Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Dec 2002

Vol. 559 No. 4

Private Security Services Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I propose to share time with Deputy Neville.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, raised his eyes to heaven when I started to speak, but he will not get inspiration from there.

In the wake of the recent "Prime Time" report that examined drinking habits in Dublin and elsewhere, I am somewhat worried about the demarcation lines that exist between the authority of the Garda and the private security services. I do not suggest for a moment that all private security firms are of the same ilk or that they all make the same mistakes. During the documentary, it appeared that people were ejected from licensed premises if they were considered to be drunk or disorderly. Altercations took place outside the door of the premises and the Garda had to deal with the consequences. Little time or effort was spent ascertaining the causes of the disorder. Did the customers receive alcohol on the premises from which they were ejected? Were they thrown out after they had paid a cover charge to gain entry? It is important that such questions are answered in such cases, as a form of contract exists between the owner of the premises and the patrons. The central issue is whether the patron became intoxicated on the premises to the extent that he or she became objectionable, as it is illegal to serve a person who is obviously drunk.

I would like the Minister of State to clarify how the Garda and the private security services co-operate and to indicate the point at which these matters become the sole responsibility of the Garda. The last time we spoke about this Bill, I mentioned that gardaí used to pay a visit to all clubs, discos and dance halls at least once a night. The visits had the peculiar effect of giving the immediate impression that nonsense would not be tolerated and that it would not be a good idea for someone to start a row. All internal security is now handled by private firms, however, and I am concerned about what happens when individuals are thrown onto the streets. Who takes the responsibility for such people? It is not sufficient to simply say that the person was drunk or disorderly, as one must ask where they became drunk. If the customer got drunk on the premises from which he or she was ejected, the licensee, in the form of the person or persons who served the alcohol, has a responsibility to ensure that his or her well-being is looked after.

There have been occasions when young people have been ejected from premises and had to find their own way home. Some of them never did. I would like the Minister to clarify this in his reply. I do not want to go into specific details but I am sure the Minister is aware of a number of cases. At least one tragic case comes to mind where the security person in charge was determined to uphold the highest possible standards and this was not in accord with the wishes of certain organisations. That was a very sad case. It must be quite clear that after this, that there can be no circumstance in which somebody can abuse his position by dealing in drugs, as has been suggested in the past.

I wish to share time with Deputy Neville.

I also welcome the Bill. Mr. Brian Fitzgerald was killed on 29 November. That was one of the most serious crimes since Veronica Guerin was killed. Jimmy Guerin has recognised that. I know that night club well, my family go to it. It is a very well-run night club. Brian Fitzgerald was protecting our family and their friends from the drug barons and those who peddle drugs in night clubs. Despite the threats and warnings he received, he did his job to the best of his ability. However, a signal has been given by these people that if an employee protects children, does his job and does not allow drugs in, or even if he speaks of them, his life is in danger. What message does that give to other people in similar positions, even owners of night clubs? What message is being given by that dastardly act? Am I in danger given that I am standing here today, criticising them and raising it with the Minister? Is my life threatened because I do that? This is how serious that crime was. Mr. Brian Fitzgerald made a statement to the Garda about criminal activity and had a gun put to his head to make him withdraw it. Following advice, although he did not want to, he withdrew it for the safety of his family and still he was killed. He abhorred drugs.

The level of manpower and the procedures used in the investigation and bringing to justice of those behind the Guerin murder should also be put into the investigation of the death of Mr. Brian Fitzgerald, not only to solve the crime, but to ensure that those people are brought to justice who will take a life and who threaten others by doing so. Such people are giving signals which frighten those who want to protect young people, who do not want to have drugs peddled on their premises and who want to run decent places. The Minister of State knows them as well as I do. They should know that the State will not tolerate what happened to Mr. Brian Fitzgerald, will not tolerate the people who give out threatening signals to those running proper premises and to security people who want to do their jobs properly. The owners of premises and security staff should not be intimidated and should be protected. I hope the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will come into the Dáil next week and tell us exactly how the State is responding to that dastardly crime. We want to know, and the public wants to know, what exactly is being done to root out those people. The Garda and the Limerick people know who they are. Obviously charges have to be proved in court and I appreciate that. We saw how, in the Guerin case, the drug barons of Dublin were rooted out and brought to justice. I ask the State to respond in the same way to the death of Brian Fitzgerald.

There is a comparison in the Order of Business today which shows how we operate as a parliament. We have just passed Second Stage of a Bill after a couple of hours debate. It will be completed within another few hours. This shows a priority which is given to some legislation and not to other, equally serious legislation. In the case of the last Bill this could be because of the financial interests involved, to which the Government obviously feels beholden.

In the case of this Bill the consultative group reported in December 1997. The Fine Gael Party introduced a Private Members' Bill in March 1998 and the Government's response was to issue a Bill, which was the first Bill of 2001. We are still debating it and, even with that length of time, there are glaring deficiencies. There is no doubt that the legislation is necessary and there is a need to regulate this industry.

I am concerned that, while the Bill addresses the regulatory issues, it does not properly address the question of standards. One of the most important elements of this is the insistence on a licensing arrangement, either to a company involved in the provision of private security services or individual employees of such a company, so that they would have a minimum training requirement either at a set course or for a set period of time. Some elements of the industry have tried to address this and there is quite a good course in the Cork College of Commerce. I am not sure if there are similar courses in the rest of the country. I hope this anomaly will be addressed on Committee Stage. If we are serious about standards in an industry there must be benchmarks to create these standards.

The position of what is euphemistically called a door supervisor is one which, among young people in particular, holds a certain mythological status. To be fair there are good and bad bouncers. Unfortunately, the perception leans in the negative direction in terms of the skills which many people who are employed in late-night establishments, bars, fast-food restaurants or night clubs seem to employ. The lack of skills has come about because of the lack of a recognised training system and proper management review system. This has meant that intense and serious situations get exacerbated by the lack of skills shown by bouncers.

Our discussion of the Bill has dovetailed with our discussion of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act and the recent Prime Time Programme on the use of alcohol. People often have a negative perception of door supervisors because they see the abusive way people in this position of authority treat those who have abused alcohol. Our cultural dependency on alcohol means that young people are on the streets, especially in urban centres, late at night and in a vulnerable position. Violent incidents have become more frequent in many of our inner-city areas.

The Green Party welcomes the Bill and the action to regulate this area. However, we live in a vacuum because there is no legislation in this area and people who never held power before are enjoying an excess of it. Other speakers have referred to the role of the Garda and whether they can or should intervene or prosecute. Because of the lack of legislation, many innocent young people have been needlessly wronged while trying to access many of these premises. They have been physically manhandled and, at the lowest level, have suffered mental abuse through name-calling and being picked out on the basis of where in the city they come from. Incidents such as these are a part of life for young people if they want to access night entertainment in many of our towns.

In some areas the Bill is deficient. I have heard other speakers refer to the need to ensure that members of the State's security forces, moonlighting or working in their spare time, should not be employed in this industry. I am talking about members of the Garda, the Defence forces and possibly organisations such as Civil Defence. The boundaries between one's official capacity and the commercial sector can become blurred. The Bill does not address this to a sufficient extent nor does it address the issue of security technology.

Security firms are much more sophisticated than they were in the past. It is not just a case of having a roster of people who are available to stand at doors, but offering technologically advanced security systems and strategies on dealing with members of the public. This Bill misses the opportunity to make it a condition of having a licence that the use of CCTV cameras should be monitored and the material gained thereof collated. It should not be permitted to be used in certain circumstances. We all know that security firms install these systems as well as providing people for the door and the capacity for abuse is there. I have seen such footage used on foreign television stations for entertainment, people being "caught in the act". This is a result of not having sufficient legislation dealing with private security and a lack of appropriate concern for civil liberties.

The Bill needs to be more clear-cut in dealing with licences and the qualifications and standards needed to obtain one. It is no secret that people with criminal records are involved in this unregulated industry, both individually and as heads of firms. The crime may have been one of assault or of a more serious nature. This should be addressed in the Bill.

I have concentrated on the more negative aspects of the private security industry because there are flaws there. I recognise, however, the need for regulation. It is only fair to point out that, as in any area of life and industry, most of the people involved are there for the right reasons and motivations. They are often exposed to unnecessary danger and, in the case of Mr. Brian Fitzgerald, horrendous murder. Although this case has been mentioned in the House I would like to add my voice and that of my party to the issue. His death highlighted not only the intimidation of people in night clubs and pubs by those seeking to promote illegal drugs to young people, but the way he stood out by defying expectations that he would turn a blind eye. Matters have reached a sorry pass and we must seek to address the deeper malaise in our society.

This Bill is welcome. While the delay in its processing is unfortunate, the Green Party supports the thrust of it and will decide what amendments are necessary to clear up some of the anomalies and weaknesses I have pointed out. It is to be hoped that when the Bill is passed, the standards we all desire will be implemented.

I thank everybody who contributed to our long Second Stage debate. I agree with Deputy Neville's contribution, during which he spoke of the death of Mr. Brian Fitzgerald. The Fitzgerald family are personally known to me. They originally come from Lee estate, in my constituency, where Brian's father still lives. It was a particularly dastardly crime. As Deputy Neville said, the gardaí and the people of Limerick, including myself, have a strong suspicion of who is involved in this murder. We cannot act on the basis of suspicion, however. Much as we would like to go out and deal with these people in a certain way, we cannot. We live in a democracy and are subject to the rule of law.

I assure the House that everything possible is being done by the Garda in Limerick to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. No murder in Limerick city in the past ten years remains unsolved. I have every confidence in the Garda in Limerick and I am in constant contact with them about this case. We normally adopt a hands-off approach to Garda investigations but I am keeping in touch with them on the progress of this investigation. I have assured them that if they need any assistance, equipment, back-up or people from the outside, they need only telephone me and I will make them available. I have the agreement of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner on that. No stone will be left unturned.

I hope I am not going too far in saying this, but the difficulty that confronts the investigation so far is that there are two possibilities: either a particular crime family, or some of their associates, carried out this killing, or they brought some "professional" from the outside. In the latter case there would be no connection between the victim and the perpetrator and that makes the investigation all the more difficult. I have every confidence in the Garda and am in constant contact with them. I assure the House that everything possible is being done to bring those people to justice and I will provide every possible assistance for the gardaí in Limerick, who have an outstanding record in this regard.

In reply to Deputy Durkan, I am informed that licence holders have a duty of care towards customers. It is an offence to permit drunkenness on licensed premises or to serve alcohol to a drunk person. Garda powers in relation to the detection or investigation of crime remain unaffected by this Bill.

Deputy John Bruton asked me to compliment his former colleague, John Farrelly, who had a great interest in this area. I acknowledge former Deputy Farrelly's interest and the fact that he produced a Private Members' Bill. That Bill only dealt with doormen, who are a small subsection of the security industry. The Government did not accept the Bill because it felt the whole industry needed to be dealt with, so we prepared our own Bill dealing with the entire ambit of the multimillion euro industry. I nevertheless salute former Deputy Farrelly and acknowledge his contribution. As someone who played a significant part in debate and the enactment of legislation in this House, I was sorry to see Deputy Farrelly lose his seat. It goes to show that activity in this House does not always insulate one against the vagaries of the electoral system. I wish him the very best and hope he will be back after the next election, provided he does not return at the expense of a Fianna Fáil Deputy, of course.

I have taken note of the points made by Deputies in their contributions, including the various suggestions for changes and clarifications. In the short time available I would like to respond to some of these points, while bearing in mind, of course, that we will have an opportunity to discuss the Bill's provisions in detail on Committee Stage. As regards the delays in dealing with the Bill, the position is that this is but one of a number of important Bills that lapsed on the dissolution of the 28th Dáil and were restored to the Order Paper on 18 June last. As we are concluding Second Stage, I hope the Bill can be enacted without further undue delay. I hope that is the wish of all sides of the House.

As regards public order generally, I agree with many of the points made by Deputies. In answer to Deputy Deasy, this Government recognises that the powers of the Garda Síochána need to be strengthened to deal with the problem of late night drunken hooliganism, and that is why we want to see the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 2002, enacted as speedily as possible. That Bill will make it possible for the Garda to apply to the District Court for an exclusion order barring a named person from being in or near premises where the original incident of disorder occurred, or a closure order against particular premises in which, or in the vicinity of which, there has been disorder and where such disorder is likely to recur.

A number of Deputies mentioned problems associated with excessive consumption of alcohol, especially by young people, as well as the longer opening hours for licensed premises introduced in 2000. I acknowledge these concerns, many of which I share. We cannot, however, tackle these issues in a Bill dealing with the private security industry. However, the Commission on Liquor Licensing placed advertisements in the national newspapers in early November seeking submissions on the issue of opening hours. I understand there has been a significant response to the commission's invitation and that the commission will deal with the issue of trading hours in its final report in the spring.

Many Deputies, including Deputy John Bruton, referred to the scope of the Bill and to the categories of security service to be encompassed by the licensing requirements. The position is that the categories of security service set out in section 2 are broadly in line with the recommendations of the consultative group that reported in 1997. The consultative group recommended the licensing of both individuals and companies and outlined a range of occupations and activities that should be controlled and supervised by the private security authority. A licence must be held by all individuals providing a security service in the course of an employment or the conduct of a business. This means, for example, that all door supervisors and security guards – irrespective of whether they are self-employed, employed by a specialist security company or part of an in-house security team – must be individually licensed. In addition, any specialist security company defined for the purposes of the Bill as a "private security company" will need a licence to operate in the industry.

In reply to Deputy Stanton, wheel clampers and traffic wardens are not covered by the Bill because they do not provide security services. Bodyguards do provide a security service and therefore come within the ambit of the definition of "security guard". We will have an opportunity to discuss definitions in greater detail on Committee Stage. However, it is not intended that people working in a voluntary capacity – for example, at a charity function or a sports event – will be subject to the licensing requirement.

Several Deputies, including Deputy Boyle, sought clarification on the involvement of members of the Garda and the Defence Forces in providing security services while off duty. Such off-duty activity is already prohibited among the Garda, believe it or not.

Could the Minister of State repeat that?

Any off-duty activity of a security nature is already prohibited among the Garda. The Garda Síochána discipline regulations define—

Will the Minister of State—

If the Deputy would give me a moment to clarify the situation I will then give way to him if he so wishes. The Garda Síochána discipline regulations define prohibited spare-time activity as including, inter alia, any activity prohibited by the Garda Commissioner as inappropriate for members to engage in. Acting as directors or secretaries of security firms or being engaged in any way in security work as a spare-time activity is so prohibited. Does the Deputy wish to intervene?

My understanding was that the Garda Commissioner had specifically sought that all gardaí would inform him if they became involved in any security activities.

My understanding is that gardaí are not entitled to engage in the provision of security services. If Deputies have suggestions for strengthening the law on Committee Stage, the Government will be only too happy to listen.

The Garda Commissioner will appear next week anyway before the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Fair enough. The Defence Forces regulations provide that involvement in off-duty employment may be terminated or limited where such employment is likely to prove detrimental or prejudicial to the best interests of the service. Prison officers are precluded under the terms of their employment from having a connection with an outside business that would interfere with the performance of their official duties.

As regards implementation of the licensing system, it will be necessary to introduce it on a phased basis. I could envisage that it would apply initially to security guards and door supervisors and be applied on a phased basis to other categories with a view to ensuring a balanced work programme for the new authority. However, I am sure the new authority will have its own views on this. The licensing of those already employed in the private security sector will, of course, present a particular challenge. It will undoubtedly require good planning and a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the authority. For example, sufficient time will be required to enable individuals and companies to meet whatever training and other standards are set by the authority. I am confident that the new authority will have the necessary expertise and knowledge, and the goodwill of the entire private security industry, to manage the transitional process and, looking beyond that, to operate a licensing system based on high standards and quality service.

Several Deputies mentioned the proposed composition of the authority, and I agree that it should be independent in the exercise of its functions. Deputy Coveney mentioned this in particular. This independence is provided for in section 6. The representative structure set out in section 7 will accommodate many of the relevant interests, but I admit that it may not be possible to include all of them. That is why provision has been made in the First Schedule for the establishment of advisory committees to assist the authority in the performance of its functions.

I agree completely with the many Deputies who emphasised the importance of proper training. The setting of appropriate training standards will be one of the key functions of the private security authority and one of its immediate priorities. These will be given legal effect in regulations to be made by the authority itself under the powers provided in section 40. The authority will not, of course, be starting from zero. As Deputy Glennon mentioned, FÁS has already developed a successful security equipment installer traineeship and is working towards the launch of a course for security guards in the new year.

Like FÁS, the Security Institute of Ireland has been working with the Further Education and Training Awards Council to develop vocational education for those working in, or intending to work in, the private security industry. I agree with Deputy Upton that FETAC will have an important contribution to make in this area by providing appropriate certification for training and education programmes.

Several Deputies, including Deputy Ó Snodaigh, mentioned the need for good practice and approved operating standards for the private security industry. I agree with them. The new authority will not be starting with a blank page. The National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, has been active in the area of standards for a number of years and already operates a number of schemes specifically designed for the security industry. I expect the private security authority will build on that work and I would be surprised if the NSAI did not retain some involvement in this area following the establishment of the authority.

A number of Deputies advocated clear identification of private security staff, especially door supervisors and security guards who have extensive contact with the public, by means of uniforms, badges or whatever. I will give some further thought to that. On the one hand, we need to ensure visibility and accountability but, at the same time, we should avoid trappings that might create an impression that certain private security operatives have official powers they do not have. Deputy Andrews also asked about the steps to be taken if a person is unable to produce a licence on request. We must consider that between now and Committee stage.

Many of the contributions focused on the unfortunate and regrettable experiences of members of the public in their contact with private security personnel but, as Deputies O'Connor and Neville pointed out, the other side of the coin is that many private security personnel experience violence, abuse and intimidation in the course of their work. They also have rights which must be protected, as the example of Brian Fitzgerald in my constituency clearly shows.

The role of the private security authority will be to control and supervise persons providing security services and to maintain and improve standards in the provision of such services. It is not intended that it will have a role in determining pay or conditions of service. Nevertheless, the establishment of the authority will go a long way towards improving standards and quality of service, as well as improving the industry's image and standing. I anticipate that these developments will, in turn, bring tangible benefits for those who work in or intend to work in private security services.

Deputy Costello mentioned the role of trade unions and I want to acknowledge the social dialogue that has developed in recent years in the private security industry. The social partners include SIPTU and, on the employer side, the Irish Security Industry Association and the National Union of Security Employers. Their common aim is higher standards and better pay and conditions for security staff.

Several Deputies stressed the importance of proper vetting of applicants for licences with a view to excluding those with convictions for various offences and violent behaviour. The Bill provides that the authority may grant a licence or refuse to grant it if it considers that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to provide a security service. In arriving at its decision, the authority may require verification of information provided by the applicant by affidavit or may require the applicant to supply a certificate by a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent. The authority may itself request the Garda to provide any information required for the due performance of its functions in relation to any applicant for a licence or any licensee. The Bill also requires an applicant for a licence and any licensee who has been convicted of an offence, or against whom proceedings for an offence are pending, to notify the authority of the conviction or proceedings in a prescribed manner.

The authority will have the means necessary to operate the licensing system in the public interest and in the best interests of the private security industry and will be able to exclude those people who should not be allowed to operate within the industry. It is also relevant in this context that the membership of the authority will include a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing and a representative of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner.

Deputy Stanton posed a question about the rights of establishment and freedom to provide services in the European Union. That is an important aspect. The right of establishment is set out in Article 43 of the European Community treaty. It means that restrictions on the setting up of branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any member state in the territory of any member state are prohibited. Article 49 of the Community treaty prohibits restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the Community by nationals of member states. National regulations are not allowed to hinder the rights of establishment and freedom to provide services and the Court of Justice has made this clear in a number of its rulings. It remains possible for member states to retain their domestic laws, but these cannot be used to restrict the provision of services from elsewhere in the Community.

Many of the services provided by the industry, for example, transport of works of art or high value goods, involve the crossing of national frontiers and the existence of different standards and procedures create burdens for operators and employees alike. A transnational dimension also arises where a company in one member state wishes to tender for a private security contract in another or where an applicant for a job in one member state has acquired work experience or has gained a qualification in another and the question arises as to what weight or recognition should be given to it. The Internal Market has brought significant benefits to this country and it is important that it be allowed to operate smoothly in the provision of private security services. I do not share Deputy Crawford's fear about unfair competition from outside. I tend to believe that a fully functioning internal market will benefit our private security industry by opening up opportunities in other member states.

While I am dealing with the issue of EU level co-operation and activity, I also want to mention a number of recent initiatives in this area. Last year the Belgian Presidency invited representatives of the member states and applicant countries to a seminar in Brussels to exchange information on the regulation of the private security services in their respective countries and to explore the possibilities of improved co-operation and the removal of obstacles that currently hinder the provision of security services across national boundaries. Earlier this year the Spanish Presidency sought to build on the Belgian initiative by bringing forward a proposal to improve co-operation between the member state authorities responsible for the private security sector. Following discussions, a recommendation was unanimously adopted by the Council on 13 June. We will participate fully in work arising at EU level under the terms of the recommendation.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and constructive suggestions. We will consider them in detail as we prepare for Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share