Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 16 May 2019
6. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the status of his proposed legislation regarding regulation of private security personnel that fall outside the remit of the Private Security Authority. [20943/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn early April, in response to a point I had been raising for a period of time, the Minister announced his intention to bring those involved in the enforcement of court orders relating to evictions under the Private Security Authority and the relevant legislation. I ask the Minister for the latest position and to outline where the proposal stands at present.
I secured Government approval last month to bring the regulation of private security personnel employed to assist in enforcing court orders within the remit of the Private Security Authority. The proposals for this measure and related matters are contained in the report of an interdepartmental working group, which was published on my Department’s website on 9 April 2019. The key recommendation of the report is that the Private Security Services Act 2004 be amended to bring security personnel assisting in enforcing court orders within the remit of the security services licensable by the Private Security Authority. This means that such persons will require a licence to operate in this area and will have to meet the standards and qualifications set by the authority. The Act will be amended to include enforcement guard as a new category of security service to be licensed by the Private Security Authority. An enforcement guard will be defined as a person performing the following functions: removing persons from a premises or place in order to take legal possession of the premises or place; controlling, supervising, regulating or restricting entry to a premises or place in order to take legal possession of the premises or place; and seizing property or goods in lieu of an outstanding debt.
My proposals also include amendments to other legislation in this area, such as repealing a provision in relation to the display of court messengers' names and places of residence in court houses, in the interests of the safety of such personnel. I also propose to amend section 33 of the Private Security Services Act 2004, as amended, to allow the register of licences to be available on the Internet as well as the authority’s offices. My Department is working with the Office of the Attorney General to bring forward the necessary legislative provisions and we will keep the Deputy informed.
I raised this issue previously in the context, first, of the issues involved in the Frederick Street incident and, second, regarding the Strokestown incident where some of the security personnel's behaviour was appalling. That happened because of a lack of regulation. There was nobody to hold them to account. On foot of those incidents, I complained to the Private Security Authority and was informed that it has no remit in this regard. That is plainly wrong. The Private Security Services Act contains any number of provisions which cover licensing, regulation, a complaints procedure and ensuring that people are of good character when they are employed in these professions. If we expect people who are engaged in security work on our high streets and at the doors of pubs to meet these standards, we should surely expect those people who are involved in what is potentially the most intrusive and hard-edged form of security work to be covered by regulation.
I have seen the interdepartmental report to which the Minister referred but I want to know when he intends to bring forward legislation in respect of this not particularly complex area. What is required is a mechanism which will ensure that security personnel will be brought under the remit of the Private Security Services Act and that the provisions thereof will apply to them. That Act will probably require a few amendments specific to this category of security personnel. Will the Minister indicate a timeline for the introduction of such legislation?
Work is proceeding apace. I mentioned that I am in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. There is a responsibility to ensure that any legislation is legally sound and capable of implementation. I acknowledge the proposals in the Private Members' Regulation of Private Security Firms Bill. As the Deputy will recall, that Bill was unopposed on 31 January last. It was agreed that Second Stage would be taken in Sinn Féin's Private Members' time. These proposals will feed into what I am doing in my Department. I acknowledge that the proposals in the Bill in question were very wide-ranging. They could, for example, unintentionally include persons such as social workers who might be involved in some way in the execution of enforcement of court orders in the area of family law. The proposals which have been approved by Government and on which I am working are more specific in the intended new category of licensee. I assure the Deputy that I would be happy to keep him and the justice committee informed of developments. My position is that the Private Members' Bill will be considered in advance of any Second Stage debate.
I thank the Minister for that response. We will keep the situation under review. For our part, I am glad the Minister has acknowledged the Bill. We will progress it to Second Stage if we are not satisfied with progress from the Government. We can consider any amendments the Minister proposes to make to that Bill, if it progresses to Committee Stage, which I hope it will, and I emphasise its importance. During those recent incidents, it became clear that there is a large lacuna in the law. That is unacceptable and it needs to be rectified as a matter of urgency. I hope the Minister will be in a position to publish the heads of a Bill or a Bill and to bring it to the House as soon as possible. If he does not, we will proceed with our Private Members' Bill.
I acknowledge once again the Deputy's contribution in the matter of the Private Members' Bill, which will inform work in this area, as should be the case. It is important that we proceed to specify what will be a new category of persons, the enforcement guard, that this category will be strictly defined and that we can proceed with the appropriate legislation in draft form at the earliest opportunity. I hope in the next few weeks to be in a position to outline a firm timeline. I acknowledge the urgency and importance of bringing forward legislation.
