Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Oct 2003

Vol. 1 No. 21

Private Security Services Bill 2001: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials to the meeting, the purpose of which is to consider the Private Security Services Bill 2001.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"(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).”.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. My amendment seeks to ensure the provisions of the legislation would be implemented without delay. Within one month after the passing of the Bill, the Minister would lay before each House the intended timetable for its implementation by means of orders under subsection (2). There are a couple of reasons for tabling the amendment, the general one being that there is not much sense in putting legislation on the Statute Book unless the regulations or orders required are implemented. The Bill is enabling legislation and much will depend on the authority being put together. No results will be seen until the membership is constituted and the authority's functions are put into operation. Merely passing the Bill will do very little for regulation of the industry.

The other reason I have tabled the amendment is that a considerable delay was encountered in getting to this stage. The Bill was published in January 2001. An inordinate amount of time will have elapsed from compilation to its implementation. It still has to go before the Seanad and there may be further delays in its progress.

We last looked at the legislation on 29 January this year when the Security Federation of Ireland made a presentation to the joint committee, following which the document I have before me was produced. Prior to that, in 1997, we had examined the report of the consultative group on the private security industry. It is six years since the original proposal to regulate the industry and establish a private security services authority was made. Effectively, nothing has been done in the meantime.

This is the only country in the European Union in which the security industry is unregulated. From what we have heard from the industry, there is a substantial black market in which there are many cowboys and rogue operators. Reference was made to under-the-counter payments, the lack of observance of the minimum wage and persons working in excess of the statutory number of hours. Because the industry is not regulated, we do not have access to all of the facts. We do not even know the number of firms operating or personnel working in the industry but, from all accounts, the figure is larger than the combined strength of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. At the meeting of the joint committee yesterday we discussed the possibility of the appointment of an ombudsman and a complaints body for the Garda and expressed our intention to ensure the introduction of proper accountability, complaints and supervisory mechanisms, yet in the history of the State we have never bothered to deal with the private security services sector.

The father of a young Cork man is picketing outside Leinster House because he believes his son's death at the hands of a door supervisor in Cork has not been properly investigated. He would like the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure a prosecution takes place as there is a great deal of CCTV evidence. I am aware that the Minister went out to meet him yesterday. Recently, a doorman in Limerick, Mr. Fitzgerald, was assassinated because of his efforts to prevent drugs from entering the nightclub.

This area is in need of regulation. We must ensure legislation is implemented with the utmost speed. I seek a commitment from the Minister that this legislation will go straight to the Seanad and that its provisions will be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.

I support Deputy Costello's sentiments on the need for speedy implementation of the legislation. The report has been available since 1997, yet nothing has happened. As Deputy Costello said, many incidents have occurred in the security industry. A former Member of the House, Mr. John Farrelly, brought forward a number of Private Members' Bills, on which this Bill is probably modelled, but unfortunately they were never taken up. I commend him for his work which, regrettably, went unnoticed by the electorate in the sense that he was not returned to the House.

I agree with nearly all of the sentiments expressed. There is huge urgency attached to this matter. Deputies Costello and McGrath will recognise that in the course of the past year, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I piloted many measures through Dáil Éireann but this one was left at the back of the queue. Both the outgoing and incoming Garda Commissioners have impressed upon me their strong view that this legislation is required as a matter of grave urgency, not just for the reasons mentioned.

The failure to regulate the security industry is replete with opportunities for the emergence of organised crime, blackmail, extortion and the like. The failure to ensure proper standards for security staff, particularly at places of entertainment, creates a market for drug supply and many of the abuses about which we regularly read. Apart from the appalling circumstances of the death of Mr. Adrian Moynihan in Cork, to which Deputy Costello referred, and the killing of Mr. Fitzgerald in Limerick, there has been an emerging pattern of violence and crime centred on the unregulated security industry which is of huge concern to the outgoing and incoming Garda Commissioners.

The Intoxicating Liquor Act and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act are putting more and more pressure on those involved in the entertainment business to provide security in and around their premises. In so doing, however, we are creating opportunities for things to go wrong if we do not, equally, put in place the legislative underpinning for maintaining high standards among those participating in private security services.

I share the Deputies' sense of urgency. I am determined to get the Bill through the Houses as quickly as possible, consistent with fair scrutiny. I am not trying to abridge the procedures of the Houses. Everybody, on all sides of the House, shares the sense of urgency in relation to this legislation. I am considering the possibility of establishing the authority in shadow form in order to speed up the establishment process. I will come back, either in the form of a parliamentary question or on a later Stage of this debate, with up-to-date information on the subject.

The establishment delays can, to some extent, be obviated if we do as much preparatory work as possible before commencement of the Bill. As we are dealing with licensing, obviously not all of it can be done but it may be possible to take many preparatory steps. Deputy Costello's proposal would require me to set out a timetable, an obligation that would, effectively, only come into being on the passing of the Bill. However, I hope to be in a position before the Bill becomes law to set out an iterative timetable for implementation of its various portions, coupled with establishment of the authority in shadow form.

I am grateful to the Deputy for raising the question of implementation because I fully accept that it is easy to pass legislation and leave it unimplemented. I would prefer not to include his amendment in the legislation because it would only postpone what I should be doing anyway - indicating to the House how I intend to implement the Bill. I ask him to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that, as soon as I have a clear picture of our progress in getting the legislation through, I will outline to the best of my ability a timetable for its full implementation.

The Deputies will also be aware that it is the intention - I think the public expects this - that this should be a self-financing venture, not a drain on the Exchequer. In current budgetary circumstances there is all the more reason that this should be so, although some resources will need to be applied initially to help it become self-financing. I have to take all of these points into account in devising the timetable.

The best thing I can do is say to both Deputies that I agree with the sense of what they are doing. I am not speaking with any sense of approval or disapproval when I ask all parties represented in the House to co-operate with me in getting the Bill through as quickly as possible. There is a sense of urgency. Lives literally depend not merely on putting the legislation on the Statute Book but on giving it practical effect.

I am aware this must be one of the first Bills to be dealt with on Committee Stage in the current session. I also expect it will be one of the first Bills dealt with on Report and Final Stages in the House. As so few other Bills have reached Committee Stage I hope this one will be put through the House shortly.

I am a little disappointed the Minister will not give me a timescale. My amendment indicates a period of one month within which he would inform the House of the intended timetable for implementation of the Bill. That would not be a great burden to impose on him. Has he cleared the way for this legislation to be debated in the Seanad before Christmas? When he speaks about the authority in shadow form, has he begun the process of selecting its members? Has he examined its functions? Is the industry aware of the requirement for identification such as badges and cards? There is an amount of administrative work required to be done.

The Minister referred to the venture as being fully self-financing but section 5 of the Bill seems to give the lie to this when it states the expense incurred by the Minister in the administration of the Bill shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Does the Minister intend to impose a levy on the industry? If that is the case, it will also cause administrative delays. I cannot accept his statement, unless I receive a firm indication of a timescale and that steps are being taken to fulfil it.

There has been no sense of urgency about the Bill for the past three years or so. Bona fide members of the self-regulated security industry have been in correspondence with me and I am sure other Deputies also. I have forwarded to the Minister some of their requests about the urgent need to have this legislation put on the Statute Book. I expect something more definite from him before I will be prepared to let this matter go simply on a nod that he will make every effort to expedite it.

I welcome the Minister's intention to implement this legislation as soon as he can. I ask him to set out a timetable, even a tentative one, for the committee, during which he intends to establish the authority.

I was very surprised to hear the Minister say this venture would be self-financing, not a drain on the Exchequer, because it is stated in the Bill that there will be costs on it. Deputy Costello referred to the provisions of section 5, while section 8 states the secretary of the board is to be a full-time, established civil servant. There is a reference in section 21 to persons attending the appeals board. I have not yet found a reference to appeals board personnel being covered. I ask the Minister to clarify what will happen. If he intends the venture to be self-financing, that is a change to what is set out in the Bill. I would have no difficulty with it being self-financing and think it would be a good idea. However, the Minister should clarify whether this is something he has thought of off the top of his head or something which has been worked out over a period? If so, has he brought forward amendments to cover these points?

I am surprised the Deputies are surprised at the approach I am taking. They will recall the report of the consultative group on the private security industry published in December 1997, to which Deputy Costello has already referred. In its executive summary, it states at paragraph 3 that the approach taken will ensure, in so far as is possible, that the authority is established on a self-funding basis. The group considers this is possible and estimated costings are set out in the report.

Deputy Costello points to section 5 which has to be included because otherwise there would be no funding to meet any expenditure. I have explained to the Deputies that, particularly in the start-up period, an injection of seed capital and resources will be required to get the system up and running. One cannot wait for cheques to come in before one starts licensing.

It has been recommended in the report on which this legislation is based that this venture should be self-financing as far as possible. It is not something I have thought up off the top of my head. There may be circumstances, however, where it cannot be self-financing. In those circumstances the Exchequer and the people cannot shirk their obligations or allow an administrative organ of the State to collapse for want of money or become the victim of some kind of cash strike on the part of the people to be licensed.

We were not complaining.

I did not raise any hares.

The Minister did.

I have stated very clearly that this venture will be self-financing. The Deputies referred to the 1997 report which states on its first page of text that it has always been intended that this will be a self-financing operation. This does not come as a surprise to me; however, it may come as a surprise to the Deputies.

That was six years ago. We are talking about what is contained in the Bill.

My point still stands. There have to be standard provisions such as those contained in section 5 because the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not even entitled to spend 42 or 43 cent on a stamp without the authority of the Oireachtas in a matter such as this.

In an effort to move on, will the Minister, prior to or on Report Stage, make a comprehensive statement in relation to his projections for the financing of the authority? For example, the Bill refers to the secretary as being a permanent civil servant, which will have ongoing implications. This will not be changed lightly, even if the operation is to be self-financing because a civil servant has to be protected in terms of superannuation and pension payments.

I am sure there are budgetary considerations and that the Minister would be able to do that.

Perhaps he could give the committee a report before Report Stage.

To move matters along, I draw the attention of members to page 50 of the 1997 report. This information may be somewhat fictional, bearing in mind what has happened to all costs. The report refers to the annual running costs of the security authority, which at that stage were projected to be of the order of €300,000.

Perhaps the Minister will update that information for the committee before Report Stage.

Deputy McGrath referred to civil servants. Section 6(8) states members of the authority shall act on a part-time basis and be paid such remuneration and allowances for expenses as the Minister for Finance may determine. Presumably, that money will come from the Exchequer. As there is no reference in the Bill to self-financing, it might be a good idea if the Minister decided to introduce this provision to the Bill.

As such bodies expend money on salaries and the like, they receive in moneys by way of appropriations-in-aid. Licence fees are diverted to them as appropriations-in-aid.

Are the fees equal to the appropriations-in-aid?

Yes, normally appropriations-in-aid represent the appropriation of income flows to the Government. Other expenditures are dealt with differently in public finance terms. As far as possible, it is hoped this will operate on the basis of appropriations-in-aid, financed as fully as possible from income from licence fees.

The Minister has been very generous in supplying the committee with amendments, of which he has supplied 40 or 41 pages.

He is a man of generosity.

This is certainly news to us and I am sure to the industry. The committee requires more information on the likely cost of licences.

It will come as we progress further.

It is relevant to my amendment. Will it be necessary to wait for the moneys to be collected as distinct from the moneys from the Exchequer? What element of the authority will not be able to function until there is a collection of moneys for licences? Will the Minister supply the committee with a timetable for the operation of the provisions of the Bill? The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Minister to give the committee something in black and white as to when there will be a regulated private security service. He is doing everything except giving the committee that information. He is informing it about how the Bill will operate but I am looking for a timescale.

I will be very glad to give the Deputy a timescale as soon as the picture becomes clear. If we are to spend half an hour dealing with the first amendment, the timescale is whatever the Labour Party determines it to be.

That is an unfair statement. It has taken three years to get this far. We are not in disagreement on the substance of the Bill, of which we are all in favour because it will establish an authority. Do we have to spend another three years on a process which the Minister regards as urgent? He has been unable to give the committee any indication as to when the legislation will be implemented.

That is a fair point.

The issue should be sorted out now. I do not mind if we spend three hours on this point. I ask the Minister to give the committee some indication of a timetable and timescale for implementation of the legislation. He has done nothing so far in this respect.

I was foolish enough to agree with the Deputy and say it was my intention to set out a timetable later in the debate.

I remind the Minister that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. He should give the committee a timescale.

I will when I see how the matter is developing. There is no point in me saying what will happen in the Seanad if I am not even clear that the Bill will pass through this House.

Once the Bill passes through the Houses of the Oireachtas, does the Minister have an idea of how implementation of the regulations will develop?

I have such a proposal and will report to the committee or the House on Report Stage. I will do what I am being asked to do - indicate my calendar outline of the stages as they will unfold.

Deputy Costello seems to be taking me up the wrong way - it is the exact opposite of what I said. I thought I indicated that if I had to wait until the licence fees came in, the system would never get going. To start off there has to be seed capital. That is what section 5 deals with. I wish to make it very clear that it is our intention that the legislation should be implemented as quickly as possible. I stated very clearly that in order to do this, I was considering establishing a shadow authority to get it up and running but I cannot do this if the Bill gets bogged down on Committee Stage on amendments of this kind.

Deputy Costello has tabled a legitimate amendment while the Minister has stated he will bring forward a timetable for implementation on Report Stage. On that basis will the Deputy withdraw his amendment?

I will on condition that I may resubmit it on Report Stage if the Minister does not deliver.

I expect him to do so.

I am confident that he will. This may be out of order but before we leave this matter, the Minister and I mentioned the sad case of Adrian Moynihan, the young man killed outside a nightclub. The Minister is aware of the concerns expressed by his family that the case has not been brought to court. Is there any way in which the Director of Public Prosecutions can prosecute in a case of this nature?

That is not covered by the Bill. The Minister does not have to respond.

I will make a brief comment. While I share the concerns expressed by the Deputy, holding the position I do, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a decision pending from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I invited Mr. Andrew Moynihan to visit me in my office in the summer. I explained to him and his wife my understanding of the progress made in the case. I cannot do more than this. I have spoken to him again in the last few days. Even though he is unhappy with the general position, I think he understands I have done everything constitutionally possible or that it is proper for me to do in this case.

The Director of Public Prosecutions does not give any explanations in relation to his decisions.

The Deputy can raise the matter on another occasion.

This is an important point. The Director of Public Prosecutions has done so, however, in a couple of cases. Would it be possible to ask him to explain his decision in particular high profile cases? Will the Minister comment on this?

That point was made and can be answered at Question Time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

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

These amendments propose to extend the definition of "director" in order that, instead of just applying to a body corporate, it would extend to an unincorporated body. Not every registered business is a company or corporate entity. There are many sole traders, a subject on which the Chairman is an expert. The majority of firms operating in the private security industry probably operate in this manner. They probably register in Cavendish Row and trade as a business without the standard articles of incorporation that apply to businesses. In such circumstances people are still entitled to call themselves directors. They may be directors of a corporate entity or an unincorporated body. The definition should not be so narrow as to exclude those who operate as sole traders.

I note that there is a definition of "private security employer" in the Bill which might fill the gap.

Two categories will be entitled to apply to be licensed - bodies corporate or individuals in their own right. There will not be an entitlement on the part of groups of individuals to apply for a licence. In the case of an individual, the financial standing of an applicant will be the financial standing of the individual person. The financial standing of a partnership will be the financial standing of the partners. Clearly, the financial standing of a body corporate is the financial standing of the company established under law.

Deputy Costello is technically incorrect in assuming that only bodies corporate can apply for licences under this legislation. If he wishes to run a licensed security service, he personally can apply. If he wishes to incorporate the business, he can apply in a corporate capacity. If, for instance, the director of a unincorporated body, a loose association, was allowed to make an application, the licensing arrangements would be very vague. Questions would arise as to who was a member of the body, and whether applicants for a licence which were not members of a body corporate or applying as natural persons should be allowed to seek licences such as groups of individuals, the membership of which fluctuates from time to time. There would be all sorts of implications about the character of the applicant and whether the person was suitable. It could result in a group being licensed which would be found to be qualitatively different. The provisions of the Bill do not mean that only bodies corporate can apply for licences; they merely mean that in relation to a body corporate, a person who is nominally a director or exercising de facto control can be deemed to be a director of the company for the purpose of this legislation. His or her behaviour, character and financial standing or otherwise can be the subject of scrutiny.

I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment because the implication would be that unincorporated bodies would be able to apply for licences. I do not intend to give them such a right.

To tease out the matter further, that means a body proposing to set up as a private security firm will have to be incorporated, it cannot simply register as a business——

One can register as a sole trader and register a business name. For instance, Deputy Michael McDowell could establish McDowell Security Services and go to the registrar but the applicant for the licence would be Deputy Michael McDowell, not the business name. It must either be a natural person or body corporate. For example, the Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association cannot become a licensed body unless the application is in the individual names of all of its members, or in the case of partners, the application must be in the names of all of the partners, or in the case of a body corporate, the name of the body corporate applying.

My understanding is that a sole trader is not a body corporate; it is either a natural person, a husband and wife, or a partnership. It could also be the proprietor of a public house. It will have to be a body corporate. Everything in the section dealing with directors relates to the business of the body corporate, its directors and affairs. There is no reference to any other entity which can obtain a licence.

What about the private security employer?

Section 21 provides that an application to the authority for a licence to provide a security service shall be in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed fee and such references as may be required by the authority as to the applicant's character, financial position and competence. It goes on to deal with the applicant's character and so on. Subsection (4) states references to the applicant's character include, in the case of a body corporate, references to directors and, in the case of a partnership, the partners and, in either case, any manager, secretary or other officer of the entity concerned. Full provision is made for this but what Deputy Costello is asking——

That is my point.

——is whether the owner of a public house is entitled to apply in his or her own name or as the proprietor of a registered business name. The answer is that he or she will be entitled to so apply. There is no problem about this.

To continue with section 21, this is merely a technicality. The purpose is to ensure that whatever structure is in place is adequately covered. The section states that references to the applicant's character, financial position and competence include, in the case of a body corporate, the directors and, in the case of a partnership, the partners. While there is an explanatory interpretation available in relation to directors, there is nothing available in relation to partners.

A partnership consists of each of the individual partners.

The interpretation in the Bill gives the impression that the only persons covered are the directors of a body corporate. While partners are referred to in the body of the text, they are not referred to in the interpretation.

I draw the Deputy's attention to section 22 which divides applicants into three categories - individuals, bodies corporate and partnerships. The concept to which the Deputy referred does not arise.

That broadens it further. Why is it not possible to include it in the interpretation?

Perhaps we could bring in Deputy Cassidy, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, to explain it.

The Minister refers only to directors of bodies corporate which are subject to all of the interpretations in the Bill. While a partnership is an equal unit structure, it is not referred to in the interpretation.

It is a definition of "director".

It is. However, there is no definition of "partner". Why is that the case?

"Partner" means something in law. It means a partner under the Partnership Act 1890.

I hope it is covered in the legislation. I am not worried about it; I only thought it had been omitted. Will the Minister clarify that everything is all right? Perhaps the parliamentary counsel could be consulted.

I give the Deputy full marks for scepticism. However, it is covered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 18, after "remuneration" to insert "or reward".

Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point. "Remuneration" means to get paid money for doing something. However, people may get a reward instead of money. Perhaps this should be covered in the legislation. I have seen the phrase "remuneration or reward" in other legislation. It is a belt and braces job.

Would it be possible to insert after the word "remuneration" the phrase "or reward or any consideration"? Some people provide a voluntary service. Perhaps it would be possible to cover this in the broader sense.

We want to make this workable. I understand what the Deputies are saying. If, for example, someone is asked at a community event to be a door supervisor and he or she is given a voucher for a meal as part of that voluntary activity, I do not want to make him or her registrable under this system. It is a matter of practicality. I understand the point made by Deputy Paul McGrath. He wants to know if people will become door supervisors if they are paid in kind. However, I do not want to put people into the category of door supervisors. I do not want the person at the turnstile in the local GAA club who is given a voucher for a meal in the refreshment tent to fall into the category of someone who needs a licence. I will look at the matter between now and Report Stage to see if the issue about which the Deputy is worried can be dealt with in another way. I understand the point, particularly if someone is given a car.

A holiday voucher.

I will look at the matter and see if it can be tightened.

Extraordinary powers are given to door supervisors such as the power to remove people because of their behaviour.

That is the definition.

They are stewards. Deputy Costello might understand the following example. Let us suppose the Labour Party at its national conference appointed stewards——

We are too well behaved.

——and gave them vouchers for a meal at the conference. Does the Deputy want this to be taken as a ground for the stewards to become criminals if they do not have a permit? It is an issue we must discuss.

We do not want a loophole which will allow local hotels to decide that they will not pay their door supervisors but that they will give them holiday vouchers, etc. We do not want them to get out from under the net.

I will examine the inclusion of a definition of "remuneration" which will exclude the casual things I mentioned.

Perhaps the way to do it is to exclude voluntary and community groups to which nominal rewards are given.

Insignificant perks. We will look at the matter more carefully.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 54, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

" 'identity badge' has the meaning given to it by section 28.”.

These amendments deal with the wearing of identity badges by licensees, an issue raised by several speakers on Second Stage. While section 27(3) prohibits the possession and display of badges or other objects which indicate that the wearer is the licensee, it does not prohibit the wearing by the licensee of his or her identity card. However, it does not provide that a licensee shall wear the identity card when providing a security service but rather that he or she should have the card in his or her possession when providing such a service. The point was made on Second Stage that if, for example, a security guard was not required to display some form of identification, a person who had been aggressively turned away from the entrance to a nightclub or bar would have insufficient information to make a complaint against the licensee in question.

I have responded to our Second Stage discussions by substituting a provision which will permit the private security services authority to require that certain categories of licensee shall wear a badge that clearly indicates the licensed number when the licensee is providing a security service. While it will be a matter for the authority to decide which categories of licensees will be required to wear badges, I expect licensees coming into frequent contact with the public, for example, door supervisors and security guards, will be required to do so. The wearing of badges will facilitate persons who wish to lodge complaints concerning the behaviour of licensees. If it is made mandatory for everyone, it could seriously impede certain persons. Store detectives, for example, would be seriously affected if they had to advertise themselves as they kept people under observation. It is a matter in which flexibility must be given to the authority to require people by class and in certain circumstances to wear their card. For example, I can see every reason a doorman in a pub should have one. I can see certain reasons certain security staff in department stores might require not to have them because it would make them ineffectual. It is up to the authority to sort out between those two categories the circumstances in which people will be obliged to have them.

I compliment the Minister on his amendments. He has accepted the suggestions made by many Members on this side of the House. He introduced the Intoxicating Liquor Bill which places more emphasis on people who are drunk in pubs or going into them. It is important that identification badges are introduced. I do not know what the Minister has in mind for gardaí. They not only have an identification badge but also an identification number which makes them easily identifiable. It might be difficult to identify door supervisors at a poorly lit nightclub, particularly if their badges do not carry a number. The identification standards for gardaí should be applied to private security firms. This would improve the behaviour of those who act as supervisors. I have received a large number of complaints about people in such circumstances. I know some sections of the industry say that staff are now being trained in how to handle people in difficult circumstances. However, there are still too many in that category, which I presume will be prescribed, who believe their physical presence is all that is required to deal with a situation. They can be provocative in such circumstances. The introduction of identity badges will help to ensure better training and sensitivity when dealing with the public. I commend the Minister on introducing the amendments.

I support the Minister's amendments. We must carefully consider this issue. Security door staff must be easily identifiable and I am not only talking about their names. There must be a system of identification to enable people to make complaints. I do not know what way that can be prescribed, although I presume the authority will eventually decide. If a security company provides door staff for 50 establishments in Dublin, will it be sufficient to state it is the Alpha security company and that the number is 58 or must one be able to identify that it is outside Murphy's pub and that the number is two, three or four? The latter might be more appropriate in that it might be easier to identify. This will be crucial to the success of the legislation. I can make all the complaints I like but if five people are lined up in an identity parade and I do not pick the right one, I will be in trouble because there will not be a prosecution. However, if the person is readily identifiable as No. 5 or 28, that will strengthen my case and make it easier to get a prosecution.

A new section 28 will be inserted by amendment No. 54. It defines an identity badge as being a badge "which clearly indicates the licence number of the licensee concerned". The licence number will come from the authority, not from anyone else. The new section also states it is a badge "whose form, content and size are as prescribed for identity badges issued to members of the prescribed category of licensees concerned, and which, when worn, is clearly visible". It will not be a question of it being Murphy's pub or that the number is one. It will be the licensee, in whatever form it is prescribed, with the licence number and will identify the security staff in question.

Will each person have an individual number? It is stated there are approximately 25,000 security personnel in the country. Someone will, therefore, be No. 21,384. That is a big number to try to remember. Will he or she be identified through his or her attachment to the Alpha agency, for example? We have difficulty remembering numbers. I do not know what educational psychologists would say but it will be difficult to remember big numbers.

I agree. It is like car registration numbers which eventually become too complicated to handle. The identity badge will also have form, content and size prescribed. If, for example, a person is an employee of McGrath security, the licensing authority may state this must be put in large letters across the badge as well as the number and name. We must consider these issues. It may also state the person's photograph must be carried on the badge. This means that if someone wants to check if the person is licensed, he or she can do so by looking at him or her and determining if he or she is the appropriate person to carry the identification.

Are we happy that the licensing authority will accept the new amendment which provides for an identity badge which will contain the number as well as the name of the security firm?

Amendment No. 54 states it must clearly indicate the licence number.

There is no choice in that.

The fine, which cannot exceed €2,000, is a stiff sanction. It will act as an incentive to comply.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 32 to 35 and substitute the following:

" 'installer of security equipment' means a person-

(a) who for remuneration installs, maintains, repairs or services electronic or other devices designed, constructed or adapted to give warning of or monitor or record unauthorised entry or misconduct on or in the vicinity of premises, and

(b) who may in that connection, as necessary, advise on methods of protecting the devices from damage or interference;”.

This amendment arises from a discussion of definitions on Second Stage. It substitutes the new definition of "installer of security equipment" which has been refined in several respects. It now refers to a person who, for remuneration, installs security equipment. We will deal at a later date with whether the phrase "remuneration and reward" should be included. Instead of referring to unauthorised entry or misconduct on premises or parts of premises, the definition now refers to unauthorised entry or misconduct on or in the vicinity of premises. If one is installing CCTV, one must be in a position to scan outside as well as inside the premises. The definition now encompasses someone who, for remuneration, gives advice on methods of protecting the device from damage or interference. This third element is important because it means the installer of security equipment such as CCTV who is licensed will not require a separate licence as a security consultant in order to give advice on protecting the equipment he or she installs. This point arose earlier. We do not want to over-complicate matters. If a person is advising on an installation, he or she should also be entitled, without undue complication, to advise on defensive mechanisms to ensure the equipment is not interfered with.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "security service" and substitute "particular security service specified by the Authority".

This is a drafting amendment which tightens the definition of "licence" to mean a licence to provide a particular security service specified by the authority in order that we do not have only general licences to operate in a general way.

Amendment agreed to.

As amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are related, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 1, after "who" to insert "for remuneration".

This is a drafting amendment which inserts the words "for remuneration" in respect of a private investigator and a security consultant. The points made about remuneration will be considered at a later date.

Amendment agreed to.

As amendments Nos. 11, 69 to 72, inclusive, and 92 are related, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

" 'relevant person' has the meaning given to it by section 39;”.

These amendments deal with an extremely important issue raised by several speakers on Second Stage, namely, the procedures and rules which will apply when a security service is provided here by a person who holds a licence issued by a comparable licensing authority in another EU member state. Treaty based rights such as the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services must be respected by EU member states. The European Court of Justice has upheld these rights in a succession of cases during the years. This means that a person who has been licensed to provide a security service by a comparable supervisory authority in another member state cannot be required to apply for and obtain a licence to provide that security service in this jurisdiction by the private security services authority. Such a requirement would be in breach of Community law.

In order to deal with this scenario I propose to insert a new Part in the Bill, Part 6, which contains four new sections with a detailed Schedule, which will be Schedule 3 to the legislation. The new sections are section 39 which contains a definition of "relevant person", that is, a person who already holds a licence to provide a security service, and a definition of "corresponding authority", that is, the issuing authority in another member state; section 40 which deals with Schedule 3 and provides for the application of the Bill's provisions to relevant persons; section 41 which provides that the authority shall notify corresponding authorities in certain circumstances such as disciplinary action taken by the authority in respect of a relevant person; and section 42 which deals with a situation in which a relevant person's licence is revoked or suspended by a corresponding authority. The new Schedule 3, provided for in amendment No. 92, modifies the provisions of the Bill, as appropriate, for the purpose of applying them to relevant persons. Most of the modifications are straightforward and many are self-explanatory.

One area of difficulty relates to the taking of disciplinary action by the authority in relation to relevant persons. Section 24 provides for disciplinary action where a licensee has been guilty of misconduct in the course of providing a security service or has contravened provisions of the Bill. Section 36 makes a similar provision in relation to complaints. In both cases the most severe form of disciplinary action is revocation of the licence, followed in second place by suspension of the licence for a specified period.

This prompts the question as to what are the authority's powers in relation to the misconduct of a relevant person in a situation where revocation or suspension of the licence would be warranted. It cannot revoke or suspend a licence which it has not given in the first place. The solution set out in paragraphs (3) and (12) of the Schedule is that the authority may impose equivalent disciplinary measures, that is, prohibit the person from providing a security service in the State or prohibit him or her for a specified period. In other words, it can be prohibited in toto or for a period, which would be the equivalent of revocation or suspension. This means the authority can apply equally consistent sanctions in all cases, regardless of whether the person guilty is a licensee or a relevant person availing of EU law to practise his or her trade in Ireland.

These are substantial amendments.

They are. I agree with the general thrust of what the Minister said. We spoke about identification badges which might be worn by individual members who work for a security company at nightclub doors, etc. We also spoke about the need for the authority to prescribe the type of badge they should wear and the fact that it should be easily identifiable. If someone with a licence from another country decides to operate here, it might be difficult to understand the language, particularly now that the European Union is expanding. What authority would the licensing authority have to tell someone licensed in Poland, for example, the type of identification they should wear to operate in Ireland? Will this contravene European rules? The legislation seems to suggest this will not be necessary. If an Irish company decides to register in another country in order to bypass the authority, it could have a different form of identification. Does the legislation cover this? What authority will the licensing authority have to tell people who may be fully licensed in another country how they should operate and what form of identification they should have to operate in this jurisdiction?

These amendments are substantial. There are implications associated with individuals coming here from another EU country who have been approved by a corresponding authority. However, I am sure the situation will be better than it is here because other European Union countries are well ahead of us in terms of regulations.

Some of them are not members of the European Union yet.

I thought this was limited to European Union member states. We have an idea about where we are talking.

It is the enlargement process.

The enlargement process is relevant because it refers to countries which have different cultures in terms of behaviour and the management of citizenry by the security forces and organs of state. In many cases one is talking about armed personnel. We do not have an armed police force while the majority of security firms do not have armed personnel. The further east one goes in the European Union the more one sees a difference in culture. Many old regimes in the accession countries were heavy-handed. When we talk about a corresponding authority——

The Deputy is not a member of a socialist party.

We have moved around the ideological circuit and almost come around to the Progressive Democrats in terms of dictatorial approaches. I was somewhere towards the east of Europe. When we talk about a corresponding authority, we must talk about different cultures and ways of dealing with the citizenry. Approaches often accepted in one jurisdiction might not be accepted by Irish people. We are trying to emphasise the quality of relations between the Community, the citizenry and security personnel. I am talking about training, understanding, sensitivity and psychology, not physical force. We are all aware of the incident where personnel from the former Yugoslavia acted in a heavy-handed fashion at a well known nightclub and caused serious bodily harm to an individual. That type of behaviour might be acceptable to a corresponding authority but it is not acceptable by our standards.

This measure will have implications for the security services industry. There are many trained personnel in European countries who would be ready to come to this country under the terms designated by the new authority. This could result in an influx of new personnel into the industry in Ireland which would have implications for it.

We must also consider the trade unions. We have not discussed whether the authority will become involved in the matter, although I am not sure it will be part of its functions. If there was a trade union representative on the authority, it might have a balancing effect. However, we can examine the membership of the authority later. When the industry made its presentation to us last January, it did so in conjunction with a representative from SIPTU. It was anxious to establish a regulated industry which would be unionised and have proper rates of pay and working hours. Do the amendments cover this? We do not want a corresponding authority in another European Union member state to dominate the Irish market before the new authority gets its act together and becomes self-financing in order that it is able to operate properly.

The members made good points on which I must reflect. We need what is proposed in the amendments. I will have to pause for thought in order to deal with some of the points raised. For example, it is quite clear, as a matter of EU law, that people are entitled to carry on their trade - a security man is entitled to travel with goods or an exhibition to Ireland and carry out his function. We have inserted enabling sections to permit this to happen but Deputy Costello is wondering what will happen if the entire security service goes offshore and we find that it is all regulated in Luxembourg with the result that our great self-financing licensing authority is bringing in no money. I will have to consider this carefully because if our standards were more onerous than those of other countries, there would be a danger that something like that could happen. Measures to counteract this include that which dictates that the corresponding authority must be designated by the authority here. That may be a safeguard but nonetheless if somebody was effectively undercutting us in terms of standards or finance, we would have to think long and hard about introducing some kind of defensive mechanism consistent with European law. I thank the Deputies for alerting me to this issue, about which we will have to think between now and Report Stage.

To sum up, this provision is necessary but perhaps it would be wise to include an additional measure. It occurs to me that there may be some way, fully consistent with European law, in which we could require somebody who proposes to operate in Ireland for a period of time to pay the same fee as an Irish operative, giving him or her full credit for any payment he or she has made to somebody else in Europe. A mechanism for a notification procedure could be put in place in order that people could not come here from Latvia, for example, and say that as they were fully licensed in Latvia, we could not have any problem with them, while we were scratching our heads wondering whether this was good or bad. However, I will have to come back to the House on this issue on Report Stage.

Perhaps the Minister will liaise with friendly countries within the European Union to see how they cope with the problem. When they introduce legislation and set up authorities, they will recognise the mobility of the labour force and take this issue into account. The Minister may need to talk to his counterparts in other EU countries to see how they handle it and what the difficulties are.

I have no difficulty in accepting the amendments and accept the Minister's bona fides in saying he will come back and talk to us further about the issue. However, we should have a mechanism for discussing it on Report Stage when discussion tends to be much tighter. If we accept the amendments now, we may not be able to talk about it on Report Stage, unless an amendment is proposed on the subject.

If I am taking steps to change matters, I will arrange for letters to be sent to the Deputies.

The Minister will also have to recommit the Bill on Report Stage.

There should be no problem about that.

It is important that we have the opportunity of discussing these issues on Report Stage rather than being prevented from doing so because of a technical point.

The Deputy's point is fully accepted. It is noticeable that there is no Opposition amendment proposed to these amendments, which are very substantial, because of our inability to do so in the time provided.

Perhaps as well as checking how matters are to work in other EU countries, the Minister should have a word with representatives of the industry here. When he has an idea of the timescale for full implementation of these measures, he will have a better idea of the run-in period required for the industry here to provide fully for the required training, licensing, badges and so on and as to whether it will be possible to designate this run-in period from the moment the legislation becomes law - it will apply to other countries but Ireland will not be ready to operate it.

There are areas in which, on a casual basis, people are entitled under EU law to practise their trade or profession in other member states. The exact means of controlling this probably depend on the nature of the trade and the length of time and basis on which one proposes to carry on one's trade or profession. For example, foreign lawyers are effectively unlicensed to practise in Irish courts, and there are certain formalities with which they must comply if they want to do so. Nobody can just stand up in a court and claim to be an advocate in an EU member state while everybody else scratches his or her head wondering whether this is true. The same principle must apply in this case. There must be a degree of order: a person cannot be allowed simply to wave a piece of plastic and say he or she is a security guard in Latvia when it would take a week to find out whether this was true. There are issues that will have to be considered carefully.

In 2001 Belgium invited representatives of the member states and applicant countries to a seminar in Brussels to exchange information on the regulation of the private security industry in the various countries and explore possibilities for improved co-operation and the removal of obstacles that currently hinder the provision of services across national boundaries. Obviously, there are such obstacles, and we should find out what they are. In 2002 the Spanish Presidency sought to build on the Belgian initiative by introducing a proposal to improve co-operation among member states' authorities responsible for the private security sector. Following representations, a recommendation was unanimously adopted by the Council in June 2002. We will fully participate in the work of that network when established.

The Minister will be president next year.

The ball is in his court.

Is there an opportunity for the establishment of multinational security companies which possibly would have great weight and power?

They already exist. There are security companies which operate in a number of jurisdictions. That is an established fact.

I presume a multinational company would operate from the country whose standards would increase its profits the most.

The country with the standards that are easiest for the company to comply with.

Part 6, to be inserted by Amendment No. 69, states:

'relevant person' means a person who or which-

(a) holds from a corresponding authority a licence or other form of authorisation that is in force and that authorises the person to provide a security service that corresponds to a security service provided by one of the persons mentioned in the definition of ’security service’ in section 2(1),.

This means after the passage of the legislation, any relevant person holding a licence from a corresponding authority will be invited to practice here. It is very much a facilitatory provision.

We should bear in mind that a corresponding authority must be so designated by the authority here but I presume it will have a duty under EU law to exercise this power of designation in a pro-EU fashion. I take the point being made and will have to put in place some safeguards to make sure this does not become a loophole which makes nonsense of the legislation in its entirety. I will put on my thinking cap and come back to the Deputies about this on Report Stage. It is not Euro-scepticism; it is that I do not want to find out that the whole Bill means nothing because nobody in his or her right mind would go near the Irish authority when he or she could secure validation somewhere else in Europe on much more convenient terms, both financially and in terms of legal supervision.

I would never accuse the Minister of Euro-scepticism. Members of our authority will probably need travel expenses and so on as they will be obliged to investigate corresponding authorities in 25 states.

We could send the whole Labour Party.

That is our next trip.

We will send the Deputy on a prolonged investigation.

Is the amendment agreed to?

I missed out on the previous amendment concerning the private security register.

We have not come to it yet.

We have just passed it.

What number is it?

It is not an amendment as such. It is stated on page 7 of the Bill: " 'Register' means the Private Security Register established under section 30”. The whole question of registering and setting up a private security register——

Can we come back to it when we come to discuss the section?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 13, after "who" to insert "for remuneration".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 16, after "with" to insert "but does not include-

(a) a person who advises on such methods in the ordinary course of carrying out an audit, or

(b) an installer of security equipment;”.

This is a relatively minor amendment which exempts two categories of person from the definition of "security consultant". First, "security consultant" does not include a person who advises on security matters in the ordinary course of carrying out an audit. Auditors may touch on security matters as part of their ordinary audit duties but this should not trigger a licensing requirement. Second, related to an earlier amendment, an installer of security equipment should not be required to have an additional licence as a security consultant in order to provide advice on the equipment he or she is installing.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 7, subsection (1), to delete lines 32 to 34 and substitute the following:

" 'security service' means a service provided by any one of the following persons in the course of an employment or as an independent contractor (but, except in the case of a door supervisor or security guard, does not include a service provided by a person whose principal function is to provide it only for the person's employer):".

This amendment deals with the definition of "security service". Given its centrality to the purpose of the Bill, every effort must be made to ensure a workable and reasonable definition. Where possible, we have to avoid ambiguity or doubt. The main purpose of the Bill is to control supervised persons providing security services. We do not, however, need to be licensed if we are providing security services for ourselves and not for any other person. Moreover, many jobs may involve giving information and advice on the security features of items such as cars and computers. This does not mean that a car salesman suddenly becomes a security consultant requiring a licence just because he advises on the latest features of new models, nor should workers in the IT division who filter incoming mail for viruses require security guard licences.

In order to remove these doubts, the amendment provides that, except in the case of a door supervisor or security guard, "security service" does not include a service provided by a person whose principal function is to provide it only for his or her employer. The car salesman and the IT worker will not be regarded as providing a security service and will not require a licence from the authority if the security service is provided only for his or her employer. It should be noted that every door supervisor and security guard will require a licence, irrespective of whether he or she is self-employed, employed in-house or by a specialist security employer to provide a security service for that company's clients.

How does this refer to what I mentioned about sole traders? Let us consider the example of a small pub in the west whose publican provides security for his or her premises. He or she is the employer and employee.

It will not require——

He or she is exempt?

Therefore, it refers to a separate person employed for the purpose.

Yes. It would be a bit much to say that if a publican stands at the door and tries to stop somebody coming in, he or she is committing an offence, unless he or she is festooned with badges. We have to live in the real world.

Does this include people within a nightclub, not just those on the door?

The Bill states:

" 'door supervisor' means a person who . . . performs any of the following functions at, in or in the vicinity of any premises . . . .

(a) controlling, supervising, regulating or restricting entry to the premises or place,

(b) controlling or monitoring the behaviour of persons therein,”

A person stationed at an internal door is a bouncer just as much as if he or she was on the main door.

I am concerned that security guards inside are also liable to abuse and inflict violence in the course of throwing people out.

Absolutely.

Are bodyguards covered? Their service is to provide a function for their employer. Bodyguards are not included in the definition of "security guard".

A security guard is defined on page 7 of the Bill as "a person who for remuneration guards or patrols or provides any other protective services in relation to persons or property". This includes a personal bodyguard. If I had a personal bodyguard, he or she would be a security guard for the purpose of this legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 41, to delete "armoured car services" and substitute "protected forms of transport".

This amendment replaces the reference to a provider of armoured car services with one to a provider of protected forms of transport.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 7, after line 43, to insert the following:

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

This is a technical amendment - a belt-and-braces job. "Supplier" is the word used but this amendment may strengthen the provision by adding the reference to selling security equipment or safes, as opposed to merely supplying them.

Just to be clear, a person who offers equipment on hire purchase would not be a vendor. I will look into this between now and Report Stage to see whether it is necessary to make the change proposed.

The addition of this provision would cover those who sell equipment as opposed to supplying it.

I will check the matter.

Will Deputy McGrath withdraw the amendment for the time being?

Yes, on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Why is a supplier or installer of safes referenced separately? One might as well have a reference to a supplier or installer of CCTV cameras and so on. Is a supplier of safes not covered under paragraph (b), “supplier or installer of security equipment”?

Off the top of my head, I cannot say whether a safe counts as security equipment.

A safe is a place in which to keep one's jewels.

It could be argued that way but it cannot do any harm to include it under two categories.

What about the private security register?

A private security register for all licensed firms is a good idea. We have a register of landlords——

Nobody is on it.

——and 80% of landlords are not on it, although it has been in operation since 1994. Not only that, but local authorities have the capacity to make it self-financing——

Absolutely.

——because there is an in-built levy for each unit of accommodation.

Legislation on the matter is being discussed in the Dáil this week.

I am just pointing out that it is a parallel situation. How are we to ensure the black economy will not operate in this case? The only time we put in place stringent legislation requiring a particular sector of the community to register - landlords are part of the business community also - the law is flouted. What mechanisms does the Minister envisage to ensure we can establish a register of security firms? A tax clearance certificate will provide no guarantees.

It is different from the landlord and tenant system. Section 30 states: "The Authority shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this section, establish and maintain . . . a register of licensees to be known as the Private Security Register and which is referred to in this Act as the Register." The register will be kept at the office of the authority and it will be the duty of the authority to include every licensee in it. It will also be its duty to "cause the Register to be printed and published within one month after the establishment of the Register and annually thereafter" and it will be obliged "when and as often as the Register is published," to "cause a copy of it to be furnished to every Garda station". The register will be published every year and circulated widely. It will be available for inspection in every Garda station during ordinary office hours and contain every licence given out by the authority. It will, therefore, be largely contained on computer. It is not a question of firms having to come in and sign a register. If one is not licensed, one will not be on the register.

Amendment No. 55 in the name of Deputy Costello relates to the register being published on the Internet. For now it is a question of the definition.

My point is different from what the Minister is saying.

I realise that, but we will come to the amendment when we get to the relevant section.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Chairman: Amendment No. 18 is an alternative to Amendment No. 17 and consequential on amendment No. 48. We will, therefore, discuss amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 48 together.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, subsection (1), lines 10 and 11, to delete "section 41, this Act does not apply to” and substitute “sections 40 and 41, this Act does not apply to relevant persons or to”.

This amendment is linked with and consequential on amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 18 and 48 have been tabled by Deputy Paul McGrath and while I must express considerable sympathy for the sentiments behind them, I am reluctant to accept them at this stage. I will explain the position on the involvement of members of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces in providing security services. Any such off-duty activity is already prohibited for gardaí. The Garda Síochána disciplinary regulations define prohibited spare time activity as including, inter alia, any activity 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. Although some think gardaí act as bouncers and security men, they are prohibited from doing so.

What point is the Minister making?

I am not making any point. The Deputy is making one.

As Deputies are aware, I have published the heads of a Garda Síochána Bill which, inter alia, makes reference to a code of ethics for the Garda. This will obviously involve provisions dealing with potential conflicts of interest. On balance, I suggest it would be better to deal with the off-duty conduct of gardaí in the Garda Bill rather than in the one we are discussing.

Defence Forces regulations provide that involvement in off-duty employment may be terminated or limited where such employment is likely to prove detrimental or prejudicial to the best interests of the service. One must ask whether we should ever allow an off-duty soldier, for example, to act as security personnel in any context. I am not convinced that the answer is no because the potential for conflict is not immediately obvious as for the Garda. Subject to the views of the Minister for Defence who obviously decides policy in this area, I cannot say, with hand on heart, that there is an inherent conflict of interest if a soldier provides a security service during his off-duty hours. It is not inconsistent with his membership of the Defence Forces.

For members of the Garda Síochána, however, I am convinced that providing a security service is inherently incompatible with their position. Gardaí are permanently on duty and permanently have powers of arrest. There are many aspects to their position. Although members of the Defence Forces have functions and duties under military law, in civvy street, so to speak, they are indistinguishable from many others. A garda, on the other hand, has powers under public order legislation and so on at all times. It would be inherently wrong for members of the Garda to be paid by private employers to carry out functions which could, of necessity, compromise their judgment in exercising their functions, either as privately employed security personnel or gardaí.

It is a matter of degree. I am not laying down policy for the Defence Forces; that is for the Minister for Defence and the Defence Forces to decide. I ask Deputies, however, to consider that the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána are not necessarily the same. One must admit that a member of the Garda, with his or her permanent power of arrest and detention, would be inherently compromised by engaging in security work because he or she would be receiving money privately to make decisions. Furthermore, if he or she was self-employed, a garda would stand to make a profit through carrying out functions closely analogous to police powers.

I am surprised the Minister started talking about the amendment before I had a chance to talk about it myself. However, that does not matter. Amendment No. 18 is dependent on the later amendment, No. 48, which states members of the Garda and the Defence Forces should not become licensed security personnel. The Minister has drawn a clear distinction between the role of the Garda and that of the Defence Forces, with which we cannot quibble. Nonetheless, I still believe my amendment has a lot of merit.

I have included the word "operational". I can envisage situations in which security companies, in establishing a security procedure, may well want to get advice from the Garda, perhaps on a semi-professional or professional basis. The skills active gardaí might have in advising a company on how to go about its business and provide security could lead to the better establishment and running of the company concerned.

I would not entirely exclude gardaí from being able to advise a company on its procedures. There is a mechanism for consultation on a formal basis but if a company is considering providing security at an event - an outside event or something similar - perhaps a particular garda could be engaged to give advice about how it should be done, over and above the formal advice that can be offered by the Garda Síochána. It may take a lot of Garda time to advise a company on how it should go about setting up the private end of its security system for major events. It may well be better that a garda can do this in his or her own time. While the Minister may disagree, it is a valid point which perhaps he will consider.

As regards members of the Defence Forces working as doormen and so on, I would still proceed with my amendment which states they should not be engaged in such positions because they have received particular training and have skills which would not be appropriate to such a job where very often there is confrontation and violence. I do not think the particular training of Army personnel at that level would enable them to deal with such situations in a non-confrontational manner; it may well be to deal with such matters in a different manner - through aggression. On that basis, Army personnel should also be prescribed as ineligible to be licensed under the authority.

I am not dismissing out of hand the Deputy's points but as regards the Garda Síochána, I can see huge potential for conflict, even in security consultancy work.

How is that?

As part of the Garda Bill, we are introducing the power to charge promoters at private events for extra policing necessitated by the holding of such events. If, at the same time, the Garda Síochána is making or could make a charge for such events and members of the Garda Síochána are being paid by the event holder to advise on security matters, there is, at the very least, an arguable case of inherent conflict between both roles.

While I do not want to be tough on the Garda Síochána, I want to ensure proper and appropriate standards. Gardaí have to deal with many people in respect of public order issues and the outcome of private security activity interfaces with Garda activity. I will provide another example. If a member of the Garda Síochána was to provide, for reward, a consultancy service for the owner of a disco on the number of people the disco should hold and the safety arrangements and this was to become public knowledge and it also emerged that other members of the Garda Síochána were not going to prosecute doormen from the disco, it could be argued that the squeaky clean impartiality for which we look from the Garda Síochána could be compromised.

I am not trying to push matters further than they should go but I remain to be persuaded that it is a good idea that members of the Garda Síochána should be involved in private security-type activities, although I can see that there are wholly innocent activities in which a garda could engage, for instance, installing burglar alarms. I recall that this happened a long time ago in a property of which I am aware. I do not know whether those present were serving or former gardaí but they certainly did a very good and competent job. There was no sense that there was a compromise but all of this should be considered within the ambit of Garda legislation and regulations. It is for the Garda Commissioner to draw distinctions between innocent and potentially compromising situations. This legislation is not the place to make that distinction.

As regards soldiers, I remain of the view that it is for the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, to make policy in this matter having regard to the realities. I am not sure of the extent to which that is the case but if it is the case, as the Deputy suggests, that soldiers regularly engage in security-type duties - their fitness may help them in that regard - I do not want to make a blanket prohibition in the legislation to deal with it.

In brief, there is an issue in this regard and the Garda Bill is the place to deal with it in respect of gardaí. It is for the Minister for Defence and the Defence Forces to decide whether they want to make provision for this, whether they see potential for compromise, damaging the image or reputation of the Defence Forces in any way. It is not for me to do so. From my days in the FCA, I know the Defence Act provides for an offence of "conduct likely to prejudice the good order and military discipline of the armed forces". It is a broad brush.

It must have been the FCA which gave the Minister his gait and strong approach.

His military bearing.

Does Deputy Costello wish to comment on the Bill?

I do. The exemption the Minister has made concerning the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces is an interesting one. For example, there is no mention of the Prison Service or the fire service, unlike the harbour police and airport police and fire services, with officers and employees of a Government Department. I am wondering about the choice of exemptions with which the Minister has come up. We received a statement from the security industry about double-jobbing in the sector. When its representatives appeared before the committee, they were forthright in admitting that it did take place. Mr. McMahon of the Security Federation of Ireland said:

There is a problem with double jobbing, particularly amongst those who do part-time work in the security industry. There are cases of soldiers who do jobs in which money is paid into their hands. The State is losing out on revenue from this undeclared income. These people usually pay tax and social insurance benefits elsewhere but not on their part-time earnings from security work. This type of activity is mainly confined to the non-reputable security operators.

Presumably, once the area is regulated there will be tax clearance certificates and requirements to be dealt with properly in respect of PRSI, superannuation and so on. Therefore, information will be recorded and those double-jobbing will find it much more difficult. To what extent will the authority clamp down on double-jobbing?

I am inclined to agree that there is a difference between the Garda Síochána and other sectors because it has a direct role in dealing with criminal activity and law-breaking in general. In that respect, there is a conflict of interest which is greater than for any other service because the Garda Síochána is directly involved. However, for what reason has the Minister not included prison officers or the fire service in the exemption?

In an earlier intervention the Minister said he could see a difficulty in individuals assessing strategic security needs at a major event in respect of which which there might be a charge. I take the opposite view. For example, where a contractor is to be engaged to work on a house, the householder will want to see if the price quoted for the job is competitive. Therefore, another contractor may be asked to look at the house to see how best the work can be done and what savings can be made.

Using the same argument for the security sector, if there is a major event such as a concert or football match, a levy will be imposed on the organiser to pay for Garda time. Is it not reasonable, therefore, that in presenting their security plans to the Garda Síochána the organisers might engage somebody in a private capacity such as a garda to estimate the requirements? The plans will then be presented to the Garda Síochána for a decision. It is important to give such advice on a levy or how to provide security to the satisfaction of the Garda Síochána.

Is the Minister opening the door for retired gardaí, given that he is turfing gardaí out of the force at 57 years of age when many have plenty of life and activity left in them? Is he saying the time for Garda superintendents to seek consultancies in the security industry is after retirement at 60 years of age, rather than provide expertise in their free time? This point will become important when he comes to decide in the Garda Bill how he will levy charges on an operator and what standards will be required. Will this be done according to the number attending the event? The risks vary according to the event. For example, in last Sunday's all-Ireland football final there was huge rivalry between two neighbouring teams. I have not seen any figure for the number of arrests but to the best of my knowledge there were no problems.

Not in the least.

Taking the comparable position in the United Kingdom, one might have major football clubs playing, yet the levels of security required and the associated problems are totally different. In assessing the level of security required for an event the operator will surely need expert advice. I do not see a difficulty in engaging the services of a garda who can advise on what security should be provided. In this way there will be a different assessment of the charges to be levied.

I agree with the Minister on the point that this matter should be considered within the remit of the Garda Bill but if it is also included in this legislation, it will be a double whammy. In the Garda Bill the Minister will say gardaí cannot work in such a capacity but if the same provision is included in this Bill, he will be telling licensees it is wrong to employ gardaí for such work. There will be a possibility that gardaí will operate elsewhere without the Garda Commissioner's knowledge but by proscribing such work in this Bill, the Minister will be placing an onus on the licensee not to employ gardaí in such a capacity.

As we will not be able to finish this item today, we will adjourn.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 October 2003.
Barr
Roinn