional and respected companies in the world. Under the new regulations the industry will continue to grow and expand.

I do not support the Bill, rather I support the Minister's approach. I understand he will present a Bill to the House within the next six months. However, I thank the Deputy for the time and effort he has expended on the preparation of this Bill. I am sure he will be happy to accept the Minister's Bill when it is introduced.

On the last occasion this was debated the Minister said he would introduce a Bill, but he has not yet produced it.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has processed a huge volume of legislation. The Minister has rightly had to prioritise it.

Recently a bouncer was found guilty for injuring a person he threw out of a disco. Does the Deputy want more such cases?

I acknowledge Deputy Farrelly's efforts in producing this Bill. It is his second time to introduce a Bill to the House. I know he is disappointed in view of the fact that a commitment was made to introduce a Government Bill. Unfortunately it is not ready, but the Minister explained the reason for the delay. He is two and a half years in office and in that time he has introduced 24 Bills which are now on the Statute Book. In addition, there are 12 Bills before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The increase in the number employed in the security industry indicates the extent of the changes taking place in the country. We all recognise the necessity to regulate the industry. It has operated under its own code of practice, but given some of the bad experiences that have been highlighted, it is necessary to regulate the industry as soon as possible. The Minister has said this is a priority and has indicated that legislation will be introduced next year.

The bad people in the industry get all the publicity. Little is said about the good people who are involved. In many cases they use it to provide them with a second job to enable them cope with the cost of living.

Most of the people in the industry mean well, but the lack of training must be tackled. Emphasis must be placed on this aspect when we legis late to put the industry on a proper footing because it is important that standards are improved. The issue of licensing is also very important and the Minister outlined his position on this aspect last night. A transparent complaints procedure needs to be established.

The Minister said that the establishment of a State licensing and regulatory authority for the private security industry would entail a cost on the Exchequer. It should be kept to a minimum. We should try to establish a self-financing authority. The industry is growing and we do not wish to give licences to unsuitable people. We should put the industry on a sound footing and establish a strict vetting procedure for applicants so that only people of good character are given licences. It is also important to establish a follow-up mechanism so that licensees are reviewed on a yearly or two yearly basis.

The previous speaker mentioned bouncers. The word "bouncer" leaves much to be desired. We have experience of doormen who look more like full-backs on a Meath football team. We would like to get away from that image.

Meath footballers tried and they failed.

Meath full-backs do not fail too often.

Poor Mick O'Dwyer was too soft for them.

I am sure Members are agreed on the way we should proceed. We realise that developments have taken place and that change is necessary. The Minister outlined the shortcomings in his budget to Deputy Farrelly last night.

That was Deputy McCreevy's budget, not the Minister's.

History was made today because Santa Claus has come twice in eight days. I know the people will appreciate that and I hope the Opposition appreciates it.

Santa Claus would need to come back again; he did not satisfy everybody when he came back today.

I am reluctant to talk about budgets, successful or otherwise, with a Fine Gael Deputy from County Meath. Their history is not good in that respect. At the next election we will be well able to face the public and defend our Minister for Finance.

I thank Deputy Farrelly for his initiative. I assure him the matter is in safe hands and the industry will be well regulated by this time next year.

I welcome the debate on this topic, although this is the second time we have debated it in the past few months. The industry and its needs are constantly changing. Security personnel are employed in many areas such as industrial premises, hotels and shops. This is an indication of the way society is developing. There are almost 10,000 people in the industry which has a turnover of £200 million. These figures are under-estimations because apart from what is reported, I am sure many premises employ their own security personnel. There is a need for an ongoing comprehensive review of what is happening before we enact legislation.

In line with this legislation we should examine developments in close circuit TV. I hope to outline some of the issues presented to us by close circuit TV in the context of security. While walking through a street near here in the past few days I noticed the number of security people employed during the day at the doors of business premises to keep a watchful eye on what is happening in the premises and on the street. At night, the numbers increase significantly. While this has long been the case in Dublin, almost every business premises in urban centres throughout the country employs security personnel day and night. This is an indication of the development of our society and we need to reflect this change in whatever legislation we put forward. I suggest that the Department consult the industry on the use of CC TV in urban centres. A recent incident in Thurles which involved one of our Kilkenny GAA stars was well reported nationally. The use of cameras on the street on that occasion would have delivered a good deal of information to the gardaí. Collaboration between the security industry, businesses in the town and the gardaí would have revealed much more.

Recently in Carlow, which is a growing urban centre, a teenager was beaten to within inches of his life. These incidents reflect some of the issues that face in the security business. In Kilkenny recently, a young man who was walking the high street was beaten about the head with a bottle and received 50 stitches in his face. This was a most aggressive and unprovoked attack on a young man. In these cases a combination of CCTV, the gardaí and the chambers of commerce, all of whom have a vested interest in the proper running of urban centres, would be very useful. The Department should reach out, understand what is happening in urban centres and try to assist them in providing the technology to track down criminals and vandals and reduce the level of crime.

A programme shown on television last Monday night gave a clear indication of the very positive use of such a system in Dublin. We are now extending fibre optic cable throughout the country and this cable can be linked to the various cameras that are now available and close circuit TV systems put in place quite cheaply. In reviewing the private security industry, the Department should take account of recent tech nology and perhaps grant aid local authorities to provide such systems.

One might ask what this has to do with the private security industry. Security people are employed at many outlets such as take-away chip shops or chain stores. Surely a combination of CCTV and security personnel, monitored by local authorities, would provide a security system in our main urban centres which would deliver the type of information required to combat serious crime. That must be done sooner or later, probably in the context of this review of the private security industry.

There is also a need for training. The examination of this industry should take account of training and how to develop the concept of policing our cities and villages. With regard to the training aspect, the people involved in private security can participate with the Garda and the local authorities in the provision of such training and strengthen the security process throughout the country.

I am glad to contribute to this important debate and I compliment Deputy Farrelly on bringing forward this Bill. The Deputy has long had an interest in this area.

The private security industry is an important section of our economy and society. Its growth is a reflection of the buoyancy of the economy. Obviously any new growing industry must be regulated on a sound footing. The Minister said last night that the Government is committed to the introduction of a proper, coherent and well thought out system of registration in this area. It is in the final stages of preparing such legislation and is committed to getting it right. That is the best way to secure the interests of employers and employees in the sector as well as society.

There is a need to ensure registration is introduced not on an ad hoc basis or as a knee-jerk reaction but on a sound statutory footing. The Government will have at its disposal the detailed and far-reaching inquiries of the consultative group on the private security industry and it is natural that its recommendations will form a large part of the Government's legislation. It is also necessary to examine the experience of Governments in other countries, such as Britain, Canada and Australia, in dealing with this important issue.

There are many interested parties whose views must be canvassed and taken on board in the legislation. There is the private security industry which employs an ever-growing number of people. The industry, like many others, is anxious to avoid too much regulation but it must see that the Government is fulfilling its role of legislating in the interests of the wider public. An integrated system of registration and licensing will separate the wheat from the chaff or the gamekeepers from the poachers. The vast majority of operators in the sector are legitimate but some are not.

The legislation could also safeguard the rights of employees of private security companies, some of whom suffer injury and trauma in pursuit of their duties but who are often left to deal with the impact of these problems on their own and at their own expense. The business sector is the biggest employer of private security firms. It is only natural that companies and individuals who have invested large amounts of capital in plant, equipment and premises should wish to safeguard their investment and, at the same time, the job security of their workforces.

Private security firms pose a threat to nobody but it is important that the sector should not be allowed to become a free for all where people, perhaps some with criminal backgrounds, can establish security firms and blacken the name of the industry. When a business or individual approaches such a firm they must be able to depend on the credentials of the company to provide the services of the gamekeeper rather than the poacher. Registration is in their best interest as they will be enabled to approach security firms with confidence. It is a nightmare for some companies working in areas which continue to be the focus of crime. They often do not know whether those whom they are employing are posing a threat to their own security. Employers of security firms allow access to their property to the employees of those firms. They must, therefore, be given help in being able to recognise who is a legitimate operator and who is not.

One of the most important interested parties in this area is the Garda Síochána. Private security is a sensitive matter for society and Government. What is involved is the handing over of the State's responsibility to guard and protect individuals and property? This can lead to a freeing up of Garda resources, but we cannot allow criminal elements to come in through the back door. Those who wear uniforms of any type must be of the best character. The Minister, in bringing forward legislation at an early date, will safeguard the interests of society.

(Mayo): I wish to share my time with Deputies Ulick Burke, Perry, Naughten and Hayes.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

(Mayo): I am appalled but not surprised that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform refused to allow this Bill to pass Second Stage. He refused to accept the spirit and thrust of the Bill and its basic direction in terms of his right to amend it on Committee Stage. The Minister's well worn excuse is always the same – his own legislation is in the pipeline or imminent and will be brought before the House in due course. It is the same story on this occasion.

It was the same story in the case of the Enforcement of Court Orders Bill which I brought before the House on 24 February 1999. Ten months later, despite the Minister's promise, there is still no sign of the legislation. The attach ment of earnings Bill which the Minister was due to bring forward and which would provide for the same objectives proposed in my Bill is not in sight. The net result is that 2,500 of the 10,000 people who pass through the Prisons Service every year are in jail for non-payment of fines and civil debts. It represents another broken promise by a Minister who is renowned for broken promises. What a waste of time, money and prison space. We are now told that the work is at a preliminary stage in the Department.

It was the same story with the Sexual Offenders Registration Bill prepared by my colleague, Deputy Neville. It was an excellent Bill. The Minister rejected it out of hand because the expert group's report on the law on sexual offences was awaited. He could not bring forward his Bill, he said, until he had that report. The Minister received the report in May 1998. We have had promise after promise, banner headline after banner headline, commitment after commitment but no sign of the Bill.

The expert group on the Prisons Service went further than preparing a report. It made matters easy for the Minister by producing not only an excellent report but also the heads of a Bill. The Minister would have had little work to do. However, there is no sign of a Bill and the chaos continues in the Prisons Service. It is another broken promise. Last night the Minister asked the House to believe that his Bill on the private security industry is imminent. Given his appalling track record of broken promises, we cannot be expected to believe him.

One of the reasons the Minister's commitments cannot be believed is that he has been sitting for two years on the consultative group's report on the private security industry. He received the group's report in December 1997. When it was published the Minister said he would give the report immediate and serious consideration. That was two years ago and still there is no sign of the Bill. In the interim, the Minister refused to accept the Door Supervisors Bill, 1998. His excuse then was that he was awaiting the crime forum report. He said he would immediately bring proposals to Government when he had that report. The crime forum reported in December 1998, but there is no sign of the legislation – another broken promise.

The same situation occurred with regard to the Intoxicating Liquor Act. A mere 30 minutes ago the Minister did another spectacular somersault on that issue.

If the Minister's refusal to accept Deputy Farrelly's Bill is examined, it will be seen that his only quibble with the Bill is that it does not embrace the recommendations of the expert group report. Did the Minister bother to read the report? Did he read Deputy Farrelly's Bill? Did he put the two side by side and examine them? If he did, he would see that the two documents match and mirror each other in almost every respect.

The report recommended the setting up of an Irish security authority. Section 3 of Deputy Farrelly's Bill does exactly that. It recommended that the authority advise the Minister on matters related to the industry. Section 23 of the Bill does exactly that. The report recommended that the authority issue licences and maintain a register. This is the core of Deputy Farrelly's Bill. It sets up a register, and sections 5 to 12 deal with the issuing of licences and certificates. What more does the Minister want? It recommended that the authority should be able to lay down training requirements and regulations governing qualifications. Sections 7 and 23 of Deputy Farrelly's Bill do exactly that. They set down predetermined standards and criteria for qualifications and training. The report recommended that the authority hold fitness to practise hearings and appeals. Deputy Farrelly's Bill goes further by setting up an independent security authority appeals board. It recommended that the authority publish an annual report. Section 23 obliges the authority to make such a report on the previous year's activities within six months. The report recommended that the authority conduct on-site inspections. If the Minister took the trouble to read Deputy Farrelly's Bill, he would see that section 20 enables any inspector appointed by the legislation or any member of the Garda Síochána to enter any place where private security services are provided.

Deputy Farrelly's Bill reproduces line by line, section by section, syllable by syllable and sentiment by sentiment the contents of the report of the consultative group which was presented to the Minister two years ago, on which he has sat and about which he has done nothing. Despite that, the Minister yesterday rejected Deputy Farrelly's Bill and indulged in his usual petty nit-picking and spurious arguments.

It is only a matter of time before people are killed as a result of excess force by unregulated, unsupervised and overly aggressive bouncers at discos and nightclubs. Deputy Farrelly and Deputy O'Sullivan outlined instances of barbaric aggression by bouncers which came to their notice. Four weeks ago I was approached by a friend of a young man of 19 years of age from Kerry who, although he was sober, was wrongly accused by bouncers of tipping cigarette ash from the balcony onto the dance floor of a disco. He had never been in the club previously. He was innocent and vehemently denied the accusation. Nonetheless he was taken outside and was so badly beaten, his spleen was ruptured. He has only recently been discharged from St. Vincent's Hospital.

When I arrived in Leinster House one morning of that same week, a former member of the Garda Síochána and a State driver was waiting for me and Deputy Kenny to tell us that his son had been wrongly accused by a bouncer the previous night, was pulled out of a disco and was beaten so badly that his head was split open. This is not a rarity nor is it a phenomenon of today or yesterday. It has been continuing unchecked and unchallenged for a long time. It occurs every night and it is getting worse.

Deputy Farrelly's Bill would control the situation by introducing a vetting regime to determine suitability, by introducing standards, training, controls and checks, and by putting the system on a properly structured and regulated basis. It would end or certainly curtail the unlicensed thuggery that has become the norm in the modern disco scene. It is a pity the Minister cannot find it within himself to show the magnanimity, let alone the common sense, to accept the Bill on Second Stage and address whatever small shortcomings there may be on Committee Stage.

Last week two armed raiders stole £250,000 from the AIB branch in Ballyfermot. Both are still at large. There is nothing to stop these raiders setting up their own private security operation because the situation is unregulated. Any ex-convict, bank robber or redundant paramilitary can buy a van, design a logo, don a uniform and call his operation a security firm. He can openly tout for business and the Garda can do nothing about it. The situation is wide open for exploitation, and that is happening. The Minister, by not accepting the Bill, is not only being petty but also irresponsible. The industry is crying out for regulation, more criteria, better standards and a proper structure.

I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on the work he has done on the Bill. It is disappointing the Minister has, for the second time, refused to accept the Bill while at the same time failing to bring alternative legislation before the House. There is an urgent need for legislation to register, control and supervise persons involved in the private security industry. There is no compulsory registration at present, only voluntary. There is no control as to who enters the industry, and supervision of people within the industry is negligible. Such a serious situation cannot be allowed to continue. It ill behoves the Minister to say, despite the fact that he has had the report on the security industry for two years, that he will now bring forward legislation. It is long overdue and he has been grossly negligent in this case.

The security service provides protection for a wide range of activities and in a wide range of areas, from the transportation of currency to the control of crowds at all occasions where people assemble. For that reason, there is a need for a great variety of skills to be included in the training of people who become involved in the security industry. As far back as May 1997 a consultative group was established and asked by the former Minister, Deputy Owen, to report on all issues relating to the regulation of the private security industry. It made a timely report in December 1997. Its recommendations included the necessity to establish a statutory body, to be known as the Irish Security Authority, to control and manage the licensing of systems for the industry. Each of the issues has been dealt with by Deputy Farrelly in his Bill, although one would have thought from listening to the Minister last night that they were all discarded and ignored.

There is a great need to professionalise the industry and to address certain problems within it. There is a greater need to level the playing pitch between reputable companies and the fly-by-night companies referred to by many speakers. It is this minority which has unfortunately given the industry a bad name. The activities of some operators leave much to be desired. Some operators think that, once they don a uniform, it empowers and enables them to act as they wish within and often outside the law. They frequently apply heavy-handed methods which lead to organised violence in the name of security. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. The Bill provides a mechanism for basic control of these shady operators within the industry. These small few companies are in the minority, so we should compliment the professionalism of the many people involved in reputable companies who provide a good service.

The membership of the consultative group indicates that all interest groups involved in the security industry, including Mr. Paul Flanagan of the Security Federation of Ireland, Mr. Brendan Neville of the Health and Safety Authority and a chief superintendent of the Garda, participated in the completion of the report. Ireland, Greece and the UK are the only countries in the EU which do not statutorily regulate the private security industry. Over the past few decades it has been a major growth area. Is this because there is a declining number of gardaí relative to the growth in population, the growth in the value of property and the need for protection of property and industry? It is obvious that there is an increasing number of social events.

There is a great need for training which has been obviously absent from the industry to date. People must be trained and those involved in the industry must be licensed. Unfortunately, the absence of licensing has led to unsuitable people getting involved, often in the black economy, which has led to a tendering process where the cheapest tender will win on the day. This is why very often there are undesirable people involved in the industry. Recently a young person working in the security industry lost his life in Galway because of the conditions in which he worked and which prevail in so many other areas throughout the country. It is believed he was gassed because he had no heat in his place of work. This was a tragedy but similar events have occurred all too frequently.

As far back as 1997 there was a recommendation that the licensing of private security groups was necessary. I compliment Deputy Farrelly on bringing forward this very important Bill and I appeal to the Minister to accept it. Licensing would apply to security company directors and their beneficial owners as well as individuals. Applicants would be required to obtain clearance from the Garda and in certain cases complete mandatory training according to the conclusions of the consultative group.

The group, which included representatives of both unions and employers, estimated that about 20,000 licences could be issued. It is estimated that 11,000 are employed in Ireland's private security industry with a further 10,000 providing door security for social venues and pubs. It is a very important industry and it is unbelievable that nothing has been done since 1997, that there is no regulation of security costs which can be quite prohibitive and that people can join the business without regulation.

The issue of taxation breaks for businesses installing their own security should also be examined. There can be a huge cost factor associated with installing private security cameras, including in-store camera systems which can cost up to £10,000, and alarm systems. Currently there are no capital allowances or tax breaks to encourage business people to install their own security.

I note that this year a voluntary standard, the IS99, was launched in Dublin by the National Standards Authority. It deals with all aspects of the private security business, which is currently self-regulated, including vetting and training of security personnel. The aim of self-regulation is to improve the quality of services thus enhancing the image of the industry. The IS99 is the third voluntary standard for the private security industry. The previous two standards were the IS199 and the IS228 which relate to intruder alarms and alarm monitoring stations.

It is amazing how easily people can get £25,000 or £30,000, buy a van, put on a uniform and badge and get away with promoting a service. It is a huge business in the context of crime, with people having keys to properties overnight. With the growth in the economy security is very important in many areas, including the licensed trade and shopping centres.

The Bill is very well put together, with sections dealing with certification of registration, conditions attaching to registration, the surrender of a certificate of registration, the non-transferability of certificates and the establishment of a security appeal board. All of these important aspects should be part of a Bill providing for regulation. The fact that there are 300 companies operating in a self-regulatory environment indicates the abuse which exists, the scale of the problem and how necessary is regulation. I am certain that if proper regulation and controls were introduced there would only be a fraction of that number of companies.

The Minister has been sitting on the report since June 1997. He has made several promises but has not introduced legislation. Much thought has gone into this very detailed Bill. As Deputy Farrelly said, if amendments are necessary they could be tabled. It is very disappointing and regrettable that the Minister has refused to accept the Bill, given that over a year and a half ago he gave a commitment that he would accept it.

I compliment Deputy Farrelly on introducing the Bill. I wish to concentrate on one element of the private security industry, namely, that of bouncers or door supervisors. This aspect of the entertainment industry has been neglected by the Legislature for many years. Many bouncers whom I know personally do an excellent job, but as a young person who frequents nightclubs and late night pubs, and from talking to other young people, I am only too aware of the inadequacies in the current system. There are many hair raising stories of young people being treated as human punchbags, 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.

Another problem concerns bouncers dealing in drugs. While it is a small problem in the overall security industry, it does exist. Many bouncers allow dealers into nightclubs. Water is turned off in the clubs and young people are forced to buy water. Ecstasy tablets are being passed around nightclubs like smarties in some locations. The Garda know about these places, but it is extremely difficult to clamp down on them as they must have evidence. I do not believe the security industry is facilitating the Garda and ensuring that nightclubs are properly controlled.

Under-age drinking is as serious a problem as drug abuse. Bouncers allow under-age people into nightclubs; young people under the age of 18 years are not supposed to be even on the premises of pubs or nightclubs which have extensions. The law is not being enforced. The duty of bouncers is to maintain law and order, to protect customers and keep discos free from troublemakers. Young people need the protection of the Bill to avoid such abuses of power.

The legislation will also be of benefit to publicans and nightclub owners who in the past faced a guessing game in relation to the recruitment of doormen – it was like buying a pig in a poke. Often he does not know what sort of person he is employing, especially in built up areas, as there is no register. There are no controls at present. It encourages vigilantism. A sex offender could be a bouncer and could use that position for his or her gain. There is unlicenced thuggery. Not a weekend passes but some young person ends up in hospital as a result of being abused by a bouncer. This area must be regulated and a training scheme needs to be introduced. A training course for doormen working in licensed premises was set up in Scotland. Members of the police force, fire brigade and other professionals are brought together for training.

An incident occurred in my local town recently outside a fast food outlet. An individual was robbed and beaten about the face. A bouncer was not directly involved but was standing nearby in a doorway and did not think of contacting the gardaí. The young individual had left those premises. There is an onus on the bouncer to ensure law and order is maintained. That incident should have been reported to the Garda. The 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 seriously consider this legislation. How long more do we have to wait for this shady area to be regulated? We are talking about 10,000 door supervisors, many of them on ego trips and abusing their powers. Deputy Farrelly introduced the Door Supervisors Bill in March 1998. Two years ago we had the private security industry report but we have seen nothing since. The Minister is reneging on the commitment he gave and I urge him to accept the Bill even at this late stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hayes

As I listen to the debate I realise how important is this area. The cornerstone of any democracy is the ability of a civilian police force to enforce the law that is passed through these Houses. It is to the great credit of our Republic that since the State was established An Garda Síochana has performed that role superbly, often in difficult and intolerable circumstances. It occurred to me listening to colleagues on both sides that it is profoundly dangerous, as Deputy Naughten has just described, that 10,000 people are now attempting to act as enforcement officers in various parts of industry, particularly the private security industry, and that an unregulated, non-appointed, unaccountable group of people should be entitled to do so. As we know to our cost, where gaps emerge in security, protection and law enforcement, there is an unelected group of people prepared to fill it with vigilantism and the rise of their own security industry and accountability. It is profoundly dangerous that this be allowed to continue. In a sense the authority of the Garda is being permanently questioned on the streets as a result of the mushrooming of the security industry which we have seen in recent years.

I say to the Minister and particularly the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the route offered by Deputy Farrelly in the Private Security Services Bill, 1999, may not be the ultimate solution to this problem but, at the very least, the principle behind the Bill should be accepted on Second Stage. The Minister knows that in a previous Administration her Private Members' Bill was accepted by the Rainbow Government. The Government is very foolish on this occasion not to use Private Members' time to accept reforming legislation which ordinarily may not be introduced in the course of the daily business of the House.

We see too many examples of reforming legislation coming from the Opposition benches being automatically voted down irrespective its merits. The Government should accept the principle behind the Bill. I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on introducing the Bill, albeit in a new form from the Door Supervisors Bill. If there are fundamental amendments the Government wishes to press, that is why we have Committee Stage. It does not help the workings of the House or the role of the 166 Members if on every occasion, particularly where the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is concerned, a Bill is ignominiously voted down because it is an Opposition measure. It is not the way to do parliamentary business and it undermines the importance and contribution that every Member can make to reforming legislation that needs to be introduced from time to time.

There is no doubt but that the area of private security is an expanding field and it is long past time when the industry should have been properly regulated. It is obvious that those involved will not or cannot do it themselves. Reluctantly I agree that the State must step in and impose acceptable standards in this very public area of our lives.

While I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on bringing in this measure and on the attempt he is making to try to regulate this area, nevertheless, he has not covered enough ground in his proposals and we should await the Bill that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will introduce. That will go much further in its provisions and will, by virtue of the resources at his disposal, be better researched. However, this Bill will initiate a very important debate and will lay valuable groundwork for the proposals ahead.

The report of the consultative group on the private security industry in late 1997 recommended that a statutory body be set up to regulate the industry. I wholeheartedly agree with that. The use of private security has grown immeasurably over the past 20 years and covers four main areas – security in pubs, night clubs and other areas of entertainment, that is, the traditional bouncer; night and day security at factory premises, possibly involving the use of vicious dogs; security at the doors of streetside shops, a practice that is now widespread in our cities and security provided for visiting show business stars and wealthy business people. The common denominator between all these different elements, and by its nature the very basis of the industry, is the interaction between its employees and the general public. The industry needs to ensure that people employed in it are physically and mentally suited to the business, well trained and have a proper understanding of, and approach to, the sensitive task of dealing with people. Airlines, large stores and industries where good public relations are essential do not lightly spend vast sums of money training their front line workers to deal with the public effectively, efficiently and with sensitivity.

Stories are legion about how strong arm tactics, verbal abuse and near criminal assault are used in moderately difficult circumstances. Those who practise such tactics give the industry a bad name. One man said to me recently that it is difficult to take pride in the job if the people you have to restrain one day or summon the Garda to deal with can be your working colleagues the following day. Careful recruitment, proper training and effective supervision together with mandatory vetting by the Garda will overcome these problems. As the industry is still evolving, it is perceived to be a cowboy business populated by fly by night operators. Very often that is far from the truth. The main purpose of this or the Minister's Bill should be to see this employment emerge as a bona fide business with rules, regulations, guidelines and safeguards built in. I know that those in the security industry who take the long-term view will welcome the initiative of a regulatory body which will raise standards and bring the business out of the black economy where much of it is conducted. Conversely, it is not all roses for the security people either, and they have to be able to practise restraint in their daily routine. They have great frustrations to endure, not least seeing a drug addict whom they have perhaps dragged from a toilet with a needle hanging from his arm back on the street in an inordinately short time having been dealt with leniently by the courts. Very often, security people have the same responsibilities and perform the same tasks as the gardaí but they do not have the training, back-up or legal protections enjoyed by our police force.

I know a man in the industry who does very good work in his community giving lessons in self-defence and visiting schools to share his experience and expertise with young people. He wants the profile of the industry lifted, the rogue operators rooted out and the reputation of private security enhanced by the development of high standards. He is seeking proper training for security people and it would be important that those licensed to give that training are competent and have a good track record in their employment. Other activities and businesses which started in the black economy have now come of age and are properly accepted and respected. There is no reason the security industry cannot do that too.

I congratulate Deputy Farrelly in bringing forward the Bill but it is more prudent to wait for the more comprehensive measure that will come forward from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

There is no doubt from listening to the various contributions of Members on the Bill that all sides of the House have a shared interest in a proper regulatory framework being put in place for the private security industry. The basis for that framework is contained in the recommendations of the Report of the Consultative Group on the Private Security Industry which concluded that further scope for voluntary regulation of the industry has been exhausted and recommended that a statutory body should be established to introduce, control and manage a comprehensive licensing system for the industry.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in indicating his intention to the House last night not to accept the Bill genuinely brought forward by Deputy Farrelly, is not seeking in any way to ignore the efforts of the Deputy to put in place a legislative code for the industry because those intentions are well known. Deputy Farrelly's contribution in the House last night and the contributions of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and others will make a valuable contribution to the debate in this area and will help in the finalisation of the Minister's proposals which are due to go to Government shortly.

I would reiterate, however, as the Minister did last night, that the Government is committed to bringing forward its own Bill to provide the sound legal framework necessary for the private security industry to develop its potential and continue to make an important contribution, both in terms of employment and services provided, to our economic development.

It must be said that the issues to be dealt with in providing this proposed new legal framework do not lend themselves to the acceptance of this Bill and to introducing the necessary amendments on Committee Stage. As legislation to regulate the private security industry will have important consequences, providing as it will for the regulation of an industry with some 400 companies and some 20,000 potential licensees, there is a need to deal in a more comprehensive manner with the issues and recommendations contained in the report of the consultative group and, in so doing, to remedy some of the deficiencies raised in the debate and the concerns with regard to some aspects that need to be clarified.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has core responsibility for any statutory change aimed at the regulation of the private security industry. This is not an easy task nor one which will be undertaken lightly. It is therefore incumbent on him to ensure that any changes introduced in this area are on a sound footing. Any provisions dealing with access to employment, in particular, will raise significant constitutional issues affecting the fundamental rights of individuals and the right to earn a living.

In framing legislation of this nature account must be taken of the fact that because public money will be involved, there will be a need to specify more clearly the functions of the proposed regulatory authority. There will also be a need to provide a sound legal basis for the introduction of a system of vetting for licence applicants both at the stage of the original licence application being made to a regulatory authority and when licences are being renewed by the authority. Provision will also have to be included to require a licensee to report any criminal convictions between the time a licence is issued and the time it is due for renewal. The criteria for eligibility for licences both at initial application and renewal stages will have to be more clearly set out so that licence applicants and licensees know exactly what requirements must be fulfilled to enable the authority to approve their applications. More transparent provisions dealing with complaints and fitness to practise will also need to be provided.

As mentioned by both Deputy Farrelly and the Minister last night, there will need to be considerable scope for the making of regulations so that the expertise and views of the experts in the private security industry can be taken on board in relation to such issues as the setting of minimum training, education and other standards. Regulations will also have to deal with procedures for complaints, for example, and allow for the possibility of bringing new areas of the industry within the licensing framework. The legislation will also need to be specific as to what powers the Minister can have to make those regulations.

The whole management and operational structure of the proposed authority will need to be better thought through both from the point of view of efficiency and cost effectiveness so as to enable it to take a more strategic approach to its operation. This will probably involve a significant role for a chief executive who will lead the organisation and ensure, in consultation with the board of the authority, that the functions of the body are properly carried out, that fee income is collected and that proper liaison is maintained with relevant interests about key issues affecting the development of the industry. This will also probably involve an important role for an inspectorate with powers to ensure that complaints are properly investigated and that the provisions of the legislation are properly complied with and enforced.

In addition, the whole question of providing for the licensing of security companies, which is a key recommendation in the report of the consultative group and which is not provided for in the Bill before us tonight, will have to be addressed. As the Minister also mentioned last night, the consultative group suggested that company licences should only be issued after rigorous checks of applications, including the provision of tax clearance certificates, and that such licences would be reviewed by the authority every two years or whenever there was a change, for example, in any of the directors of a company.

The introduction of a new regulatory framework for the private security industry will require the provision of Exchequer funding, particularly in the initial stage of the operation of the new regime until income from licence fees begins to be generated. It will continue to require detailed consultations on an ongoing basis with relevant interests in the industry, between Departments, the Garda Síochána and with the Office of the Attorney General on the legal and constitutional aspects involved. All of this will have to happen on an ongoing basis at least until the various regulations which will be required are finalised and signed into law.

As the Minister assured the House last night and on previous occasions, the Government has decided that a scheme of a Bill should be prepared to give effect to the recommendations in the report of the consultative group. That scheme, which the Minister intends to submit to Government, will be circulated to Departments shortly. There already has been a good deal of consultation on the Bill, both by the departmental officials and by the Minister. That process is a necessary one in the finalisation of matters that go before Government.

The Government, in bringing forward its own Bill, does not intend to impose any one regulatory solution on the private security industry. The report of the consultative group was drawn up in a spirit of partnership and co-operation between all sides in the industry. As the Minister already promised various interests in the industry when he met with them recently, both he and his Department will maintain ongoing contact with all sides of the industry, employers and unions alike, with a view to consulting them on key aspects of the legislation and on progress generally. The Government's legislation will be primarily based on the recommendations of the consultative group which already enjoy the support of the all sides of the industry. Best practice in other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, all of which have well developed codes for the regulation of their private security industries – some going as far back as the mid 1970s, has also been taken into account in finalising the Government's Bill. There will also be a need for consultation with the industry in drawing up the many important regulations referred to by both Deputy Farrelly and the Minister last night and which will require to be made once the Bill is enacted.

The consultation has already been carried out.

I acknowledge Deputy Farrelly's genuine interest and concern in the provision of legislation in this important area. I am aware of his long-standing interest in the issue. I recall that when I was in Opposition my Bill on disability was accepted by the then Government. However, the situation is different in this instance due to the advanced stage of work on the Minister's Bill.

When the Government Bill is in place and the various regulations under it are made, we should then have a significant code of law which will provide a comprehensive framework for the development of the private security industry in Ireland well into the new millennium. As is the case with other major Bills which the Minister has introduced, his Bill on the private security industry will honour the commitments set out in the Government's legislative programme. I reiterate that a great deal of work has been undertaken in the Department on the preparation of the scheme of the Minister's comprehensive Bill. That scheme will be circulated in the near future and it is intended that the heads of the Bill will be brought to Government without delay.

I wish to share time with Deputies Belton, Farrelly and Fitzgerald.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I compliment Deputy Farrelly on this Bill and the work he has put into it. The introduction of this Bill recognises the growth in the provision of private security services. It is reasonable that the State would control such a sensitive industry. People need to be able to engage security services in the confidence that those whom they employ are of good character and have the necessary competence to deliver the service. Members of the public who may interface with aspects of the industry are entitled to be confident that they are meeting people of good character who are trained to deliver the service in an even handed manner which respects the rights of the individual.

Unfortunately, the security industry has the reputation of being home to some unsavoury people, in spite of the attempts of the main players to train personnel to the highest standards. This Bill would assist the industry's leaders to achieve their aims and would also assist the Garda in its work. It is an unfortunate fact of city life that security personnel must be deployed on almost all public house doors each evening and that shops are constantly patrolled by security staff. If the need exists for such control, we must also ensure that the controllers are controlled.

It is reasonable to expect that people engaged in security work would be competent and of good character and that they would be trained on how to discharge their functions. The public must be assured they are not dealing with the front men of criminal gangs but are supported by recognisable, licensed operators. The proposed composition of the security authority is such as to provide that confidence and to move the industry away from its back alley image. The Minister should accept this Bill.

I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on introducing this legislation. There is scarcely anyone in the country, with the exception of the Minister, who does not feel this legislation is necessary. That is amazing. We are hearing how necessary the legislation is from the Government side tonight. If it is so necessary, why has the Government not done anything about it? Two years ago, members of the Government stated that something would be done to address this issue. Deputy Farrelly has done something about it.

Time after time, we hear criticisms that the politicians who come into this House are mere messenger boys or girls. Deputy Farrelly is a legislator, yet he gets the thumbs down from the Government. His Bill is being turned down and that is disgraceful. Deputy Farrelly has introduced a perfect Bill, for which there is a very urgent need.

Day after day and weekend after weekend, we hear and read reports of disorder on our streets. The Garda can only do so much. I attended a meeting in recent weeks with high level Garda authorities and order on our streets was one of the key issues discussed. Maintaining order is not a job which can be dealt with by novices or people who do not understand what they are doing. In many cases, lives have been lost in public disorder situations. This Bill would address the issue in a proper manner and would provide, by statute, that all operators would have to abide by certain regulations.

The Government said no to this Bill. The Government said no last week too but said yes this week. We saw people marching out onto the plinth one after the other and marching back in again. The Minister was in the House earlier for the debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill and we witnessed a further U-turn. Perhaps if Deputy Healy-Rae were backing this Bill, it might get through. I am very disappointed by the non-performance of the Minister and the Government in regard to this Bill. Deputy Farrelly put down the ball and the Government walked off the field.

It is difficult to sum up the problem more succinctly than Deputy Belton has done. I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on the introduction of this much needed and comprehensive Bill which should have been accepted by the Government. It reflects very poorly on the Government that it did not accept it. The Bill could have been taken into committee immediately and if it were felt that amendments were required, they could have been put to the committee.

Many people will be surprised to find out that this industry is as unregulated as it is. It is clear that we should follow the lead of all other European countries. We should be providing the framework of registration, licensing, standard setting and training which Deputy Farrelly has outlined so comprehensively in this Bill. Any parent in this city would absolutely want to see this type of regulation put in place for the security industry. When children go to discos, parents rely on the door staff and function organisers to set proper standards, take care of the people on their premises and ensure that if something does go wrong, it is dealt with.

If we do not put in place this type of regulatory framework, we will not be addressing public order issues or ensuring the safety of citizens. We must move this industry on from the informal part of the economy it occupies to a more formal arrangement. The recommendations of the working group have been incorporated into this Bill by Deputy Farrelly; it is not correct to say other wise. Why else would the Bill receive the comprehensive support of the security industry? This is a comprehensive Bill which deals with the issues, outlines a framework for the advancement of the industry and the provision of better public order, safety and security for all our citizens. The Government should accept the Bill and not put it to a vote. It should have put it into Committee and ensured it was on the Statute Book. I wonder when it will come back to the House for it to consider it again. It will probably be a long time. It is a missed opportunity to deal with this aspect of our State which is completely unregulated.

I thank Deputies Stanton, Boylan, O'Sullivan, Killeen, O'Flynn, Power, Smith, McGuinness, Higgins, Burke, Perry, Naughten, Hayes, Kenneally, Cosgrave, Belton and Fitzgerald and the Minister and Minister of State who contributed to this debate. It is regrettable that the Minister came into the House and mentioned nine items in relation to the regulations and the consultative group which I did not properly address in the Bill. He said the functions of an authority are not clearly set out in the Deputy's Bill. That could not be further from the truth. It leads me to believe that neither the Minister nor Minister of State, because she reiterated what the Minister said last night, read the Bill. I can safely say neither of them read the Bill.

The Minister told us he was at an advanced stage of dealing with this issue in the Department. That is not the case because the Security Federation of Ireland was not invited to the Department for the past three months until this Bill was about to come up in the House. It was promised it would be invited in to deal with the issues which the Minister and Minister of State mentioned.

What have I been trying to do for four and a half years? A taxi man saw a young chap coming out of a nightclub and being beaten for no reason. That was when this process started four years ago. I supported a call to licence the industry and within an hour of going on the Pat Kenny radio show I got 18 or 20 telephone calls in support of that. I was also contacted by four mothers whose sons had been abused by doormen in clubs in different parts of the country. The bouncers or doormen were taking cases against the individuals. I put them in touch with a senior counsel in this city and he won all four cases. It proved that these guys thought they could get away with anything.

Many Members mentioned the fear and pressure under which our young people are being put. I said last year and again last night that young people are going to nightclubs in which some of these individuals are allowing drugs to be peddled. That is disgraceful. Nothing has happened in the two years since we first tried to regulate the industry and tried to introduce a Bill. The Minister said he would introduce a Bill shortly but how soon is "shortly"? I would be happy if the Minister introduced a Bill to regulate the industry, protect young people and to take the INLA out of this business.

The Minister knows from information from people in his Department and from the Garda that the INLA is up to its ears in abusing, selling and pushing drugs, especially in this city. I have been reliably informed that something serious will happen over Christmas. I warn the Minister that he and the Garda would want to take care of things that might happen in this city. From the information supplied to the Minister and as a result of the gang war which took place a few weeks ago, I have no doubt that will be repeated because people will want to get even and innocent people will be hurt.

The Security Federation of Ireland has been extremely supportive. Since I introduced the Door Supervisors Bill, 1998, it has accepted what the Minister said that the Bill at that time did not go far enough, was not broad enough and did not cover the industry. On 23 and 24 March 1998, the federation and the Minister said it was not wide enough and that we need to include everybody. The Minister said he would introduce a Bill by the end of last year but that did not happen. We negotiated with all those people and got them to accept the fact that the Security Federation of Ireland would have to accept, if we are going to regulate this industry, that door supervisors had to be included.

The Minister said I did not include the licensing of companies and that they were doing this in England. The information is that they do not want companies to be responsible but for the individual to be responsible for the people he or she employs. They do not want a limited company to be responsible. The individual who owns the company must be licensed. The Security Federation of Ireland has gone against the proposals in that regard. I am sure the Minister's advisers who would have been in contact with these people – although not often enough – over the past year would have accepted that there is a sea-change in that area because they want to ensure the buck stops with the individual.

Not accepting this Bill is unjust to the thousands of people who will need to be protected over the next month and year. I have a little sympathy for the Minister because justice and equality and law reform should not be covered under one Department. Backbenchers have said there are 13 Bills with the Minister's Department and 25 on the Order Paper. It is obvious that the real issues cannot be dealt with. As regards the prioritisation of this issue, it is obvious the Minister has had no interest in it over the past year and a half. If he was interested, legislation would have been introduced long ago.

How many staff in the Minister's Department, if any, have done anything on this issue? The Taoiseach informed us on a few occasions recently that heads of a Bill have been accepted or are being prepared. If the Minister is that stuck, I would be willing to allow him put his name to this Bill and to get it into Committee. The Minister said amendments would be needed, changes would have to be made and that a number of issues were not included in the Bill. His colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, tabled not one or two but 100 amendments to the Planning and Development Bill in the Seanad.

He will table more when it comes to the Dáil.

He will certainly table another 100 amendments here. It would have saved the Minister's officials an enormous amount of work and effort if he had accepted this Bill. We got senior counsel advice to deal with the constitutional issues.

I wonder were the two Ministers from my constituency at work because they did not want the credit for a Private Members' Bill to go to a Member from their constituency? I pose the question because I would not put it past them.

The Deputy must hold them in very high regard.

If I had Deputy Healy-Rae I would be flying.

Question put.

Ahearn, Theresa.Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.

Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.

de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom. Lenihan, Brian.

Níl–continued

Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.

O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Sheehan and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share