Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2004

Vol. 580 No. 6

Private Security Services Bill 2001: Report Stage.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"(3) Within one month after the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement as to the intended timetable for implementation of the Act by means of orders under subsection (2).”.

The amendment seeks that within one month of the passing of this Act — and we have certainly waited long enough for that to happen — the Minister shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement as to the intended timetable for implementation of the Act by means of orders under subsection (2).

The amendment is pertinent, given the length of time it has taken us to get to this stage. There is no excuse for the fact that the Bill has taken so long. I was looking through some of the material we received about it from the Security Federation of Ireland many moons ago, on 5 December 2002. The SFI stated: "The security industry has come a long way since it first made representations to the Department of Justice seeking licensing of the industry in 1974." The security industry sought to have the industry licensed 30 years ago. This legislation has been waiting well over two and a half years to be processed.

In moving this amendment, I wish to ensure that there is no further delay and that we will not be waiting for orders to be implemented by the Minister. We should receive a timetable within one month after the passage of the Act as to when all the orders will be implemented.

Under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts 1997 and 2003 provision was made for an order to introduce labelling of all units of alcohol purchased in off-licences. The order was not executed under the 1997 Act nor has it been executed under the 2003 Act. There is not much sense in making provision for ministerial orders if the Minister will not act on them.

It is appropriate that a provision is included in all legislation to set a time limit within which the Minister would exercise the powers given to him or her by ministerial order. It is high time this legislation was implemented.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I support the amendment. It is a pity that, while time and again a raft of technical amendments are tabled by the Minister on Committee and Report Stages, we have a short time to deal with them. We only have an hour to get to grips with the Minister's proposals. We will not reach more than 20 amendments but 87 have been tabled. That is not a satisfactory way to legislate. The substantial amendments should have been tabled by the Minister well in advance of Report Stage so that we would have the opportunity at least to discuss them and to table amendments to them.

It is reasonable to expect the Minister to lay before the House within a month of the passage of the legislation a timetable for implementation. He could outline a reasonable timetable and could foresee all potential problems. There is an urgent need for the legislation to regulate this significant industry properly. That must be introduced quickly and we should not have to wait for its implementation for four or five years, or even longer, which is the case with other legislation.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O’Dea)

Deputy Costello mentioned a recommendation made in 1974. The Labour Party was in office that year and remained in office for a further three years. The party also spent time in office in the interim.

Mr. Costello

Not as long as Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O’Dea

Given that the party did not see fit to do anything about this issue, we have decided to address it. I share the Deputy's concerns regarding the time it has taken to process this legislation but a brief perusal of the Committee Stage debate indicates the extent to which it was dragged out, although not by the Deputy and his party. Members repeated points that had been made ad nauseam——

Mr. Deasy

Why does the Minister of State not get on with it?

Mr. O’Dea

——and, in some cases, contributed just for the sake of it.

Mr. Deasy

We only have an hour.

Mr. O’Dea

The Deputy is incorrect, as usual. I refer to the so-called second party in the State, which deliberately dragged the debate out, not Deputy Ó Snodaigh's party, Deputy Costello's party or the Green Party.

Mr. Deasy

Get on with it.

Mr. O’Dea

It is enough for the Deputy to act the idiot outside the House rather than acting it inside as well. He is known as such.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister of State will never become a Minister if he continues to act like this.

Mr. O’Dea

John Wayne should keep quiet.

Mr. Deasy

Where is the real Minister?

Mr. O’Dea

Perhaps he will get his girlfriend to interview him again on RTE3.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

Please allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Mr. O’Dea

In response to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the debate will adjourn at 1.30 p.m. but it is not due to conclude then. The vast majority of the Minister's amendments are technical, drafting amendments and most of the other amendments have been tabled in response to legitimate points raised on Committee Stage, mainly by non-Fine Gael representatives.

Deputy Costello's amendment is concerned with the establishment of the private security authority and the implementation of the other provisions in the legislation. I share his concern but inserting a provision similar to that proposed by the Deputy would not be useful or helpful. Regarding the establishment of the authority, the Minister indicated his intention to appoint a shadow board in advance of the enactment of the legislation. He will do so at an appropriate time. However, I do not wish to take the Seanad for granted and I will await the outcome of the Second Stage debate in that House before proceeding so that it can be indicated when the legislation will finally be enacted.

It will be necessary to introduce the licensing system on a phased basis. I envisage, for example, that the licensing requirement would apply initially to security guards and door supervisors before being rolled out to other categories. This would also help to ensure a balanced work programme for the new authority. I do not, however, wish to pre-empt the deliberations of the chairman and members of the new authority. The Bill provides for the establishment of an authority that will be representative of various interests and it will also have a view on how best to proceed. I will take due account of these views when drawing up the commencement orders referred to in the amendment.

The licensing of those employed in the industry will also present a challenge. It will require good planning and flexibility on the part of the authority. Sufficient time will have to be allowed to enable individuals and companies to meet training and other standards set by the authority. I am confident, as is the Government, 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 to operate a licensing system based on high standards and quality service.

Licensing will have to be introduced on a phased basis. I do not wish to pre-empt the authority's views, as it must implement the system on a phased basis. Certain categories of workers will be high on the priority list while other categories will be further down the list. For example, the standards that will be expected of installers of security equipment must be worked out so that they can obtain licences.

However, I share the concerns that have been expressed about the time it has taken to bring the legislation to this Stage, given the context in which it has been introduced. We are determined to ensure it will be implemented as quickly as possible.

Mr. Costello

The Minister of State has not allayed our fears. I agree with him regarding the establishment of a shadow board on a phased basis and the examination of the licensing process by the authority, as different sectors will require different standards and criteria. | have no problem with that at all. However, my amendment provides that within one month the Minister "shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a statement as to the intended timetable for implementation." The Bill was published in January 2001, almost three years and one month ago, which must be a record. There was plenty of time to examine the establishment of a framework.

Mr. Deasy

It is all Fine Gael's fault.

Mr. Costello

A Fine Gael Member introduced a Private Members' Bill, as a result of which the Minister decided to introduce this legislation. The private security industry has been seeking such legislation for 30 years. It is the fault of successive Governments that this has taken so long.

As Deputy Ó Snodaigh indicated, the Minister has introduced a raft of amendments, many of which are substantial. Last September, when we debated this Bill on Committee Stage, the Minister virtually introduced a new Bill. This is the third new version of this Bill and the Minister has made similar changes to every Bill he has introduced to the Oireachtas. This is not the way to create legislation. The Minister does not think out legislation in advance and the legislation which was drafted by his predecessor is now so out of date that it needs substantial changes. The whole thing is a mess.

Since Committee Stage of this Bill was completed six months ago there has been ample time to tell the industry that a commencement process would take place, that training and education criteria would be established, that the authority would be set up and would deal with the different sectors in a different fashion and that there would be phased implementation of the licensing process. Given that this has not been done I am worried that it may be left on the long finger, even when the legislation has been enacted.

This is not a technical amendment. It deals with a substantive issue. We must have some indication of when the legislation will be implemented. The Minister's track record is not satisfactory in this respect.

Although the Minister of State may not accept the wording of this amendment, he has hinted that he may take a fresh look at the Bill before it goes to the Seanad. There must be a statement of intent regarding the implementation of this legislation. The private security industry employs more than the Garda and the Army combined. Ireland is the only country in the European Union and the OECD which does not have legislation regulating its private security services. Legislation is being discussed which will establish an inspectorate to regulate the behaviour of gardaí. Meanwhile the private security industry, which daily faces the public in sensitive situations, is not regulated, has no determined standards and it is left up to the industry to regulate itself, in so far as it does so. The industry is wide open to rogue activity and we show no sense of urgency in regulating it.

That is the purpose of this amendment. If the Minister of State does not accept the wording of my amendment he should draft an amendment which will set parameters for the implementation of the legislation.

Mr. O’Dea

I do not believe this Bill sets a record. I recall a companies (amendment) Bill which took approximately five years to be enacted. The Bill to amalgamate Foynes and Limerick harbours also took a long time.

I take Deputy Costello's point. In the interim period since Second Stage was debated, we have had time for discussions with the private security industry. However, it is the authority which will be responsible for the implementation of the legislation. I am conscious of the time the Bill is taking but I do not think including a provision such as Deputy Costello proposes in primary legislation is an appropriate response. Nevertheless, before the Bill comes to the Seanad I will discuss the idea of a statement of intent with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The legislation is immediately necessary.

Mr. Costello

I must be satisfied with some crumbs from the Minister of State. I will withdraw the amendment if he is undertaking that an outline of the Minister's intent to implement the legislation within a specified period of time will be put in writing, even if it is not included in the legislation.

Mr. O’Dea

I will talk to the Minister about that to see if we can give a broad indication of when the various parts of the legislation will be implemented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"'corresponding authority' has the meaning given to it by section 41;”.

This is a drafting amendment which inserts a reference to the term "corresponding authority" into section 2.

Mr. Costello

This amendment refers to section 41, which states that a corresponding authority means an authority in a member state of the European Communities which has functions that substantially correspond to those of the Private Security Authority and is designated by the Private Security Authority as such an authority.

Is there a European Union governing body for the private security industry? In discussions with representatives of the industry, reference was made by some security firms to a body which oversees standards. How does one determine what a corresponding body is in one of the new member states, for example? There is the Confederation of European Security Services, to which the Irish representative body, the Security Federation of Ireland, is affiliated. By what criteria will it be determined that a corresponding authority substantially corresponds to the Private Security Authority? We can hardly send members of the authority around Europe to check what bodies operate in other countries. There must be a centralised structure to determine whether or not a particular body is a corresponding authority.

We do not know to what extent the new member states regulate their industries in the way we are attempting to regulate. I do not think a check has been done on that. It would be interesting to know if these states have regulatory legislation for their private security services and the nature of that regulation. The private security industry already employs a large number of non-nationals, who seem to have a proclivity for the industry. I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments on my remarks before we accept his amendment.

Mr. O’Dea

It is my understanding that there is some co-operation across the European Union at industry level. There is, so far, no co-operation at authority level. There have been moves by the Commission to promote co-operation at authority level. This will make much clearer what does or does not constitute a corresponding authority in another country. I am informed that there will be a meeting to progress that issue later this year.

While I accept Deputy Costello's point, I am confident that the Irish authority will not designate an authority in another country as a corresponding authority unless it is satisfied about the standards it expects and the way it operates.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Costello arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, line 5, after "corporate" to insert "or unincorporated body".

I tabled this amendment on Committee Stage. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the matter of what might be termed an "unincorporated" entity, for example a husband and wife may own a company that is not incorporated in any legal form. I presume an incorporated body refers to a company that has been through the legal process of incorporation for the purposes of trading. The Bill refers to a body corporate, but many of those trading have not become incorporated, sole traders, individuals trading who may not fall into the strict legal category of a body corporate. I would like to have clarified that somebody operating as a sole trader would be referred to in the same fashion as those who are legally incorporated. I did not get much satisfaction when I raised this on Committee Stage so I tabled it again.

Mr. O’Dea

Deputy Costello seeks to insert a reference to an "unincorporated body" in the section dealing with the definition of "director". The definition has been included here because of the references in sections 21 and 22 to applications for licences by companies. If a company is applying for a licence, the authority will have to be satisfied about certain matters pertaining to the directors of those companies. Where the applicant is a body corporate, the character and competence of the directors is a relevant factor to be taken into account by the authority when deciding whether to grant a licence or a renewal. The definition is intended to assist the authority in processing applications from corporate bodies. There are three types of applicants envisaged, an individual, a partnership or a corporate body as defined under company legislation. If the applicant is a corporate body, the authority must be satisfied regarding certain matters about the directors. This seeks to define director of a corporate body for the purposes of that provision. I cannot envisage a situation where there are directors of an unincorporated body. It is either an individual, a partnership or a corporate entity.

Mr. Costello

In the interpretation section, I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph (b) which refers to any person who effectively directs or has a material influence over the business of the body corporate.

Mr. O’Dea

That includes shadow directors.

Mr. Costello

That would apply to a director of a body that was not incorporated, the people who would run the business. Whether the business entity is incorporated in law, it would still have a director, who "effectively directs or has a material influence over the business". It was the absence of a reference to an unincorporated body in the interpretation section that I sought to correct.

Mr. O’Dea

In company law, a director may include a person who is not on the register as a director of a company, somebody who influences the running of a company's business, known as a shadow director. The definition is broad enough to incorporate those individuals. However, I cannot envisage a situation where somebody could be described, for the purposes of this legislation, as a "director" of an unincorporated body. It is either a company, a partnership or an individual — I draw Deputy Costello's attention to amendment No. 40 in the name of the Minister, which seeks to insert a new section 25 to tighten up the situation, in case there is room for doubt. We will discuss this amendment when we come to it, but in passing it states that if an application is made by a person carrying on business under a name that is not that of the beneficial owner of the business, that application will be refused unless a copy of a certification of registration is produced under the Registration of Business Names Act 1963. The name of the business corresponds with the person who is applying for the licence. Unless there is some specific example that Deputy Costello has in mind, I do not think there is a need for it.

Mr. Costello

: Amendment No. 40 refers only to incorporated companies which need certain documents when seeking a licence. It states that the Authority shall refuse to grant an application for a licence or for renewal of a licence "unless the application is accompanied by a certificate of the incorporation of the company.." However, if the company is unincorporated and has no company status in that sense, and one is a director of that company, is the Minister stating that paragraph (b) of amendment No. 40 covers it? That paragraph states: “by or on behalf of a person carrying on business under a name that is not that of the beneficial owner of the business”. The person is the beneficial owner of the business. For example, where a husband and wife set up a security company they do not incorporate it as they do not have to do so as a sole trader. My question is where in the Bill is the unincorporated company referred to? Is the Minister satisfied it is covered? This amendment refers to a person carrying on a business under a name that is not that of the beneficial owner, but that is not what I am referring to.

Mr. O’Dea

A husband and wife would be two individuals and they would be individual applicants. If a husband and wife——

Mr. Costello

Not necessarily a husband and wife, even a single person could be a sole trader.

Mr. O’Dea

A single person would be an individual and there are provisions in the Bill for applications for licences by individuals.

Mr. Costello

I have not seen what provisions cover it.

Mr. O’Dea

Sections 21 and 22.

Mr. Costello

The reference to the director is only to one of a body corporate. What about the director of a body which is not a body corporate but who carries out the same functions? A director is any person who directs or has a material influence over the business. Why is that provision not extended to include unincorporated bodies as well as bodies corporate? In terms of taking action against offenders, unincorporated bodies will give rise to most trouble with people operating without a trading company in being. To take action for breach of licence or standards where there is no reference to the director of such a body will be much more difficult in law. I imagine that, if any rogue company is found to be in existence after the passing of this law, it will have that type of structure. If a person has gone to the trouble of registering a company, he or she will be easily accessible. The authority would have much greater powers to investigate any person who would be out of line if the provision were made.

Mr. O’Dea

There is no such thing in law as the director of an unincorporated body. The body is either incorporated or it is not. The alternative is to create a partnership. The legislation envisages three categories of applicant which are an individual, a partnership or a company. Perhaps Deputy Costello is worried about circumstances in which an applicant for a security licence is not the person who is really in charge and there is a shadowy figure in the background directing the operation. Is the Deputy concerned that such a person should be made amenable?

Mr. Costello

That is one possibility. The structure and penalties must apply whether a unit is incorporated or unincorporated. Whichever entity is trading must be fully subject to any penalties or requirements of the legislation. It appears the definition of "director" ties the legislation down as it refers only to the specific trading structure of a body corporate. We are talking about the interpretation. There are other trading structures to which I refer the Minister of State to encourage him to broaden the net. If problems arise, all trading structures should fall within the remit of the legislation to allow the authority to take action.

Mr. O’Dea

I am satisfied that they do. There is no such thing as the director of a sole tradership.

Mr. Costello

Why not?

Mr. O’Dea

A sole trader applies for a licence.

Mr. Costello

I am referring to "director" in the context of the legislation. The Minister of State has given a specific meaning to "director" which is not a legal meaning in terms of trading. I can read the definition to the House.

Acting Chairman

I remind the Deputy of the rules of the House. We are on Report Stage, not Committee Stage.

Mr. Costello

I will finish on this point. The Minister of State's definition of "director" is any person occupying the position of director by whatever name called. It is any person who directs or has a material influence over the business of the body. That definition should be broadened to include unincorporated bodies to cover the gamut of structures which will be put in place.

Mr. O’Dea

The definition comes from company law. There can only be a director of a company. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a director of a sole tradership or any non-corporate body. If one takes the position that someone might apply for a licence where the controlling person is somebody else operating in the background, the possibility is addressed at least partially in amendment No. 40. We will discuss the amendment when we come to it. In attempting to provide for all these possibilities, who should decide that an applicant is not the person who is in charge of a business even though it is being carried on in his or her name? Who can decide whether a person is or is not the controlling mind in an operation?

I am concerned that there should be no lacuna or loophole in the legislation and, to satisfy Deputy Costello, we will discuss the matter with the security industry between Report Stage and the referral of the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Costello

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Mr. Deasy

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, line 18, after "remuneration" to insert "or reward".

This matter was raised on Committee Stage and the Minister of State has come some way towards meeting our concerns. Initially, we were concerned that the word "remuneration" was too narrow and we proposed the amendment in the interests of certainty. The literal interpretation of "remuneration" would seem to be limited to a financial payment. We considered it important to ensure that the definition would encompass persons in receipt of payment in other forms. The provision has been broadened by the inclusion of benefits-in-kind, which is fair enough. Why has the provision not been broadened to include food and refreshment?

Mr. O’Dea

Amendment No. 8 arises from a point made by Deputy Deasy on Committee Stage, the substance of which we have accepted. The definitions of "door supervisor", "security guard", etc. provide that such a person must hold a licence to perform a private security service for remuneration. This reference to "remuneration" was included to exclude from the licensing requirement persons doing voluntary work at local shows or festivals. It was suggested on Committee Stage that using the term "for remuneration" might inadvertently open the way for employers to reward part-time door supervisors through benefits-in-kind such as holiday vouchers, televisions, etc. That was a fair point.

Amendment No. 8 contains a definition of "remuneration" which includes such benefits-in-kind but, as Deputy Deasy says, excludes meals and refreshments which would normally be provided for volunteer workers at local or charitable events or pilgrimages. Apart from that, the substance of Deputy Deasy's point is covered by the amendment.

Mr. Deasy

What the Minister of State says makes sense. The only concern I have is that he is providing a loophole in a broader sense. I agree with everything he says, but the exclusion could apply to persons other than volunteers. Therefore, the Minister of State should re-examine the matter.

Mr. O’Dea

As I said to Deputy Costello earlier, I am anxious that no gaps should remain in the legislation. I will re-examine the provision to discover whether it can be tightened further. I would not like to see any holes being opened.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"'remuneration' includes a benefit in kind but does not include any meal or refreshment provided in connection with the performance of a service;".

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 52 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, line 43, after "provided" to insert "by a private security employer or".

The amendments under discussion are drafting amendments which involve matters brought to our attention on Committee Stage. They are connected with the definition of "security service". The amendment to section 36 is a consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, to delete line 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deasy

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following

"(j) vendor of security equipment or safes.”.

Given that the word "supplier" is used in the definition, "vendor" should be included for clarification. One could interpret them as two different things.

Mr. O’Dea

I agree with the thinking behind the amendment but the advice I have is that the position at present is that a vendor of security equipment is already covered by the term "supplier or installer" of security equipment, while a vendor of safes is covered by the term "supplier or installer of safes". They are two of the categories in the subsection. The term "vendor" is too narrow because the term "supplier" covers vendors of lease equipment who hire it out for short periods.

Mr. Deasy

I will not labour the point. An installer could be entirely different from vendor. I ask the Minister of State to have another look at it. It should be tighter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deasy

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, line 21, after "sections” to insert “23,”.

We are afraid that unwittingly this will apply the Act to the Garda or members of the Defence Force. The only reason for the amendment was to ensure that the Garda and members of the Defence Force could not be included as security staff or personnel.

Mr. O’Dea

While I have a great deal of sympathy for those amendments I am reluctant to accept them at this point. The position regarding the involvement of members of the Garda and the Defence Force in providing security services for off duty is as follows: in relation to the Garda any such off duty activity is already prohibited. The Garda Síochána discipline regulations define "prohibited spare time activity" as including, inter alia, any activity which is prohibited by the 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.

Section 16 of the recently published Garda Síochána Bill makes provision for statutory codes of conduct. On balance, it would be more appropriate to deal with the off duty conduct of the Garda in the context of such codes, rather than in this Bill. As regards the Defence Forces, the position is that the Defence Force 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.

Mr. Deasy

We felt the matter needed clarification. Those regulations to which the Minister of State has referred have been ignored for years, and he knows it. Therefore, it would not be any harm to clarify that in the legislation.

Mr. Costello

If the Minister of State is saying that the Garda Síochána Bill contains similar requirements in respect of off duty gardaí and that already it is part of the regulations in operation for the Garda Síochána, surely there is no problem in putting it into this Bill so that the private security business will know how it is supposed to operate, rather than looking at other legislation to find out what restrictions there might be on the Garda Síochana. It would seem eminently reasonable that, at least, the Garda Síochána would not be an exempted class as under section 3. I understand the same argument was made in regard to the Defence Forces. If it is clear that off duty activity of this nature is prohibited why not include it in the Bill? Given that the Minister has already said it is prohibited in the new legislation, let us include it in this Bill for the private security industry to see it at first hand.

Mr. O’Dea

Perhaps Deputy Costello misunderstood what I said. I said there is provision in section 16 of the new Garda Síochána Bill for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to draw up a new code of conduct for the Garda which will deal with these matters. The reason it is being done that way rather than in primary legislation is that it is considered more appropriate to do it that way. I understand what Deputy Deasy has said, that these regulations are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. That is the reality of which those of us who are familiar with daily life here are only too well aware. Under the new code of conduct which will be drawn up under section 16 of the Garda Síochána Bill, particular attention will be paid to this subject.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

There is no reference in section 16 of the Garda Síochána Bill to the point made by the Minister of State. It refers to a code of conduct and practice but it does not specifically mention what we are dealing with today. That is the reason it should be included in this Bill. Given that this Bill has taken four years to reach the stage of enactment, the Garda could be involved for four years.

Mr. O’Dea

I can confirm here that the new code of ethics to be drawn up for the Garda will have a specific emphasis on off duty activities. The Deputy is correct in saying it is not specifically mentioned in the section but there will be a specific focus on it.

Mr. Deasy

That is the undertaking the Minister of State is giving.

Mr. O’Dea

Yes.

Mr. Deasy

Can he relate that to the Garda Commissioner as it pertains to this Bill and the new authority.

Mr. O’Dea

Yes.

Mr. Deasy

I thank the Minister of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, line 25, to delete "police force" and substitute "harbour police".

This is merely a drafting amendment to bring the wording into line with the term used in the Harbours Act 1996.

Mr. Costello

What was the purpose of the exemption in the first place other than in other legislation?

Mr. O’Dea

These officers are already designated under the Harbours Act. Therefore, there is no need to refer to them in this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, line 38, after "all" to insert "of".

This is a minor drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 9, line 3, to delete "thereat" and substitute "there".

This amendment is in response to a point raised by Deputy Paul McGrath on Committee Stage. It is merely a drafting amendment and arises from a suggestion made by Deputy McGrath which we have taken on board.

Mr. Deasy

I thank the Minister. The Minister has changed.

Mr. O’Dea

If the amendments add to the legislation I will accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O’Dea

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, line 20, to delete "shall stand" and substitute "stands".

Once again, we are indebted to Deputy Paul McGrath for a suggestion made on Committee Stage. The amendment introduces more elegant draftsmanship and I am very grateful to the Deputy. We make this amendment at his suggestion.

Mr. Costello

That is not what the Minister of State said the last time.

Mr. O’Dea

Generosity is my middle name.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related to amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendmentNo. 17:

In page 10, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:

"(a) 2 persons who are practising barristers or practising solicitors, of not less than 5 years’ standing, at least one of whom has a specialisation in human rights law,”.

The amendments will ensure that the authority the Minister will put in place is reflective and capable of carrying out the work we require, through the inclusion on the authority of certain barristers, employees' representatives recommended by the trade unions and at least one representative of the public through whom the concerns of the community can be expressed.

Considering the security industry as a whole, it is not unreasonable to ensure that such categories of people are included on the board as representative of society. The legislation currently allows for the board to contain two representatives of the security industry, that is, the employers and the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. By adopting these amendments, we would ensure the authority is representative and able to carry out its duties. We would also ensure that the legislation, which has taken so long to come to fruition, is implemented quickly and fairly so the authority is able to address every problem it comes across. It would not be unreasonable for the Minister of State to accept the amendments.

Mr. Costello

The amendments are valuable and eminently reasonable. We covered some of this ground on Committee Stage. We discussed the fact that there was a general impression that the 11 member authority could be improved upon, and that one of the areas for improvement was that of human rights. We have seen the degree to which activities in regard to the private security industry end up in the courts at present, such as fatalities, serious injuries, assaults, etc. Therefore, it would be appropriate that we would have cognisance of that at an early stage and that the board contained representatives with human rights experience. The inclusion of barristers or solicitors should not be prevented.

The selection of representatives of employees dealt with by the next amendment should be left to the trade unions rather than the Minister. SIPTU representatives indicated to Members that they were working very closely with the main security firms and that a considerable proportion of the industry was being unionised. While I am not sure the Minister of State has figures regarding the current extent of that, once regulations and legislation are in place, the industry will be more open to unionisation.

It would certainly seem appropriate that the trade unions represented in the security industry should have some say in suggesting a selected nominee to the Minister for appointment to the board, and the Minister gave some indication that he would look positively on such a suggestion. It should be written into the legislation and there should not be a fear that the level of unionisation is not high enough to do so.

Amendment No. 19 deals with community interests. Obviously, the security industry operates face-to-face with the community because the services take place, by and large, in a community context. It would certainly be desirable that a person with a community interest be involved with the authority to represent that view. I fully support the amendments and do not see why the Minister of State could not accept them.

Mr. O’Dea

If membership of an authority of this kind is to be finite, there must be a cut-off point at some stage. I am sure that anybody considering this or any other authority set up to regulate any industry, or for any purpose, could make useful suggestions to replace one category of authority member with another, or add categories or otherwise.

Section 7 provides for the establishment of the authority and the more I consider it, the more I am convinced the authority is very broadly based. A balance must be struck between efficiency and representativeness. I have, therefore, tried to accommodate relevant interests without sacrificing effectiveness. Provision has been made in Schedule 1 for the establishment of advisory committees and it may be possible to accommodate certain interests on such committees, depending on the subject matter. I will, of course, give careful consideration to any proposals from the authority to establish such advisory committees.

I have some sympathy for the point made by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Costello that two representatives of employees should be nominated by trade unions. In that regard, however, it is important to note that not all the private security industry is unionised as yet and that SIPTU has already put forward a name — my information is that this person will be very favourably considered. My disposition is to leave this as it is. The authority is fairly large and I would not like it to be larger. It is also pretty broadly based. As I said, there will be back-up advisory groups on which interest groups which have not been accommodated on the authority can be accommodated.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

While the Minister of State says the authority is large, it is one of the smaller bodies, which is to be welcomed. The amendments, if accepted, would only add an extra two people to the other nine on the authority. One would be an additional barrister and one the representative of community interests. The other amendment seeks an alteration so that the trade unions, or a person nominated by them, would represent the views of employees. This would at least give employees influence over their representatives and provide a mechanism through which they could be represented on the board.

Debate adjourned.