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.