Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Private Security Services Bill 2001: From the Seanad.
I am at a loss as to what amendment No. 2 means. What is "A"? I cannot see what the "A" refers to.
This is a technical amendment which simply removes a superfluous phrase from section 22.
Seanad amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 12 are related, No. 11 being consequential to No. 12, and may be taken together, by agreement.
We asked for an explanation regarding the effect of amendment No. 7. I am not clear why the change was made.
Paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 2 lists the decision of the authority which may be appealed to the appeal board. This amendment is essentially a drafting amendment designed to clarify the content and improve the presentation of paragraph 14(1).
In the process, however, it deletes lines 17 to 19. Does that not have a knock-on effect on section 39? In the first instance, it is not simply an addition of paragraph (c) but a deletion of lines 17 to 19. It seems to delete any complaints made under section 39 and as there is a raft of complaint procedures under section 39 it does not appear to be just a tidying up amendment.
It is merely presentational in that it removes some previous texts and sets out more clearly the provisions in terms of (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
Is the Minister of State saying that the phrase "issuing a reprimand, warning or caution or an advice" tidies up all the complaints against licensees in section 39, which gives a whole list relating to revocation, suspension, reprimand, warning, caution and advice. They are all gone now and the wording has been reduced to reprimand, warning or caution, or an advice. Revocation and suspension have been deleted.
That is not the case. Paragraph (a) refers to a person aggrieved by a decision of the authority, in the new text, refusing to grant a licence; (b) refers to suspending or revoking a licence; (c) refers to issuing a reprimand, warning or caution or an advice; (d) refers to refusing a variation of the kind or kinds of security services to which a licence relates; and (e) is not to uphold a complaint under section 39.
All the complaints under section 39 are those which I have just referred to.
There were four paragraphs in the previous text and that has now been amended to five, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). That is the major amendment.
Is the Minister of State saying that is an improvement?
We believe it is, based on the advice we have received.
I will take the Minister of State's word for it.
Again, I would like to query the additional paragraph being inserted here — the second paragraph, if one looks at the legislation. The first part gives effect to what is in existence and the second one relates to paragraph 18(1). I am trying to figure out why that has been added in at this stage and what effect it has in the legislation.
This is also a technical amendment. It arises from an amendment made in this House on Report Stage. The amendment amends the paragraph in Schedule 2, which deals with the oral hearings of appeals by the appeals board. It inserts a new subparagraph to make it clear that the time limit within which a party to the appeal, other than the private security authority itself, may request an oral hearing shall be one month from the date of the notice of appeal.
It is less, it is from the notice of receipt of the appeal.
It elaborates on what was there before, but it is specific. The request for an oral hearing shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal.
This is a consequential technical amendment involving the deletion of a superfluous subparagraph in paragraph 5(d).
This is a technical amendment to Schedule 3, which involves the deletion of a superfluous paragraph.
A message shall be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.