I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with Deputy Stanton.
Private Members' Business. - Private Security Services Bill, 1999: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank my Front Bench colleagues for the opportunity to introduce this Bill. Its purpose is to provide for a scheme to establish an authority known as the Irish Security Authority, which will regulate the Irish private security industry.
I thank the many people who in the past year have helped to produce the Bill. There were valuable contributions from the security industry sector, especially by Mr. Paul Flanagan of the Security Federation of Ireland, Mr. John Byrne of the Security Institute in Ireland, Mr. Graham Picket of the Irish Security Industry Association and Mr. Bill Browne of NEWS. I thank those who crossed traditional party lines to help develop the Bill. I thank Mr. James Gilhooley, SC, and one person who I cannot name but without whose unqualified support, enthusiasm and risk taking this Bill would not have been possible.
I would like to believe that no person involved with this Bill would suffer from that involvement, for it attempts to tackle some of the serious evils in society. Most Members will recall I introduced the Door Supervisors Bill on 23 and 24 March 1998. I recall the kind words expressed by the late Pat Upton on that occasion. Although the Bill was welcomed it was considered that its provisions did not go far enough and that broader legislation was required. In the intervening 18 months no alternative legislation has been introduced. When the Bill was debated in the House I said if the Minister did not undertake to introduce a Bill at the end of this year I would introduce a more comprehensive Bill to cover all the aspects of the security industry outlined by him at that time.
The background to and need for this legislation is well known to us all. Only recently in Ballym ount, members of the INLA and other Dublin criminals chopped each other up in a manner similar to that depicted in the movie "Reservoir Dogs". What was the INLA doing in Dublin? I am reliably informed that many members of the organisation work as bouncers in the security industry. I advised the Minister of this two years ago, yet nothing has been done to introduce legislation to help protect visitors to clubs. It is my suspicion that the money circulating in the security sector allows criminals to become chameleons, to hide their spots to buy affluence and, more sinister, influence.
What about the good people in the industry? Since early 1996 the legitimate tax paying security industry players have co-operated closely in a partnership mode to improve all aspects of their industry. This resulted in the establishment of the Security Federation of Ireland, bringing together an industry-wide focus. In 1978 the industry established the first intruder alarm standard, IS 199. In the middle 1980s the first monitoring centre standard was introduced, IS 228. Both these standards now have third party certification in operation with the National Standards Authority of Ireland and they cover the electronics security industry sector. However, only dedicated and quality companies have adopted the inspectorate scheme to date.
On a European level, the Security Federation of Ireland is the Irish representative of the Confederation of European Security Services, the CoESS. There is mutual recognition of the CoESS in Euro-Fiet social partners for the European security industry. The Security Federation of Ireland is participating in the fifth directive general with regard to training and related areas. The European security industry, under the auspices of the CoESS and Euro-Fiet and with the support of the EU, launched a new initiative for the awarding of contracts for demand for the security sector. The electronic sector of the security industry is also heavily involved in the work of Cenelec, which covers the harmonisation process on alarm systems, close circuit television systems, access control and so on. Several new Irish standards have now been published.
In Ireland the legitimate taxpaying security industry has also been involved in the establishment of a joint labour committee, the purpose of which is to issue an employment regulation order, which will set out legally binding terms and conditions of employment for private industry security staff. The industry is also actively involved in the development of a national traineeship through FÁS for both the guarding and electronic sectors. In September 1999 the IS 999 Guarding Security Services was launched by the NSAI. This provides a specification that will enhance quality of service and set out criteria for selection, screening, training, a code of conduct, operations requirements and ongoing assessments.
The failure of the Government to fully implement the recommendations of its appointed consultative group undermines every effort made by other parties in the industry. These improvements cannot stand alone and it was only on the understanding that the Government would fulfil its agreed agenda that employers felt empowered to deal with these other areas. The security industry is now left in a situation where it has imposed demands on itself without the necessary protection of licensing. This will result in a more fragmented industry with lower standards than exist at present. The current situation is that any person or group can form a company for the purpose of providing a security service, present themselves as a professional security provider and gain access to sensitive security information.
Legitimate companies have enormous difficulties in adequately vetting their staff and because of the Data Protection Act, many businesses are left vulnerable to criminal intrusion. This is proven by the many court instances where security officers are charged with crimes against their employers' client companies. The security federation has written to all Members of the House seeking support for this Bill.
Section 1 lists the definitions. I have gone as far as possible to cover the broad sweep of the Irish private security sector, including door supervisors, many of whom we would not like to have as friends. The Minister should have acted to address the problems in this area when we last debated the matter 18 months ago.
Sections 2 and 3 provide for the establishment of a body to be known as the Irish Security Authority. This is in keeping with the consultative group established by the previous Minister for Justice, my colleague, Deputy Owen, and whose final report was accepted by the Minister. Two years ago the report identified 13 functions for a new security authority. These are the issuing of licences, advising the Minister, who needs much advice on this issue, specifying standards, laying down training requirements, carrying out research, maintaining records for research, holding appeals, implementing relevant EU directives and regulations, monitoring international developments, conducting on-sight inspections and dealing with complaints. The Bill addresses these functions, especially in sections 5, 13, 21 and 24. The model it presents, with its open and cross-agency focus, is the best way forward.
Section 4 sets out the establishment of a register and the appointment of a chief inspector. This industry has a very broad scope. In my research I have seen up to 40 sub-sectors identified in the UK position paper. It is prudent that categories of licences are provided for and this I have done. I acknowledge that the industry needs this as a protection and best practice way forward.
Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 introduce criteria for registration as a licensed provider of private security services and develop procedures and conditions. I have introduced training and qualification requirements which will be set by regulation, and not otherwise set in stone. This is very important and I think we have learned from the discussions we had on the last occasion. This is a growing industry and must be regulated in a flexible manner. By setting requirements by regulation we will allow the industry to develop. If we decide to adopt a prescribed set of standards, who is to say they may not be redundant in five years time? If it took the industry 30 years to get to this point how long would it take to amend outdated legislation? God help us if we are depending on the people who are responsible for introducing legislation.
I understand that the Minister's officials want to introduce their solutions. Any solution that does not involve partnership with the honest tax-paying member of the sector will not work and will cause a backlash – the Minister knows about them because he and the Government have been ducking and diving from one all week. I suspect the Department does not have people with the necessary experience to manage the Minister's wishes for this sector because it is two years since the consultative group reported.
Section 9 is very important as it states who may not provide these regulated services. For years I have listened to how many sharp operators, when finally cornered by the various hard working regulatory authorities, were able to shut up shop and open up the next day in another corporate guise – the famous phoenix syndrome. I am sure the Minister knows a little about that. Section 9 introduces the concept of by-passing the corporate veil and getting to those who control companies. This is very effective law and one which the public and the industry require.
Sections 10, 11 and 12 deal with the expiry, surrendering and non-transferability of certificate registrations. I accept that this is not light legislation in its scope and effect. Therefore, in sections 13 and 14, in the interest of fairness I have introduced an appeal board and procedures, all of which are outlined here and in the Second Schedule. If a person is refused registration he shall be able to appeal, and the person may also appeal conditions and restrictions imposed on his licence by the authority.
Section 15 deals with the various regulations regarding records. This is a very important concept. As society grows and becomes more advanced we are going to need better private security services. In fact, we will need services not yet designed. It would be fatal to replace this Bill with a scheme that sets regulation in stone. This is a dynamic industry and one that is growing fast, for it has to catch up. Except for the United Kingdom, we are the only EU country that does not regulate its private security industry. Even countries that are on the waiting list to join the EU have regulated this sector. It would be ridiculous to develop legislation which would not be able to respond to future changes in this sector and I propose that the empowering Ministers with regulations is the sensible way forward. Anything less would be seen as a punishment of the industry for seeking to better itself.
Section 16 deals with the cancellation of registrations where issues of false information, unfurnished information, abuse or failure to comply with obligations are involved. To be fair I have provided that no action shall take place until such persons have had a reasonable opportunity to reply. Section 17 details relevant offences. These apply where persons wilfully make false statements, furnish false documents, fail to return licences and have unauthorised possession of licences. I also include persons who aid, abet, counsel or procure licences in an improper manner and persons who do not keep proper records or fail to comply with the regulations made under this Act.
Sections 18 and 19 prescribe a certificate of registration as evidence of registration and a prohibition against personation of gardaí. Section 20 introduces a complaints procedure which is always a very important factor. If the State licenses a sector, especially one which has a tremendous interaction with the public it is important that the public has confidence in the legislation. There must, therefore, be a proper complaints procedure. Section 21 details powers of entry, inspection and arrest by gardaí and of entry into premises by inspectors.
Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 detail annual reporting to the Minister, restrictions and disqualifications from membership of the authority or appeal board and the imposition of financial charges for registration. A low annual fee of between £10 and £15 per individual would more than cover the cost of such a scheme and the knock-on effect on the black economy would generate millions in tax revenue which are otherwise lost to the Exchequer every year. The First Schedule details the structure of the proposed authority and the Second Schedule deals with the structure of the proposed appeal board.
The Private Security Services Bill, 1999, is relevant, effective and much needed law. I have done my best to help develop and support a struggling industry sector. I have designed this scheme with a mind to protect the public. All who have supported me on this issue have said that the time is now. There is no quick buck to be made here. This legislation attempts to level the playing pitch by protecting and supporting those who pay their taxes and protecting those who spend their hard earned wages on such services. We must stop rewarding those who abuse our economic structures.
Since the introduction of this Bill before the summer recess the Minister and his officials have had ample opportunity to prepare the heads of a Bill. Furthermore, I am told that this Bill will not be accepted. I bring to the attention of the House a newspaper report of a court case held a couple of weeks ago:
A bouncer at Goodtime Charlie's in Howth has been found guilty of an assault which left a youth's jaw hanging from his face.
I brought this Bill to the House two years ago having spent the previous two years researching this question. I informed the Government and asked it to regulate this industry. The Minister appointed a consultative group to make proposals which would ensure that such a report would never again appear in our newspapers. Two years later, by doing nothing, we are allowing our young people who go out at night to be harassed by people who take the law into their own hands. The case I mention is about the sixth to appear in the newspapers in as many weeks and there is more to come.
The last time I spoke on this subject in the House I received four telephone calls from the mothers of four young lads who had been harassed by bouncers in clubs in various parts of the country. The bouncers were themselves taking cases against the young men. Were it not for the work of a very eminent lawyer, the reputations of these young lads could have been destroyed by these thugs. The four young men, who I sent to see the eminent lawyer, won their cases. Although I did not need that proof, this proved there was a serious problem.
Speaking on Second Stage of the Door Supervisors Bill in March 1998 the Minister said ".I will immediately bring proposals to Government recommending what I consider to be the most realistic, effective and appropriate course of action to cater for a growing industry.". Twenty one months later there are no such proposals. At the time that Bill was brought before the House, many members of the security federation were not happy to be associated with it. However, they were anxious to introduce regulation in the industry and if that meant regulating bouncers and door supervisors, so be it.
I extend my thanks to the members of the federation for the efforts they made and the discussions they held to put together the agreed formula which is included in the Bill. This Bill has not been taken off a shelf or been drafted by one or two people. It is agreed by an industry which has been ignored by the Minister and his Department. There were to be meetings with members of the industry every three months but one can count the number of times the meetings were held on the fingers of one hand. Indeed, there were plenty of opportunities to have such meetings in the period since this Bill was published.
This Bill is not about scoring points but about providing services for an industry which is in severe competition with illegal and unregistered operators who flout the law. The stories about the problems in this industry today are no different from those we heard about two and a half years ago. The Minister will tonight inform the House about the great things he has in store for private security services. If I and the colleagues who helped me with this legislation achieve nothing else but the Minister's announcement that the heads of a Bill are agreed, it will be a step forward. The Minister could put the heads in this Bill if he wished. The industry must be regulated. The Minister must do something now to prevent young people being harassed in the manner I described earlier.
I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on introducing this Bill and for the hard work he put into drafting it. It is important legislation and I am puzzled the Government has not brought forward its own legislation in this area.
The security industry is important. We are not sure how many people work in it because many of its operators work in the black economy. However, estimates put the figure at 20,000. Security does not simply involve standing at a door looking tough. There is more to it and people who work legitimately in the security industry are aware that it can offer good career prospects. Due to the lack of regulation and standards in the industry – anybody can put themselves forward as security personnel, doormen, bouncers and so forth – it cannot be considered a career option by young people even though there are already 20,000 people working in the sector.
I am aware from my contacts with people in the security sector that they take pride in their jobs and are seeking and would welcome regulation and standards in the industry. This Bill is the first step in that direction. Many more must be taken. It is a growing and complicated industry and research on its development must be carried out. Newspapers carry reports, particularly coming up to Christmas, on the high tech equipment used by people in the security industry. This equipment is computerised and links shops with other shops and retail outlets. People in the security industry battle daily against organised criminals who target these shops. They must be capable, well equipped and well trained.
At present, there is little or no training for people in the security industry. Some are trained but there are low standards in many areas and this issue must be addressed. The Minister should accept this Bill or bring forward his own legislation as soon as possible. With legislation, the security industry can be put on a footing whereby people who work in it can be proud of it and young people can aspire to working in it. The industry needs to be defined. A good report on the private security industry was published by the consultative group established by my colleague, Deputy Owen, when she was Minister for Justice. The report contains many valuable suggestions and ideas. I am puzzled as to why the current Minister has done nothing in this area during his term of office. It is obvious that something must be done.
More than 20,000 licences would probably be issued in the first year if the authority described by Deputy Farrelly was established. Regulation would not cost the Exchequer anything as it would be self financing. Establishing the authority would also assist in regulating the black economy. Many people in this sector operate in the black economy and they are in direct compe tition with people who work in the legitimate security industry. This does the industry much harm. There is much disquiet and concern about low standards in the industry and Deputy Farrelly offered a number of examples of people being assaulted and injured, as a result of lack of training, supervision and regulation in the industry. This must stop and the Minister has the power to do it.
The problem goes beyond instances of assault and injury. They are extreme examples even though they continue to occur. A security person who is properly trained will know how to deal with the public. A properly trained and supervised doorman will know how to deal with the unruly punter. He will know there are many ways of avoiding confrontation.
At present, the public has no means of redress if a problem occurs except to sue through the courts. Establishing an authority would enable members of the public to make complaints about people who offend them. This is important. Anybody can set themselves up as a security person at present. A person might have a criminal record but no account is taken of it. He might have dealt in drugs yet still be able to establish himself as security personnel. He might even have convictions for assault. This is detrimental to the legitimate industry. It is also unfair competition.
This situation is not good enough. We must develop the industry. There is an international dimension to this industry, as the Minister will be aware. Other countries in Europe offer training for security personnel. Ireland is one of the few countries in the EU that does not regulate the security industry.
How is existing law, for example, the Organisation of Working Time Act, to be applied to an industry which is unregulated and for which a register does not exist? How is it known who is working in the industry, where they are working and whether they have training? It is a special industry which is growing and developing, and it needs the support of the Legislature. The Minister should bring forward legislation or adopt this well prepared and well thought out legislation. It would save him and his officials much time and effort if he did so. We would accommodate necessary amendments to the legislation on Committee Stage. Why does the Minister not bring forward his own legislation? Why will he not accept the legislation we are debating? We should work together to ensure the development of the industry and to cater for those working legitimately within it.
What would happen if an employee had no training and there was a bomb scare? What would he or she do if they had not been told what to do? Are security people trained in first aid? If someone is injured, do they know what to do? These are basic skills any person working in this area should have.
The Bill also deals with the notion of the carrying of a badge. Many people, when they wear a hat with a badge on it, seem to grow in stature and seem to think they can take the law into their own hands. If they are properly trained and regulated, they will know that when they put on a cap with a badge or wear a badge on a jumper, there is a corresponding responsibility. The people who work in the legitimate industry know that. The wearing of a badge carries responsibility and people must be trained in that responsibility. Without a regulatory authority and certification, this will not happen.
We must do something about this. It is crying out for attention and action. Have people who work in the industry any training in the law and do they know what they can do within the civil and criminal law? I assume those who work in the legitimate industry probably know, but those who work in the black economy probably do not. I have been present when people have been assaulted. It is not a pretty sight to see people using their fists and boots on younger people who might have a few drinks taken. The people who did this did not know any other way. They were not trained. They knew that, apart from someone taking them to court, which was an extreme step, there was no other sanction. There is a sanction in the Bill in that they will be struck off the register if they step out of line. Security people also have a redress in the Bill in that it provides for an appeals mechanism, which is important. The mechanism works in different ways. The Bill contains safeguards for everyone, both for the punter and the person working in the security industry.
We are all aware of the growth in the electronics industry. There is a question of the use of electronic devices. Are people trained to use them properly? That is important. I mentioned fire safety. If a fire breaks out, the security person on the spot must take control in many areas. How many are trained in this? A legitimate security man probably will be, but those working in the black economy and who are unregulated probably will have no fire safety training. How important is reporting and the keeping of records? Does this happen in the industry at present? Reports and records of incidents should be kept. How do security staff link up with the Garda? If the industry were registered and regulated, these links would be built in.
The general duties of a security officer would be spelt out and laid down and people would be trained in them and would have to follow them. They would also have the support of the law in carrying out their duties. At present, this is not the case. We are waiting for a major crisis or incident to occur where a person is injured or killed because many people in the security industry have no training and only know one way of reacting.
There are also other aspects of the security industry. The bodyguards sector is growing at a huge rate. Many people do not know about it, and perhaps the Minister could tell us what he knows about it. How many bodyguards operate in Ireland? What is the situation regarding private investigators? Perhaps the Minister could tell us about that. There is also the situation regarding suppliers and installers of alarms and closed circuit television. These are expensive and important pieces of equipment. What regulation exists in this area? These are not mentioned in the Bill but they are in the same general area. People are also spending a great deal of money on in-house security. It is important that a person's house is secure. These issues I raise show how broad and big the industry is, how much money is involved and how many people work in it. We need to examine not just the area under discussion but also the broader industry. I wish to share time with Deputy Boylan.
I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on bringing forward the legislation. People were never more security conscious than now with the booming economy. I am aware of security being offered to businesses and of businesses having refused and having been subsequently burgled. I am aware of businesses which hired security and which had their premises burgled. There is something seriously wrong. It is not good enough nor is it credible. I am aware of a person who recently travelled abroad, left their car at Dublin Airport and returned three days later to find their BMW burgled. The lock was drilled, the alarm system was activated, but no one took any notice, and it kept going until the battery went flat. The person reported it, but the security people said there was nothing they could do about it. Is that security? Is that the type of system we have in this country? It is answerable to no one.
When I conducted some inquiries for this debate about how the system operated, I found that hotels, discos and large pubs no longer directly employ security people. Companies now provide this service. It was at that stage I came across notepaper headed "24 Hour Security Limited". I should imagine it is strictly limited. I asked who was involved in the company. The people who used the service said they had no idea. I have no doubt that people who were involved in other activities have now moved into the security business. That is not good enough nor is it acceptable.
I must feel that my children, when they are out for their entertainment, are safe, and that if there is a problem in the place of entertainment, there are people present who can deal with it. I do not want gurriers, thugs or muscle men throwing their weight around. Young people can be boisterous and matters can get out of hand, but not seriously. However, matters will get seriously out of hand if a person who has no knowledge or experience of how to deal with it becomes involved. What training do these people have? It is probably training where they wore balaclavas and carried guns. Now that that is ended, they have moved to another industry to make a livelihood. We must be ahead of these people. The Minister owes it to the people and it is his responsibility to ensure that security in the country is in safe hands.
I thank God we have the Garda which has marvellous and wonderful people who can do so much. However, they are dependent, when they arrive at the scene of an incident, on the people to whom they talk, and those people must have credibility. They must be people from whom the Garda can obtain a name and address, and the Garda must be certain that the information being given is factual and not one-sided to vindicate the use of brute force.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to a more recent case where a decent woman shopping in a supermarket in the city was taken in for shoplifting. To try to gain bonus points the security man had placed goods in her bag claiming he had caught her shoplifting. However, he was found out and the woman was vindicated, but she was humiliated for six months while the court case dragged on. Those are the type of people we are talking about. That said, there are good people who are anxious to provide a good service and who need training and backup and legislation to protect them.
First, I acknowledge Deputy Farrelly's long and keen interest in regulation of the private security industry. I should also state that both in Government and in Opposition I have had a particular interest in the area of regulatory reform. I wish to say, however, that the Government is committed to its own Bill in this area and does not intend to support the Bill the Deputy proposes. The House should be aware as well that work on producing my Bill is well advanced. I accept and admit that production of the Bill has been slower than I hoped. The reason for this is that among the 24 Bills which have been passed by the House and which were published by my Department since the Government came to office, there was a considerable amount of work attaching to legislation dealing with the Northern peace process and, latterly, immigration. Unfortunately legislation in this regard pushed back the legislation further than I wished. This does not mean I am not fully committed to legislation in this area, but there are only 24 hours in a day and there is only so much legislative time available.
It is important to bear in mind that what is in question under the Bill is the establishment of a State licensing and regulatory authority for the private security industry, that Exchequer funding in one way or another will be involved, that staffing issues will be involved and that until such time as the Bill is enacted and even beyond that time, ongoing consultations with relevant interests, including representatives of the industry, Departments and the Garda Síochána will be a necessary feature in the context of the policy that is finally decided upon. That policy will need to be carefully considered, shaped and implemented by way of a Bill as well as the regulations to be made under such a Bill. The measures are not, in my view, of a kind that lend themselves to being accepted readily as a Private Members' Bill. I am conscious, nevertheless, that the Deputy's Bill is a sincere effort on his part. It is of considerable importance and will contribute to debate in this area and help in the preparation of the Government's own Bill.
(Mayo): When will the Bill be published?
The informed background to legislation in this area is, of course, the report of the consultative group on the private security industry. That group reported in late I997 and it was the decision of the Government to approve in principle implementation of the recommendations contained in the report. I brought the report before Government in early 1998 and was given permission to proceed with a view to drafting heads of a Bill which will be completed in the very near future.
Give us a date.
I have previously assured the House that the scheme of the Bill that I am proposing to submit to Government is in the process of being finalised for circulation to Departments. I can confirm that circulation of that scheme is imminent and the intention is to bring it to Government very shortly. I can also assure the House that my Department has already engaged in a good deal of consultation on the Bill and that process will continue. I have met with representatives of various interest groups and in the past couple of weeks I met with some of the groups represented on the consultative group. I have arranged for consultations with those interests to continue with my Department.
The House will appreciate that I as Minister must ensure that statutory regulation of the private security industry is on a sound footing. That regulation requires careful deliberation not only of the organisational and administration aspects which have financial and staffing implications for the Exchequer but also of the legal and even constitutional aspects that may be involved. Provisions dealing with access to employment, in particular, raise significant legal issues affecting, possibly, fundamental rights of individuals and the right to earn a living. The scale of the industry, which has been referred to by Deputies Farrelly, Stanton and Boylan this evening, is a factor which also reminds one of the importance of getting matters right in the Bill. The Deputies have pointed out that the security industry is at work in various aspects of the daily life of the community. Security guards patrol our shopping centres and protect property; security companies carry out cash deliveries for financial institutions and the State and companies provide security alarms for businesses and private homes. These are but a few examples of the important role played by the industry.
The report of the consultative group drew attention to an estimate which put the scale of the industry as involving nearly 400 companies employing over 10,000 employees and with a turnover estimated at about £200 million annually. This estimate did not include the door supervisor sector, which the group estimated could be in the region of 10,000 additional people, most of whom are believed to be employed on a part-time basis and, apparently, some of whom conduct their affairs in what is called nowadays the informal economy.
I thought the figure was 20,000.
The need to provide for statutory regulation as such of the private security industry is by now, I assume, accepted by all sides of the House. Of course, prior to the establishment of the consultative group in 1997 and publication of its report there was no particular consensus as to whether legislation was necessary or on the way. The group's task was to analyse the issues, to examine the ways in which such a broad spectrum of activity currently carried out by the industry could be regulated in practice, and to consider the regulatory practice for the security industry in other jurisdictions. There was a view prior to the group's deliberations that, while there are problems in the industry such as the need to improve standards, inadequate training of staff and sometimes poor compliance with Revenue, social welfare and company law, a number of these problems could and should be addressed within the existing Government and private security industry structures. The consultative group was specifically asked to consider options for increased self-regulation, the possible registration of companies and to set out options also for the introduction of statutory regulation of the industry. The group was asked, in focusing on options for regulation, to include the costs and benefits to the consumer of further regulation and to consider the prospects for improving standards within the industry.
The group's report contains detailed recommendations for regulation of the industry and concluded that further scope for voluntary regulation of the industry had been exhausted and that a statutory body should be established to introduce, control and manage a comprehensive licensing system for various sections of the industry. The group recommended that structures should be put in place for appeals, fitness to practice and complaints mechanisms. Those recommendations of the group form the basis of my heads of legislation to be submitted to Government shortly. I have also taken into account the codes of law that exist in places such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It is also of interest that a consultative paper on the subject was published in the United Kingdom in respect of the regulation of the industry in England and Wales and that legislation is proposed there taking into account the various responses to that paper. When the Government has made its decision on the details of my proposals I shall be glad to announce those details in due course. I will now address certain provisions in the Bill.
The report of the consultative group sets out a comprehensive range of functions for a regulatory authority. It points out that any regulatory framework for the private security industry will not only have to deal with the question of access to the industry but with a series of issues aimed at having a significant impact on the industry in the medium and long-term. Among the many functions of a regulatory authority identified by the consultative group as requiring consideration for inclusion in a Bill are the following: issuing licences to companies, directors and individuals; the maintenance of a publicly accessible register of these licence holders; specifying minimum standards for certain sectors; laying down training requirements for licence holders; designating approved training courses and institutions; holding fitness to practice hearings and appeals; conducting on-site inspections; dealing with complaints and publishing an annual report on the industry.
Those recommended functions of an authority are not clearly set out in the Deputy's Bill. They are issues that were considered essential by the consultative group with a view to professionalisation of the industry and for the improvement of standards. The Bill seriously lacks comprehensiveness.
One of the principal recommendations in the report of the consultative group is that a standard vetting procedure should be introduced for all licence applications to the proposed authority, to be carried out by the Garda Síochána. This was linked to a recommendation in the group's report that individuals who have committed certain criminal offences should be prohibited from holding a licence. The House will appreciate that to give effect to these recommendations careful drafting of legislation would be required.
The introduction of a vetting procedure, such as that recommended by the consultative group, is a crucial factor on which an adequate system of regulation will depend. In addition, access to information held by the Garda Síochána would be essential for any system of vetting to work effectively. It would seem important, therefore, that a sound legal basis is provided in the Bill for the vetting of applicants for licences at both the original application and renewal stages and that provision should also be made for the subsequent reporting by licence holders of any criminal convictions between the time a licence has issued and the date on which it is due for renewal. Section 6(3) of the Bill approaches this issue in a limited and odd way by providing merely that the licence applicant should, upon request made by the authority, "furnish his or her written consent, in so far as the same may be required, to the provision by the Garda Síochana, any health board or any registered medical practitioner, of information in their possession regarding the character or health of the applicant and, if the applicant fails or refuses within 30 days to furnish such consent, the authority may refuse the application in question".
There is not a direct statutory basis provided in the Bill for the clearance checks recommended by the consultative group. Neither is there a statutory basis provided in the Bill, apart from the consent provision, for either the authority to obtain information on the criminal convictions of the licence applicants—
That is what amendments are about, such as will happen with the budget.
—or in the case of renewal applications, of licence holders and, more importantly for the Garda Síochana or others to provide such information to the authority. The issue of clearance checks is vital to the proper operation of the Bill but it is also vital that they are of a kind that can be administered by the relevant authorities on a feasible basis. The introduction of any statutory system of vetting must have regard to the implications of the increased workload that this will involve for the Garda in circumstances where as many as 20,000 applications might potentially be the subject of some character check prior to the issue of a licence.
The Bill does not require licence holders to notify the authority if they are, for example, convicted of a criminal offence between the time a licence is issued by the authority and the time it is due for renewal.
On a yearly basis.
As carrying out character checks and the need to report offences would form an essential basis for the efficient operation of any new licensing procedures, these are important omissions from any regulatory regime which will have to be more clearly addressed in legislation of this sort.
Not true.
Neither is it easy to discern the motivation for the inclusion of medical practitioners or health boards in section 6(3). Should certification of the health status of an employee or prospective employee be required in respect of his or her employment or registration for such employment there are standard procedures for this which are already well recognised and widely used. In such circumstances, a doctor, with the consent of his or her patient, can make known to an employer, or other agency, the nature of any condition which would be of relevance to the undertaking or continuation of employment. In any event, I am also advised that even if, for example, an applicant for registration provided consent, no doctor or health board official would feel under any legal or ethical obligation to furnish such an opinion in an area in which that opinion would carry no more or nor less weight than any other professional person with whom the applicant might come into contact such as a dentist, pharmacist or accountant.
The report of the consultative group recommends that certain criminal offences should rule out entitlement to a licence. This Bill, however, apart from referring to a good character requirement in section 5(1) and in section 16(1)(e) to the cancellation of a licence on foot of a conviction for "an offence involving dishonesty or violent behaviour towards any person", does not specify the criminal offences which may disqualify a person from obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence.
Another amendment could have sorted that out.
Nor does it refer directly to the fact that a criminal conviction could result in such a disqualification. The need for transparency and legal certainty would seem to require that this issue be expressly addressed in the Bill. In this context one might also expect the Bill to provide power to the regulatory authority to check with, say, the Companies Office so as to verify the probity of a security company. No such provision exists in the Bill.
The lack of comprehensiveness is also evident in relation to criteria for entitlement to licences and registration. The criteria for entitlement to a licence must, on any basis, be comprehensive so that licence applicants know exactly what requirements must be fulfilled to enable the authority to respond positively to a licence application. This kind of provision is absent from the Bill.
The consultative group identified a wide range of security activities and categorised them into groups of primary and secondary concerns for licensing purposes. The report concentrated on primary activities such as security operatives, door supervisors or "bouncers", in-house security personnel, security consultants, including advisers, sales persons and private investigators and, finally, installers of security equipment.
However, the group envisaged that other sections of the industry could be included in the licensing requirement in due course by means of regulation. These include, for example, bodyguards and those involved in document destruction. There is provision in section 4(1) for registration of various categories of licensees but there is not any provision to enable additional categories to be added to the licensing requirement. On this basis the Bill, while catering for the licensing of certain activities, simply fails to provide for the licensing of others. The consultative group recommends the licensing of both private security companies and their directors. The group suggested that company licences should be issued only after rigorous checks of applications, including the provision of tax clearance certificates, and that such licences would be reviewed by the authority every two years or whenever there was a change, for example, in any of the directors of a company. The Bill concentrates on the licensing of individuals but does not require companies to be licensed by the authority.
Central to any system of regulation is a mechanism for dealing fairly with complaints against licence holders. The report of the consultative group envisages that a comprehensive and transparent complaints provision should be included in legislation based around a fitness to practice committee. This would, among other matters, deal with complaints about licence holders from the general public and other sources. Such committees are a feature of both primary and secondary legislation in other areas and, on either basis, it would seem useful to establish complaints procedures which would specify such matters as how complaints are to be made; who can make them; the nature of the investigatory procedures to be operated by the authority into such complaints; the grounds on which sanctions can be imposed by the authority where a complaint is upheld and the nature of the sanctions to be imposed if a complaint against a licence holder is upheld by the authority.
The Bill contains, in section 20, a limited and inadequate complaints provision which merely requires the authority to give consideration to any complaint that is not of a frivolous or vexatious nature and provides that while the registration of the security person is in force the authority must keep proper records of all such complaints and of any reply to or action taken on foot of them. Moreover, there is no clear provision in the Bill to make particular regulations to give effect to proper complaints procedures.
While the Bill provides that the authority shall be led by a chief inspector who shall be its chief executive, the report of the consultative group would appear to envisage that the authority's chief executive and inspectorate would be separate functions. The chief inspector and his or her inspectorate would concentrate on such issues as training, application of standards and the investigation of complaints. An efficient inspectorate could be of particular importance in the context of compliance with licensing requirements. This might allow the chief executive to manage the authority, to take in fees and control and generally promote the administrative functions of the authority.
For the detailed reasons I have given, there is no possibility that this Bill can command the support of the Government. What I can reiterate for the House, however, is that my programme of legislation as established by the Government will continue to be progressed vigorously and it includes a private security industry Bill.
The Minister did not say "published".
That programme of legislation to date, since I took office as Minister in June 1997, comprises a total of 24 Bills which have entered the Statute Book. My current legislative responsibilities extend to 12 Bills that are before this House or the Seanad, and I have many other Bills in various forms of preparation. Some, inevitably, are more advanced than others and I am glad the private security industry Bill is being progressed among the other priorities.
I share Deputy Farrelly's concern that the private security industry needs a clear system of statutory regulation. That regulation must be comprehensive and effective in the public interest but it must also foster a balance so that the industry can develop without undue hindrance. The regulatory authority must be funded in one way or another. It must be in a position to do its job effectively and efficiently. Above all, it will require a good and comprehensive code of law. I intend bringing those detailed measures before the House in the not too distant future.
I wish to make it clear that it is not my intention in any way to denigrate the legislation brought before the House by Deputy Farrelly. I have acknowledged his genuine interest and concern in providing legislation in this important area. His Bill is important in this respect in the context of framing sound statutory provisions for the future regulation of that industry.
Consultation is clearly of considerable importance, not just with the Opposition spokespersons in this area but with the representatives of the industry. I have made it clear that my door is open to the industry and I met its representatives recently. I have assured the industry and the unions involved in the industry, and I take the opportunity of doing so again now, that it is my intention that they should be kept fully informed of developments and that they should be consulted as the legislation is being framed. After all, the legislation is of greater importance to them than it is to anybody else because they have been calling for this legislation for a long time.
They have waited with despair.
My legislation will do much by way of regulation to allow detailed consultations with the industry on the nitty-gritty areas after the Bill has been enacted. In other words, the legislation will provide for regulations which can be made by the Minister subsequent to the legislation being passed into the Statute Book. In respect of those regulations, which will be of considerable importance, the industry will be fully consulted.
It was my wish that this legislation would be progressed far more expeditiously. I have given the reasons that was not so and it is a matter of some regret to me. When the legislation is published and it is finally enacted, all concerned will fully agree that with a comprehensive Bill on the Statute Book, the wait will have been well worthwhile.
Twenty years.
I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy Mattie Brennan. I believe there are some five minutes left.
Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.
I had not intended to contribute but I thank the Minister for sharing his time. I am sure Deputy Farrelly has done his best with regard to the Bill he has brought forward but the Minister has pointed out the faults contained therein. I am sure the Bill the Minister intends to bring before the House will be good legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill and congratulate Deputy Farrelly on bringing it before the House. From listening to Deputy Farrelly, in the Seanad when we were both Members of that House and here in the Dáil, I know he has a long interest in this issue and has called for legislation to be put on the Statute Book so as to properly control this industry.
The Bill is a response to the failure of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to take action on the report of the consultative group on the private security industry which is now almost two years old. The consultative group report represented a watershed in the way the security industry is organised in this country. To date, the industry has operated in a largely unregulated and ad hoc fashion. There are no enforceable standards, checks on individuals who operate security companies or minimal training requirements. This important industry, in which approximately 20,000 people work in its various sectors, plays a key role in the protection of people and property, and it must be regulated. The vast majority of operators agree with this approach. They are as opposed to the cowboy element which has entered the industry as anyone else.
The Government would have the support of all the legitimate interests in the industry if it were to introduce a statutory regulatory body as recommended in the report, but nearly two years since the publication of the report the Minister has failed to produce legislation. The reputation and standing of the industry continues to suffer from the Minister's lethargy. He should have the good grace to recognise this and accept the Bill brought forward by Deputy Farrelly this evening. As Deputy Farrelly said, the Minister would be free to amend the legislation in accordance with the various points he made in his contribution. I am sure Deputy Farrelly would take on board the Minister's proposed amendments. Those of us on this side of the House would have amendments also and if we put our heads together we would have a strong and effective Bill to regulate the industry.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response to Deputy Farrelly that he will not accept the Bill. The Minister's legislation, which has not yet been produced – it has not even gone to the various Departments – will go on the long list of awaited legislation in the Department. I accept that many items of legislation have been implemented and that other legislation is before both Houses of the Oireachtas and in the various committees, but those of us dealing with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform know there is a growing list of expected legislation in this area. I share Deputy Farrelly's concern about when the Government's legislation will be produced. From my experience in this House and working with the Department, I know it will take a long time before this legislation is on the Statute Book. I am disappointed the Minister has decided not to amend Deputy Farrelly's Bill and to proceed with a Bill which is unlikely to be passed during the course of next year.
The Bill addresses the concerns raised by the consultative group. It provides a sound basis for legislative action and any concerns or amendments the Minister may have could be dealt with on Committee Stage. This route would ensure we would have sound and comprehensive security industry regulation on the Statute Book early next year. It is probably too late at this stage, but I hope the Minister will decide to deal with the issue in this Bill.
The consultative group comprised representatives of the security industry, IBEC, SIPTU, the Garda Síochána, the Health and Safety Authority, the National Standards Authority of Ireland and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. The report was welcomed by the Minister who accepted that it was an excellent starting point and supported the recommendations for a statutory regulatory agency. Since then, however, the Minister's enthusiasm has waned and despite repeated requests on the Order of Business, we seem to be no nearer a Government Bill on this important issue. Nothing that was said tonight would reassure us that the Bill is any closer.
It is.
I find it difficult to see how a Government Bill, if it ever appears, could differ significantly to the one introduced by Deputy Farrelly in the House this evening.
The Minister could have made a name for himself.
Private Members' Business is the one time when Opposition Members have an opportunity to make a positive contribution to our legislative code. A number of Private Members' Bills have already been accepted by the Government this session, including the Bill on the Statute of Limitations which I published and which we will be discussing in the House on Thursday, the ticket touting and whistle blowers' protection legislation and the Bill on child sexual abuse introduced by Deputy Shatter. These are important items of legislation which will strengthen our legal code in a number of areas.
The acceptance of a Private Members' Bill is not a sign of weakness or failure on a Minister's part. Indeed, it is the exact opposite. It demonstrates that the Executive does not believe it has a monopoly on wisdom. I was struck by the sensible comments made by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, in the House last March when he spoke on the legislation on the prohibition of ticket touts which the Government accepted. He said:
Government office does not confer a monopoly of wisdom on its holder. I hope that a characteristic of my time in office will be an openness to ideas, as well as a preparedness to work with people of good intentions from every background. That is what the people who sent us here expect from us.
This sensible and reasonable approach is good for politics and good for this House. On the Statute of Limitations legislation, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has shown a similar measure of goodwill. Although the Minister and I strongly disagree on the Bill's detail, detail which is of critical importance, I appreciate his acceptance of the Bill. I had hoped that he would continue that practice in regard to the Bill before the House this evening but, unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Such acceptance would reflect on the workings of the House and the ability of parliamentary democracy to tackle issues in a non-partisan, constructive fashion.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a security authority which would comprise a chairperson – a practising barrister or solicitor of at least ten years' standing – and ten ordinary members. Among the ordinary membership, five should be representatives of the Irish private security industry, two should be barristers or solicitors and one should be a senior member of the Garda. In terms of amending the Bill, I would suggest that a representative of the Youth Council of Ireland might be appointed to the authority – young people might have a good deal to say about how the industry should be run.
The functions and duties of the authority, which are quite standard, are outlined in the First Schedule. I fully support the requirement for the authority to furnish a report on its activities to the Houses of the Oireachtas on an annual basis. In establishing any statutory agency, legislation should include a requirement for the chairperson to appear before an Oireachtas committee when requested to do so. Members may remember the lacuna in legislation which led to the development of a difficult situation between an Oireachtas committee and the Director of Telecommunications Regulation. We should learn from this experience and ensure that a requirement to appear before an Oireachtas committee is imposed on all statutory agencies in primary legislation. It is important in the context of democratic accountability. In recent years, in particular, the administration, regulation and enforcement of a number of laws passed by this House has been entrusted to statutory agencies. I support this process and I also support the independence which lies at the heart of the operation of agencies such as the Food Safety Authority and the Irish Sports Council. It is important to recognise that these agencies are established by these Houses to enforce and administer duties conferred on them by the Oireachtas. It is important that accountability to the people's elected representatives is clearly stated in legislation.
There is a more general point about the security industry which has concerned me for some time. A large number of security companies provide a guard dog service and, while many companies operate to the highest standards, I have grave concerns about the treatment of guard dogs by a number of operators. I have heard of cases where these dogs are almost starved in a mean-minded effort to cut down on overheads. The transport used to ferry these dogs can also be substandard. I doubt that the kennelling facilities provided by some security companies are much better. For anyone who has a love of dogs, the maltreatment of guard dogs by a number of operators is a grave cause for concern.
I suggest this is one of the first areas any newly appointed security authority should address. Perhaps the appointment of a Member of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals during the authority's first term would send out the signal that the abuse of animals will no longer be accepted. I would also urge the authority to introduce new standards of accommodation, transport and hygiene for animals in the security industry. These regulations should be stringently enforced and those who treat dogs cruelly, in a pathetic attempt to line their own pockets, should be dealt with severely. The authority should introduce new training requirements for those in the security industry who are responsible for handling guard dogs. People should not be allowed to take charge of guard dogs unless they have first completed a training course on their management and a basic course in animal health. This would allow illness and disease to be addressed at an early stage and handlers would be able to identify a dog which required veterinary attention.
I would like to impress upon the Minister the support which exists within the industry for a proper regulatory framework, as proposed in this Bill. Security operators and unions alike are emphatic about the need to clean up the industry and introduce a system to weed out cowboy operators. At present, anyone can establish and operate a security firm. Checks are not carried out into people's backgrounds and a number of dubious individuals, who provide a questionable form of security, have entered the trade in recent years. This cannot be allowed to continue.
The recent economic boom has increased the demand for security services of all kinds. Like many other sectors of the economy, security services have expanded rapidly. The lack of regulation affects both the reputation of the industry and the working conditions for staff in the industry. The unregulated nature of the industry gives rise to various abuses, especially of employees. Unions find it very difficult to recruit and regularise staff where firms are working in the black or grey economy. Workers lose out on important protections and benefits such as holiday and sick pay. Health and safety regulations are often flouted and, in some instances, the workers' well-being is put at risk. The benefits of new developments in the labour market, such as the working time or parental leave legislation, are often denied to workers in the black economy. This is an issue about which the trade union movement is deeply concerned. I share those concerns.
Comprehensive regulation of the industry is urgently required if these issues are to be addressed. Unions and employers are agreed on this agenda. In September, the National Union of Security Employers underlined this point during the launch of the new national standard for the private security services. This voluntary standard, IS/9/99, provides security firms with standards on the vetting and training of employees. It also includes tough standards on the screening of individual applicants for positions in the security industry. These procedures and standards need to given a statutory basis and the Bill before the House provides the Government with an opportunity to progress this issue.
One of the most obvious areas in which legislative change would have a real effect on the public relates to door staff at entertainment venues. The expansion of the entertainment industry in recent years has led to a huge increase in the number of premises which utilise the services of doormen, many of whom are provided on contract from security firms – I do not know whether there are many doorwomen in the industry. A casual review of court reports in recent years reveals the problems which exist in this area.
There are numerous examples of door staff being convicted for violent assaults on customers, confirming anecdotal evidence which most Members have doubtless heard about the abuses perpetrated by some door staff. A report in The Irish Times of 4 March 1999 stated that a person received £13,000 in compensation for an assault carried out by a doorman in a night club in the centre of Dublin. According to the judge, this was the third violent incident involving night club door staff to have come before him in a matter of weeks. Mr. Justice Smith stated that it was a matter for the Legislature to introduce legislation to control this difficult situation in some way. Only last week, it was reported that a customer of a Dublin night club had to have a metal plate inserted in his face to reconnect his jaw bone following an assault by a bouncer.
It is clear that some door staff believe they operate above the law. Some nightclub owners only seem to want intimidating men handy with their fists working in their clubs in a mistaken belief that this is the way to deter disputes or fights which may break out. The behaviour of some doormen has dragged the whole image of the industry into the mire.
Like Deputy Boylan, I speak as a parent of young people who go out at night during the weekend. I have a 20 year old and 22 year old. From listening to them and their friends, there seems to be a fear of these people. One cannot stand up to them if they say one cannot come in, that one has to get out or that one's friend cannot come in. I heard of one instance where the locals were going to be let in but somebody who was not Irish was told he could not come in. One really cannot answer back. One is at the mercy of these people who are usually big, strong and powerful and one cannot question what they say. It is a concern to parents that young people are going out into an unregulated atmosphere such as this.
In recent days I heard that body searches are sometimes carried out in nightclubs, not on the way in but inside. Someone can be pulled aside and told they are going to be searched without any reason being given. I accept the gardaí might find reason to search people but an unlicensed group of workers should not have the right to go up to somebody in a nightclub and tell them they are going to be searched. Young people do not have the means to answer back or to stand up for themselves. The equal status legislation is going through the House at the moment and I wonder to what extent it may be used as a protection. We need to regulate this industry urgently.
Progressive elements in the industry want to radically reform this area and I would like to mention two recent initiatives which have been undertaken. One was started in Galway roughly 12 months ago. It was an attempt to halt the falling standards among door staff. A training course consisting of six modules, which covered all aspects of door security was launched. Topics such as fire prevention and evacuation, drug awareness and the legal issues of the business were covered.
In addition, eight doormen in Dublin recently participated in a drugs education programme run by the Eastern Health Board. It was a ten week programme dealing with the legal and health aspects of drug use and participants received certificates from the health board after completing the course. These positive developments must be encouraged and facilitated by the Government. In this day and age, it is not acceptable that doormen and women have no training and no idea of the legal implications of their actions. This is a dangerous state of affairs. Action, including legislative action by the Oireachtas, must be taken to change it.
As regards the manner in which this Bill relates to door supervisions, I suggest that section 18 be widened to include identification of door staff and, indeed, any security officers who come into contact with the public. Section 18 places an obligation on security personnel to produce evidence of registration to a member of the Garda or an inspector. I suggest this section be extended to place a requirement on door staff and other security personnel to always wear an identification badge, to which Deputy Stanton also referred, visible to the public which would show their name and the name of their employer.
Any proposed Irish security authority should embark on a public information campaign which would inform consumers and customers of their rights in situations where they come into contact with security personnel. Perhaps a joint campaign with the consumers' association or some other body may be appropriate. There are many incidents where innocent customers are detained by security staff, particularly in department stores. The legal basis on which these people are detained is unclear and it is essential that both staff and consumers are fully aware of their rights and their legal position in such a situation. It is a difficult job and it is in the interests of those who work in the industry as well as the public that it is properly regulated. They are powerful people and can ruin a person's reputation. If somebody is wrongly accused of stealing something from a shop, their reputation can be ruined for life. They can injure people, as we have seen from court cases. It is right that they should be regulated.
The question of records and ensuring people with certain criminal records should not be included is something about which I feel strongly. I know there are people operating in the security industry who have criminal records and it is important that there is regulation in this regard.
I congratulate Deputy Farrelly on the introduction of this Bill. There is widespread concern about the conduct of some private security operators but it would be grossly unfair for the whole industry to suffer due to the activities of a minority. Without adequate regulation, this will increasingly happen. If the rogue element in the security industry is not weeded out, the whole industry will pay the price and public confidence in the trade will be undermined.
Unfortunately, there has been no indication from the Minister that if this Bill is not accepted we will see this type of regulation in the near future. Deputies are all well aware of the length of the Minister's list of work. There is no evidence that we will see such a Bill within the next six months. Again, I express my disappointment that we will not be able to deal with this issue on the basis of this Bill. I am concerned that this industry will continue to operate without regulation.
If Deputy Healy-Rae brought it forward, the Minister would probably accept it.
Many speakers complimented Deputy Farrelly on introducing the Bill and on strongly pursuing the issue. The Minister accepts the principle and has clearly stated that it is his intention to introduce a Government Bill. He indicated that he has some reser vations about the scope of Deputy Farrelly's Bill. The Minister's approach in this regard is sensible.
People who do not have a close interest in the proceedings or in the industry will be astounded by the number of people who work in it. The report produced some time ago indicates that there may be as many as 10,000 employed as door supervisors, bouncers and so on. The other element which comes to mind when one starts to look closely at this industry is the huge divergence between security companies in terms of those which provide personnel, various electronic devices and other elements of what has, on the one hand, become a complex and modern industry but, on the other hand, it remains a very basic one. There should be a minimum requirement in terms of the qualifications of those involved in the industry. That is one aspect which will have to be carefully considered in the Government's legislation, which, I hope, will be introduced soon.
I saw in the report an expectation that within two years of the setting up of the authority, which is the principal recommendation of the report, as many as 20,000 licences could be issued. When I saw that figure, I thought there must be a mistake in that there was one zero more than intended. The intention is that companies and individuals would be licensed. It would be a huge undertaking for the authority.
One of the difficulties to which the Minister adverted was the distinction between the chief executive officer and the chief inspector, which is not clear in Deputy Farrelly's Bill. The Minister said it needs to be firmly established in the legislation, and there is a strong case for that. There is also a huge amount of potential earning in the industry, with £200 million per annum currently being spent on it. There are enormous question marks over a relatively small percentage of those engaged in the industry in terms of their suitability.
One of the recommendations in the report is that the Garda should be involved in vetting the individuals who might be employed as doormen or who are involved in security firms. That is a sensible recommendation but it will cause difficulty with some existing companies and potential ones. It is something which will have to be addressed in the legislation. It will be a huge challenge for the authority when it is set up and for the chief executive officer and those who work in it. It will be extremely important that the legislation sets out their role clearly and in a straightforward manner. It will be difficult to draw up mechanisms to deal with fitness to practice.
The Minister might have a rethink overnight.
Debate adjourned.