Deputy Crawford was in possession and he has 20 minutes remaining.
Private Security Services Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important legislation which was proposed by former Deputy Farrelly. The Bill gives effect to the principal recommendations contained in the report of the consultative group on the private security industry which was published in December 1997. It is typical of the Government that a report published by a committee five years ago is only now being dealt with. On numerous occasions Deputy Farrelly asked that this issue be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Unfortunately, since his request to have it dealt with, some serious incidents involving bouncers at night clubs and other similar situations have occurred. It is sad that security is a necessity and that door supervisors are required not just at night clubs and pubs. I welcome the Bill in the context that if we must have a security industry it must be supervised.
Are all our security firms insured? The five year gestation of this Bill reminds me of the five year committee that sat on insurance. It is vital that insurance is covered in the Bill. The Bill recommends training for all door persons, or bouncers. That is essential, but is the individual licence the same as that for a security company? How can we make sure these people are of a reputable background, of sound mind, can work under the strain of the job and can act responsibly in that situation? I know many of these people are good people but only a few bad apples are needed to cause problems. If we are to implement this Bill, we must ensure that all the security personnel with whom young people and others will come in contact are of sound character and are trained to do a proper job. People have been injured and have had to go to hospital and some have even died as a result of security incidents. This situation must be examined from every side.
We need to look at the issues of late opening hours, fast food outlets and super pubs in our cities and country towns. Off-licences and supermarkets make drink available and people of all ages are free to get alcohol. We must deal with the whole drink culture. It is not covered in this Bill but it is the culture that gives rise to the need for security. The drink culture is worse than the drug culture. Often they are linked but alcohol is consumed at births, baptisms, first communions, 18th and 21st birthday parties, weddings and funerals. There always seems to be a reason groups finish up in the pub, club or hotel. We are a long way from the family tradition where these events would have been celebrated in the home, although thankfully in some rural areas there are still halls and community centres that facilitate these functions. The sooner we gear towards that form of celebration the better.
We need to deal with the drink culture. A local chamber of commerce and town commission sent a resolution to me recently. They were making a cry for help as to how to contain the people leav ing clubs and pubs and going to take-aways, causing mayhem in the streets at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. Some of the newer take-aways, chip shops and restaurants are tied down with legislation from the planning authorities. Surely, if necessary, we can implement legislation that can take away some of those rights that are being abused and that have built up over the years.
We only need to read our week-end newspapers to see the difficulties being caused in towns, villages and cities around the country. People have died as a result of serious abuse of alcohol. While the implementation of the security Bill will maintain some regulation it will not deal with the issue of late night drinking, binge drinking or the availability of alcohol to the young. I spoke to a 16 year old who told me that she was probably the only one in her group who did not drink. It is not easy for that person. The situation where 12, 13, 14 or 15 year old children have such easy access to alcohol is desperate. This may not be relevant to the Bill but it is relevant to our culture and nature. I plead with the Minister to examine this issue.
Security personnel in black coats outside our shops, night clubs etc. are an indication of how the wealth of the Celtic tiger has brought problems. I want to be assured that the security people who work here can be certain that they are not up against groups coming from elsewhere, working below cost and undermining legitimate and properly organised groups. That is a danger. My constituency is close to the Border. Can we be certain in this age of mobile labour which can come from inside or outside the EU that companies from across the Border or elsewhere will be subject to the legislation? Will companies be bound by the law irrespective of whether they are based in the Republic?
I am reminded of builders who must compete with colleagues from other areas and who must meet various criteria. I remember a story about a builder in a Border town who was required to guarantee that his employees were legitimate and had paid their social insurance. One was found to have committed a slight misdemeanour which was settled with the inspector. On having done so, the builder inquired about another employer and the nature of his business. The inspector replied: "There's no point in going there." That is how bad matters were.
I want to ensure the same cannot be said of this legislation. I am not sure how it can be done but it is vital that if someone establishes a security firm, pays his taxes and meets all the licensing criteria, he is not up against rogue security firms and that firms providing a service at a realistic charge can be sure they will not go out of business because someone else does not meet the criteria.
Those employed by security firms should be monitored and controlled by whatever means. Some form of licensing should be in place to ensure their background and past is known not just to the company for which they work but also to a wider group, whether it be the board established by the legislation or another one. We have witnessed the trauma caused by sexual abuse which occurred because there was insufficient scrutiny and people were employed without their past being examined. It is vital that people's history is examined so that companies employing security firms are certain the personnel on the door or wherever else are beyond question.
I wish the Bill every success. The former Deputy, John Farrelly, had a great interest in this area when he was a Member of the House. He will want to see it passed and implemented as soon as possible. I hope when that happens the monitoring personnel are in place. I cannot help but recall the former Deputy, Michael O'Kennedy, who always reminded us that in 1989, as Minister for Agriculture, he rushed through legislation curtailing the use of meat and bonemeal in animal foodstuff to combat BSE. The problem was that neither he nor his successors until 1996, when the BSE problem hit us, put personnel in place to monitor the use of such meal in animal foodstuff.
A drink-driving law without the gardaí to enforce it is of no use, neither is a law dealing with animal foodstuff without agricultural officers to monitor it. We need to ensure sufficient personnel are in place so that when the Bill is passed, security companies will know they are monitored, that their licences will be demanded of them and that the system works. There is no point in our spending hours in the House initiating, debating and putting in place legislation unless the finance and personnel are in place to operate it.
I welcome the thrust of the Bill which provides for the establishment of the Private Security Authority to control and supervise individuals and firms providing security services. The main function of the authority will be to operate a licensing system for providers of such services to maintain and improve standards within the industry. The Bill gives effect to the principal recommendations of the consultative group on the private security industry which reported in December 1997.
The principal features of the Bill are as follows. A new body to be known as the Private Security Authority is to be established. The Minister will appoint the members of the authority, including representatives of a range of relevant interests, including private security employers and employees, the Garda Síochána and the staff of the authority. In the interests of maintaining and improving standards of service within the private security services sector, the authority will operate a licensing system to control and regulate access. It will publish a register of licensed providers of private security services each year and will issue identity cards to all licensees. The authority will also set training standards and put in place a system for investigating complaints.
"Security service" is defined as including door supervisor, supplier and installer of security equipment, private investigator, private security employer, security consultant, security guard, provider of armoured car services, locksmith and supplier and installer of safes.
The Bill sets out the grounds on which the authority shall refuse to issue a licence. These include that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to provide a security service. In the context of vetting applicants, the authority may request information from the Garda Síochána. Provision is made for the establishment of an independent Private Security Appeal Board to hear and determine appeals against decisions of the authority.
The Bill creates a number of new offences. These include providing a security service without a licence, providing false information in support of a licence application and employing a person to provide a security service if that person is required to but does not have a licence.
The legislation is being introduced at the behest of the private security services industry. It will enhance the image of the industry, provide quality assurance for customers and reassure the public. Private security services cover a broad range of activities and occupations and form an important area of economic activity. It is estimated that about 400 companies are active while overall employment in the industry is in the region of 22,000. The legislation will provide a sound footing for the industry to expand further by promoting consumer confidence and improving the quality of service.
There have been a number of disquieting reports in recent years about so called bouncers at entertainment venues using excessive force resulting in young people getting injured. As there is no regulation for such jobs at present, it is up to the owners of such premises to select the people they put on the doors. Only last week we had the disturbing case of two bouncers being found guilty of assault in Dublin. The "Prime Time" programme on RTE recently carried a shocking exposé of the nightclub bouncer scene in Dublin. I have concerns about the implications of the drink and drugs culture for public order and civil society. Wanton violence, thuggery and destructiveness are increasingly obvious symptoms of a decline in public order.
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. That is the best way to secure the interests of employers and employees in the sector as well as society. An integrated system of registration and licensing will separate 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.
It is important that the sector should not be allowed to become a free for all where people, some perhaps with criminal backgrounds, could establish security firms and blacken the name of the industry. This happened with one former paramilitary who was carrying out a business providing bouncers to clubs.
Registration is in the industry's best interest, as people 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 employees of those firms access to their property. They must be given help to recognise who is a legitimate operator and who is not.
I commend the Bill and I look forward to its implementation which will safeguard the interests of society.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Private Security Services Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the establishment of a body, to be known as the private security authority, to control and supervise individuals and firms providing private security services. While this is laudable and good in its own way, it does not go far enough in addressing the problems of our society. Deputy Crawford spoke earlier and commended the former Deputy, John Farrelly, who introduced a Private Members' Bill on this subject in the last Dáil. That Bill was defeated but now the Minister has introduced a Bill and of course this will become legislation.
Everybody in this House is generally in favour of what is included in this Bill. However, given the problems that exist, a little bit of licence has been taken by some Members in straying from the exact contents of the Bill. Nevertheless, those contributions are vital, because we must put on record our fears about society and the way it is developing.
The fact that we are discussing this Bill recognises there is a problem. Parents can no longer be confident when their children, including young adults, go out at night either in a city, a town or a rural area. They cannot be sure they will come back as they left home safe and uninjured. That has changed entirely from my time as a young person going out at night. What has happened to society leading to that situation? There have been many stabbings on the streets with people being killed. A young man in Dublin was stabbed recently for his mobile phone. Why should we tolerate that?
While this Bill deals with the licensing of security firms and individuals and where they operate, there is a wider problem. I believe the previous speaker is a publican – he certainly was during my time in that part of the country. When nightclubs close people pour on to the streets causing difficulty for security people, the gardaí on the street and members of the public. If there were enough gardaí on the beat many of the problems at those times could and would be avoided. No deterrent is greater than the garda on the street.
About a year ago the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform visited Galway. I invited him to accompany me around Eyre Square and the centre of Galway between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. He declined the offer, but I carried out that exercise anyhow. Galway is no different from any other town or city in this country. When the nightclubs close thousands of people come out on the street at the one time. This results in tension, queues and rows at take-aways and taxi ranks. This is all part of the security problem.
At that time, I suggested to the nightclub owners and the security people dealing with this problem outside nightclubs, that the nightclubs should close on a phased basis. If different nightclubs closed at 12.30 a.m., 1.30 a.m., 2.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m., people would not arrive on the street at the one time. A rota could be established that would be fair to everybody concerned. This would result in orderly queues at the take-aways, the taxi ranks and on the streets instead of having all this at one time of the night. That offer was not taken up by the nightclubs. Perhaps this legislation could be amended, through regulation or otherwise, so that when nightclubs are renewing their licences they would be required to close at different times. In that way the chaos and subsequent violence that occurs on our streets could be eliminated.
This is a matter that concerns parents greatly. I am a parent of four young people and, when they go out at night, I have the same worries as everybody else. As well as the offices of State, bouncers, gardaí and parents must take responsibility. Parents have abdicated their responsibility to know where their young people go at night, who they are with, what time they will be home and whether they are staying in friends' houses or not. If we continue to develop a drink culture central to night clubs and other centres for young people's leisure, we will store up problems for society in ten or 20 years' time. Experts in this field inform my opinion that the incidence of alcoholism in ten and 15 years' time will be several percentage points greater than it is today because of the tolerance of the culture of excessive drinking. Security personnel can only do what they are trained and employed to do in this context.
Every activity seems to begin or finish in the pub. I brought my sons to a match last weekend which we won. We went to a pub on the way home and another – which may have sponsored the team's jerseys or donated a spot prize – when we got home to Galway. Later that night, the team met in the pub rather than in a parent's house – everything is centred on the pub. That is the culture which has developed and, as parents and legislators, we must face up to our responsibilities. Although the Bill does not cater for this, does the Minister have power to introduce other regulations relevant to it which could address the issue?
Definitions in the Bill include "door supervisor, installer of security equipment, private security advisor, security guard and security service." Can the Minister broaden this to include those in responsibility in public places, such as the owners of licensed premises, and define their obligations? With the growth of super-pubs has come the demise of family-run and owned public houses with the result that, when one goes into such a place, one does not know who the owner or person responsible is. This is unlike 20 or 30 years ago when one knew the people concerned and could speak to them if one saw irresponsible behaviour on their premises. There should be a limit on the capacity and size to which such pubs can develop.
Part II of the Bill provides that the authority, which is to be established by it, will grant and renew licences to persons within the sector and, where appropriate, suspend or revoke them. How will this be achieved? What will one have to do to renew one's licence? Will there be an examination at the end of the year? Will the record of one's activities in the previous year be taken into account? What will the criteria be?
Section 14 provides inspectors with certain powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of obtaining information in relation to any matter under investigation by the authority. Will inspectors, as provided for in the Bill, have the same authority as a garda in questioning owners or licensees about incidents that occurred on or outside their premises, where security personnel were witnesses, involved or should have been present? Will inspectors need to be accompanied by a garda or will they have similar powers of investigation? What will be the penalty for non-co-operation with them?
Like everyone in the House, I welcome the Bill, but it does not address what are serious problems. Perhaps this is a debate for another day, but it is related and this is the only opportunity Members will get to bring to light the incidents we see in our constituencies, the way we see society going and what we can do about it collectively. I encourage the Minister to broaden the scope of a Bill such as this to deal with other aspects of security. When we go out, particularly during the tension hours between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., there are many people on the streets. The Bill only scratches the surface of the problems on our streets which are evolving because of the acceptance of the culture of excessive alcohol consumption, particularly by young people.
The demand for private security services has increased recently. Individuals and companies are seeking greater protection for themselves and their businesses. Ideally, self-regulation is the best way forward in any industry. In practice, however, it has not worked in the private security services industry nor in a number of others.
I welcome the introduction of the Bill to provide for the establishment of an authority to control and supervise individuals and firms providing security services. The private security industry has been overlooked and neglected in terms of regulatory measures and also the subject of justifiable criticism. It is badly in need of regulation to provide a reliable and well trained service. It must also have the confidence of individuals as well as ensuring the rights of property owners are protected. Those charged with the responsibility of delivering the service are faced with a very difficult task. The work often requires tact, diplomacy and sensitivity, but, unfortunately, one does not normally associate those characteristics with some of those engaged in the private security business.
The job also carries a high level of responsibility. While many of those involved in the industry take that responsibility seriously, many others have caused serious problems by their ineptness or lack of suitability for the job. The recent tragic death of Adrian Moynihan in Cork is an example of a situation where a person charged with responsibility for maintaining order ended up, sadly, being involved in an incident resulting in the death of this young man. That tragic incident and others with less serious outcomes have highlighted the need for training for those employed in the private security industry. Training and recruitment procedures are fundamental to the success of the industry. These issues have not been addressed in sufficient detail. Unless recruitment procedures are clearly defined and appropriate training requirements set out, the private security sector will not develop into the quality service we need and are entitled to expect.
Nowadays, there are very few areas of employment in which it is possible to walk in off the street and find oneself employed on the spot, with very little serious discussion and no training whatsoever. Given the importance and sensitivity of the job, the emphasis has to be on responsibility and training. There is no shortage of sources of training and the private security industry should avail of those facilities. FETAC, an organisation for further training and education, might well have a role in setting out parameters for the required training and validation.
Because of the nature of the business, it should be mandatory for those engaged in it to have Garda clearance and appropriate references. The consultative group set up to review the industry recognised that it was not uncommon for criminal elements to infiltrate the sector. In the absence of standards and a licensing system, it is relatively easy for such people to find their way into the business, yet until now there has been no requirement for applicants to have Garda clearance. The provision for this fundamental requirement would be widely welcomed in the industry.
The advent of CCTV has been an extremely useful development. Security cameras can act as a significant deterrent for those considering criminal activity. The possibility of security film being produced can also be a restraint on any over-enthusiastic response from a security guard or bouncer. CCTV equipment should be introduced in what I might term trouble hot spots as a matter of urgency. The private security industry has developed very rapidly in the past ten years because of the growing need for its services in the context of an increasing crime rate. While CCTV is no panacea for all problems, I suggest it would go some considerable way to improve matters, especially in sensitive locations where there is good reason to anticipate attempted criminal activity at specific times.
There is also a clear need for compliance in areas such as taxation, social security and health and safety standards. I welcome the relevant provisions in the Bill. Because these aspects were largely ignored, people were left open to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. I hope they will be covered comprehensively in the Bill, taking account of all aspects of the private security business.
The establishment of the Private Security Authority is of fundamental importance. I welcome the provision for a publicly accessible register of all licensees. Traditionally, this industry has had a passing trade, in terms of its employees. I welcome the provision of a system of tracking or traceability and the degree of transparency this will bring to the sector. Most industries are subject to some form of inspection or auditing and it is appropriate this should also apply to the private security sector.
The powers of the inspectorate and the training of inspectors will be no less important than the training of those actually engaged in security work. The key issues are training, registration, taxation, health and safety and the quality of the inspectorate in this multi-million euro industry. The taxpayer must not be short-changed due to a lack of accountability of persons who might otherwise seek to bypass the system by avoiding registration and not contributing their proper share of taxation. Equally, employees must not be short-changed by being deprived of their social security entitlements. Above all, individuals have a right to be protected under a system in which trained employees deliver a quality service.
The private security industry should not be seen as taking over the role of the Garda, but rather as an important adjunct in maintaining order in sensitive areas and at times of day or night when there is reason to anticipate problems.
The Private Security Services Bill, 2001, begins to address an area which needs regulatory legislation. There have been incidents which cried out for regulation of private security services in situations where large groups congregate on social or commercial occasions. However, the scope of the Bill is limited in many ways and I wish to deal with some deeper issues before coming to the issue of regulation. There is need for a serious investigation of social factors which sometimes give rise to violent incidents in our cit ies and towns, a problem on which no area has a monopoly. The most remote provincial town is just as liable as the capital city to have problems in this regard, particularly after closing times of clubs and pubs in the early hours of the morning. Responsibility for this widespread problem can be attributed to a number of factors. Bad planning over many decades is one factor in the psychology which brings a minority to engage in antisocial and violent behaviour.
The creation of large, soulless housing estates in which drinking emporia are among the few facilities is a recipe for alienation. Alienation leads to a breakdown in neighbourly relations and in responsibility for neighbours, the environment and the community. Unfortunately, a small minority are in a pathological state of being prone to express this alienation in severe alcohol abuse and persistent violence. It is a huge area to examine and tackle but this does not mean that it should not be done.
Society should have learned from some of the similar disasters which were created in urban areas. Planning should take account of the design of the infrastructure, including services, to create communities capable of interacting on a human and close level. There will always be places such as clubs and social centres where alcohol is sold and these should be planned in such a way as to eliminate the horrors which have happened over the years. Alcohol abuse, which is partly related to what I have described as well as to many other factors, is a huge problem which leads to the type of incident that makes security a fact of life.
In view of the massive damage done as a result of alcohol abuse, excluding the damage done to the human body by over-consumption and the social violence, the fact that the law and successive Governments continue to allow widespread advertising of alcohol is an absolute scandal. The fact that this very dangerous substance is portrayed as good in every aspect and in a seductive manner which inveigles people of all ages, not just young people, into believing that it is merely anodyne is incredible. It is inconsistent that stern measures are taken against tobacco advertising while ignoring alcohol advertising. I wholeheartedly agree with the measures against tobacco advertising and called for them before they were introduced, but we have a lax approach to advertising a substance which is equally damaging and perhaps much more so in terms of the social consequences spawned by its abuse.
Alienation is increased because there is no control on the prices charged in some of the trendy drinking emporia in the larger cities and towns. Statistics show there has been a huge rip-off in services in the past few years, especially since the changeover to the euro. The rip-off in the sale of alcohol is incredible. The difference between the prices in some of the so-called hot spots in Temple Bar in Dublin and those paid in a neighbourhood pub or club is massive. If people, particularly young people, feel that they are being ripped off it adds to a general cynicism and a feeling that nobody cares about anyone else and that the faceless management of these emporia are intent on ripping people off. This can entrench attitudes of irresponsibility and recklessness in behaviour towards these establishments and their employees.
There should be a wide-ranging discussion on alternatives to the drinking culture, drinking dens and the position of alcohol in society. The Government and local authorities should proactively create plans for new kinds of recreational and social centres which are not simply purpose-built tennis clubs, ball alleys or community centres but are alternative recreational outlets where young and old people can go to relax. Bowling, table tennis and other activities should be facilitated in large complexes which sell food and soft drinks. We need to break this obsession, of which we are all simultaneously guilty and victims, with considering the pub as the only recreational outlet. From a socialist point of view, ordered social ownership of such facilities and large pubs in communities, rather than their being in the hands of conglomerates and big business who soak as much profit as possible from communities, would transform the attitude towards these institutions and behaviour within them. That is something which should be developed.
I move on to some of the specifics of the Bill. One of the fundamental provisions of the legislation is the requirement for an applicant for a licence to provide a security service. The Bill provides that the authority granting the licence must take account of the qualifications of the person, his or her character, financial position and competence. This is far too narrow. The Bill states that a prescribed fee must be paid and there must be such references to the applicant's character, financial position and competence as the authority may require.
Section 40 defines that competence. Section 40(2)(d) provides the first reference in the Bill to training. It reads, “the Authority, with the consent of the Minister, may by regulations provide for any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed and for the qualifications for licences or particular categories of licences (including any training requirements) and the assessment of those qualifications.” It is quite clear that the word “training” is placed in the Bill as an afterthought, even though it should be central to it.
Security personnel have a serious responsibility, especially when large groups congregate in crowded areas and interact with great vigour. Many different problems arise in such circumstances. It is entirely remiss that the Bill does not clarify the type of training that should be required to be granted a licence to provide security services. In his introduction to the Bill, the Minister said about 12,000 people are employed to provide security services and that there is a high turnover in the sector. There is, therefore, a clear need and continuous demand for schools or institutions of some kind to train entrants to the industry and provide refresher courses for those involved in providing security services for a long time.
I suggest that such schools should provide a wide range of instruction courses, including paramedical training, as security personnel often have to deal with casualties. It can happen that customers suffer from innocent, natural ailments such as an epileptic fit or a heart attack, possibly in a crowded place. Security service providers should be able to attend to such difficulties immediately in a manner that is consistent with best practice. People who are injured as a result of violent attacks which take place before security personnel get to the scene should benefit from first aid techniques which have been professionally taught. Similarly, security officers should be able to give suitable first aid when they encounter people suffering from the effects of drug poisoning.
An element of thorough training in inter-personal relations should be part of any training course for those involved in the security industry. Those interfacing with the public are routinely arrogant, hostile and aggressive. Their attitudes provoke incidents rather than defuse difficult situations. They should be trained to resolve tense and potentially violent situations by restraining people without having to strike or injure those involved.
The range of problems faced by security personnel should be addressed as part of proper, professional training, which should be a requirement before a licence is given to work in this area. The philosophy behind such training should be that customers, those spending their money in pubs, clubs or while engaging in other activities, should be approached in a friendly fashion. Security personnel should bear in mind that customers' money, acquired by their hard work, sustains the establishments in which they work and that, consequently, they deserve respect.
I would like the Minister to deal with the points I have made. I am sure he will say the authority will be responsible for these matters, but I am saying that such an answer will not be good enough. The Bill should clearly state the parameters of the type of training that is acceptable.
Section 27 of the Bill states, "the Authority shall issue an identity card to each individual who is a licensee." It goes on to provide, however, that security personnel will be required to present identification to a garda, a member of the authority or the person for whom the licensee is providing a security service under the licence. A system should be put in place to allow people availing of security services to identify security personnel. I concede that it might not be feasible for the identity card to reveal the person's name, as people might try to target innocent doorpersons, but there should be a numbering system similar to that used by the Garda Síochána. If a customer is abused and wishes to make a complaint, he or she should be able to see the number of the security personnel and use it when making a complaint to the authorities. The Bill should provide that the identity of security personnel should be clear and capable of being established through such a numbering system.
I am disappointed that the composition of the authority will be determined by the Minister. Similar unsatisfactory provisions have been made for the boards of State and semi-State companies. I have complained about this matter on many occasions in relation to semi-State bodies. While I do not wish to pre-empt who the Minister may or may not appoint to the authority being established under the Bill, I worry that the disgraceful and scandalous practice of packing boards and authorities with individuals whose main qualification is the fact that they are hacks of the political parties which happen to be in power will be repeated. The individuals concerned tend not to have the qualifications needed to make a meaningful contribution in the area to which they are being appointed. This process should not continue with regard to the Private Security Authority.
No provision is made in the qualifications required for membership of the authority for those who use security services. A mechanism should be found whereby representatives of young people, the biggest users of certain security services, can be represented on the authority. The democratic process dictates that the views of young people, who have to deal with doorpersons and other security personnel and whose money is sustaining the industry, should be heard clearly.
There has been a quite disgraceful delay on the part of the Government in bringing forward the Private Security Services Bill, 2001, which is known by some as the bouncers Bill. I use the word "disgraceful" advisedly. A consultative group charged with examining this area produced an excellent report almost five years ago, in December 1997. Persistent attempts were made by my colleague, the former Deputy John Farrelly, to get the Government to move on foot of the report, but the Government only acted after he had produced a Private Members' Bill. The Bill before the House was circulated almost two years ago, but has only just reached Second Stage. There was no question of an apology or explanation from the Minister, Deputy McDowell, as he introduced this debate last week, as he ignored the delays.
Is it a coincidence that the Bill has reached the floor of the House in the weeks following an RTE "Prime Time" report on the security industry? Is this the kind of Government which is trying to run the country? The point I am making in relation to delays is not an academic one. The seriousness of the matter is clear to those familiar with the case of Adrian Moynihan, who died in Cork last year. I do not wish to pre-empt any investigation or other follow-up to that tragedy, but it is proper to ask whether Mr. Moynihan's death would have occurred if the Government had not been so negligent in the discharge of its responsibilities by leaving the Bill on the Order Paper.
The same problem arises in regard to the many who have suffered during the years as a consequence of the actions of bouncers, in many cases criminal action. The Government has been utterly neglectful in the discharge of its responsibilities by not moving on the basis of the report produced five years ago and not going ahead with the Bill circulated two years ago. I demand an explanation from it for the delay and to know the reason it did not bother implement this Bill in the meantime. Too many have suffered as a consequence of the Government's delay in bringing forward the Bill to let the issue rest.
There is another matter with which the Government needs to deal. Now that bouncers are going to be controlled, who will control the gougers? The difficulties inside and outside nightclubs and super-pubs have not arisen solely from the activities of unregulated bouncers. While it is hugely important that security staff are properly vetted and trained, it is also important to bear in mind that if we are to deal with bouncers, we must also deal properly with liquor louts and those driven out of their minds by drink or drugs, very often the cause of public disorder inside and outside nightclubs.
The record of the Government on this issue is seriously suspect. I recall debating in the House last June the Public Order Bill, which is anaemic enough in its provisions. However, while the Government suggested the Bill was a panacea for much of the ills in the area of public order, it is still lying around and nothing has happened. This raises the issue of the absolute neglect of the Government in dealing with these crucial issues. It might give an explanation for the delay in introducing the bouncer Bill and processing the Public Order Bill. I do not want to be told there is not enough time. Let the House sit longer, there are plenty of days when it could be sitting. It is the Government which orders business. If it was interested, the Bills in question would have been dealt with long ago.
These issues are totally apart from matters such as the need for adequate resources for the Garda. Now that the Garda is under investigation on so many fronts, it is important to have an understanding of the problems it confronts. Perhaps at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. two of its members must try to control a mob driven wild by booze or drugs. We possibly do not have a full understanding of the difficulties they confront. What is clear also is that the Government does not have an understanding of the need to provide the Garda with adequate resources and backup to deal with such problems.
During the course of the debate other issues have been raised which I do not intend to go into. They relate to the responsibilities of proprietors of nightclubs and super-pubs and parental responsibility which need to be properly debated and dealt with and on which the Government must lead the debate and, if necessary, introduce legislation in this regard. It is important to highlight the need for the Government, which is now in office for over five years, to shake itself out of its lethargy and enact proposals, particularly good ones. That is what we are doing with this Bill five years after its proposals were originally introduced.
Before dealing with the terms of the Bill, of which I largely approve, there are a couple of other issues which need to be dealt with. There have been a number of references to security cameras and the installation of CCTV. As I understand it, the Bill merely provides for the regulation of those who supply such security cameras. It does not stipulate cameras must be put in place. Therefore, while we are regulating the suppliers, we are leaving the provision of cameras to the discretion of proprietors. If that is a correct reading of the Bill, we need an explanation from the Government.
I recently saw a recommendation from Judge Michael Patwell who suggested that in the renewal of certain licences there should be a requirement that security cameras be installed. That recommendation should be given serious consideration, although I appreciate there may be technical difficulties, for instance, security cameras may not operate well in the steamy and cloudy atmosphere of late night spots. If the technical problems can be overcome, I strongly believe the suggestion of Judge Patwell should be considered seriously whereby the granting of such licences would be contingent on the installation of adequate security equipment. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response.
Perhaps because of economic prosperity over the last ten years, there seems to be a coarsening of civil society which has resulted in a serious situation in regard to crime. While in some instances there is a trumpeting of figures which indicate a reduction in the overall crime level, hidden within the figures is an increase in the level of serious crime. Last year there was a 93% increase in the number of violent assaults, about which, needless to say, we did not hear until after the general election. There was also a huge increase in the number of sexual assaults and a 33% increase in the number of murders. There seems to be a very serious upward trend in the level of serious crime, including personal assaults and appalling crimes of a sexual nature against women and others. This should call for a response from the Government, which we have not got.
In general, I find the Bill is one I can support. There are, however, some issues which are not covered in the Bill or in the Minister's speech. He did not deal adequately with the question of funding. I am not sure whether the new authority will be self-financing. The consultative report referred to the best solution as being a cost-sharing arrangement between the State and the industry. It referred to licences being issued at £20 for individuals and £350 for companies. I would like to know the up-to-date thinking of Government on how the new authority will be funded.
Section 7 deals with the authority. The Minister said in his speech that the authority would be independent, but as usual its members will all be appointed by the Minister. Some explanations will be required from the Minister about how the authority can be totally independent if he is to appoint all its members. In the past there have been appointments to independent authorities which were clearly not intended to ensure that the authorities were independent but to provide voices for the Minister.
There is one interesting provision in the Bill with which the Minister might deal. It relates to section 18, in which there is a prohibition on members of the authority from disclosing information obtained in the course of their duties. Further explanation is needed for this and the Minister might also explain the position of a member of the authority, or indeed the chief executive or another person working for the authority, who finds himself in possession of information which he feels should be given to the Garda Síochána or another lawful authority. This has not been clarified within the Bill.
Another provision in section 20 prohibits Members of Parliament from ever being members of such an authority. That is a fairly standard provision, but I often wonder why it is included. Why should a Member of the House not be a member of such an authority, particularly if the Government were to appoint somebody from the Technical Group, for example. What is the reasoning behind that provision? There is also a recommendation in the report of the consultative group which was not dealt with in the Minister's speech or in the Bill. This is the possible involvement of local authorities in the issuing of licences. My recollection is that the group considered that the establishment of the system might ultimately involve the assistance of the local authorities in the issue of licences. Again, this is an issue which has not been dealt with. I am anxious to know the proposals of the Government in this regard.
This Bill has been a long time coming and the delays have not been explained. The consultative group, when it completed its report five years ago, made certain recommendations assuming the Bill was to be published the following year – 1998 – and that the authority would be established within 12 months, but its hope was not realised. After all these years, it is time to get on with it. Let there be no further delay. Let us have a clear commitment from the Minister on closing this debate that this authority will be up and running as quickly as possible and that the needs in relation to vetting and training and the elimination of the criminal and black economy elements from the industry will be dealt with.
The Minister might also confirm to us that the other issues properly and seriously raised here in the course of this debate will at some stage be dealt with. The Government's lethargy in dealing with such issues, which has been quite obvious over the years, should be a thing of the past. I say this in hope rather than confidence – I do not think it will happen, but if it does not the Minister may be sure that the Opposition will keep at him. These issues are getting more and more serious and unless they are dealt with we will have more incidents like the one that happened in Cork last year.
This Bill is long overdue and, as many speakers have said, has its basis in the consultative report that came out in December 1997. I welcome in general the contents of the Bill. However, I hope that the regulation of the private security industry will not be used by the Government as a reason for refusing manpower and technical resources to the Garda Síochána, allowing private security firms to take over work that should be done by the Garda. I would have some difficulty with that because the numbers of gardaí on the ground are simply inadequate. There is no serious concern on the part of the Minister or his Department that the numbers required by the Garda are made available to it. For instance, in the town of Clonmel, which is the largest inland town in the country, with a population of more than 20,000 within a radius of a mile and a half of the centre, there are 38 gardaí. This means that at best, eight gardaí are on duty at any time in the area. Two of those are based in the Garda station, so six gardaí are actually on duty. This situation is not unique to Clonmel. It is all too prevalent throughout the country, but it is obvious in Clonmel when compared to the town of Thurles, 25 miles away, which has more than 50% more gardaí than Clonmel.
I hope the Bill will not be used as an excuse not to provide manpower resources to community gardaí. This area needs to be developed as it has not been done in the past. Unfortunately, the Minister and the Department are simply sticking their heads in the sand. There are no community gardaí, for example, in Clonmel. The issue of closed circuit television cameras in public streets and in the premises covered in the Bill is relevant. Some of the largest towns in the country have no CCTV cameras. In my constituency, there is not a single town with CCTV cameras, nor are they planned for any of these towns despite numerous election promises over the years. There is also the question of whether there should be a requirement that premises, particularly pubs, discos and night clubs, should provide these cameras. They should provide them both inside and outside the premises.
Sporting, recreational and cultural facilities, under one roof, must be provided for young people. This issue is being ignored. The necessity for the private security industry arises from a change in our society and the perceived and factual increase in serious crime and antisocial behaviour, which may not be criminal in itself but is driving communities to despair.
The private security industry has become a huge employer in the past 20 years. In 1997, when the consultative committee reported, 10,900 individuals were operating as sole traders, contractors or employees and there were 400 companies, with a turn-over of £200 million. That is not the whole picture because many security firms operate in the black economy. Since 1997 that figure has probably increased by 50%. Every pub and disco now employs security staff, something that was not as prevalent in 1997.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill covering licensing, professionalism, training, conditions of employment and minimum standards. Many of the companies operating in this area do a great job and employ people with good wages and conditions. Unfortunately, however, there are those who bring the industry into disrepute, who operate in the black economy, do not pay the minimum wage and do not pay social welfare contributions for employees.
Doormen and employees of the private security industry should be easily identifiable, perhaps even with a uniform similar to that of the Garda. They should wear a badge with an identity number. When private security employees are operating in areas where there are large numbers of people, particularly young people, difficulties can arise and it should be possible for the public to identify security staff so that if they wish to make complaints about them they can be followed up.
The industry has outgrown voluntary regulation and has unfortunately attracted some criminal elements. In light of that and of the lack of training, the suitability of some employees is open to question. Training is a vital element that must be addressed in the Bill. Those acting as doormen must have a level of expertise to ensure they can deal with difficult situations that may arise where large numbers of people are gathered. The legislation should provide for public representation on the authority, particularly of young people who are at the cutting edge of the industry because they come face to face with it on a nightly basis.
The provision in section 21 that the authority may require Garda certification of individuals who wish to get a licence should be mandatory. Section 27 provides for identity cards to be issued to licence holders. All employees should have identity badges. The section states that employees must show identity cards to the gardaí but it makes no mention of the public, who should have the right to see identity numbers.
The character of those employed in the industry is very important. There are bases on which licences should be refused outright. Anyone who has been convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, money laundering, drug trafficking and aggravated or sexual assault should be precluded from ever getting a licence to operate in this industry. People who have been in difficulty with the law may rehabilitate themselves and in such circumstances offences involving assault, firearms, burglary, malicious damage to property, larceny, fraud, forgery and handling of stolen goods should preclude a person from applying for a licence for a period of up to five years after an offence.
I welcome this Bill and hope that on Committee and Report Stages it will be made more responsive to public needs, with better representation than that proposed.
This Bill provides for the establishment of a private security authority. It covers many areas, licensing the security trade, security within companies and regulations to ensure that the industry has the highest possible standards. The legislation is overdue. It was an anomaly that this was the only country in Europe without regulation in this area and a code of conduct is necessary. Training is at the core of the Bill and it is vital that we implement regulations that will set high standards.
Tax incentives should be offered for any capital costs. The control and safety of cash within business can involve huge costs when crime rates are so high. By encouraging investment in the installation of closed circuit television and similar security measures, important steps can be made in this area.
Debate adjourned.