John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I will respond on behalf of the Government to Deputy Charles Flanagan's proposed Private Members' Bill. I will begin by responding to one point raised by Deputy O'Mahony, where he made reference to those in prison for the non-payment of fines. This issue is being dealt with specifically in the Fines Bill. It is an appropriate point to make and Deputy O'Mahony was correct to do so but I wish to point out that it is being dealt with as it would be remiss not to do so.

Deputy Charles Flanagan's proposal has been commended by the Government for the humane concerns that clearly lie behind it. I commend the Deputy for the efforts involved in bringing forward the proposal and the objectives are understandable. However, it was pointed out that the legislation as drafted is flawed. Last night, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, pointed out some of these flaws. There is no definition of debt collector; there are no criteria specified in regard to deciding who might be a fit and proper person and there is no provision in regard to any business collecting its own debts to its own account.

If Deputy Charles Flanagan's proposal was enacted, this last consideration would mean that every business person, company and partnership would first have to be registered as a licensed debt collector to continue its normal business. This would be a near impossible bureaucratic task but it is what is proposed in the Bill. This is a particularly serious flaw in the approach set out by Deputy Flanagan. It would seem to require every person and company involved in a business activity, be it the sale of goods or services, to have to seek licensing as a debt collector before it could seek to recover moneys owing to it in the normal course of business. This would apply from the biggest company to the smallest shop or self-employed tradesperson. Is this seriously what the Deputy has in mind because it would appear to be the main consequence of this proposal? It would appear to be a somewhat bizarre, cumbersome and bureaucratic approach.

Related to this point is the fact that the draft Bill does not define a debt collector. This deficiency was also commented on by Deputy Rabbitte last night. Effectively, it makes the intended scope of the Bill unlimited, which clearly would not be desirable. Deputy Flanagan's proposal would require significant financial and staffing resources for the Financial Regulator and for the Garda Síochána in terms of potential vetting of applicants. Last night, my colleague stated that in the context of scarce resources available to the Government at this time this would not represent the best use of such resources.

During this debate Deputy Charles Flanagan made some very serious accusations concerning criminal activity in debt collection and the private security industry. The Government does not protect criminals, rather it pursues them relentlessly within the law. The Government attaches the highest priority to tackling organised crime and bringing those involved in such activities to justice. In this regard, among the main priorities set out by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the Garda Síochána in 2009 are to target gun crime, organised crime and drug related crime through a range of measures including the use of the Garda specialist units and targeted operations such as Operation Anvil.

Deputy Flanagan made more wild accusations concerning the activities of the Private Security Authority and I welcome the opportunity to set out some details of the work of that authority. The authority has licensed 850 contractors and more than 22,600 individuals to operate in the security industry in Ireland. Prior to any licence being issued by the authority, the applicant is vetted by the Garda Síochána. The authority is in contact with the central vetting unit on a daily basis and an excellent working relationship exists between both bodies. The vetting of applicants is an integral part of the licensing system provided for in the Private Security Services Act 2004.

In the case of those applicants who have resided outside of the State for a period of six months or more, a criminal record certificate from the foreign jurisdiction is required. Once again, it is a condition of licensing that this requirement is fulfilled prior to a licence being issued. The authority does not and never has issued licences based solely on a foreign criminal record certificate. The authority also has in place robust procedures for dealing with domestic and foreign criminal record checks. These procedures include the assessment of the information received against the authority's guidelines on criminality, with applications being refused where convictions are deemed relevant in accordance with the guidelines. The criminal record checking and criminality guidelines are continually monitored and validated to ensure these systems operate as effectively as possible. In addition to the criminal record checks, all applicants for a licence must provide evidence of having attained the relevant standard or qualification. In the case of contractors, they are required to comply with a National Standards Authority of Ireland approved standard. Applicants seeking an individual licence are required to obtain a FETAC recognised qualification.

The licensing regime is also supported by a resolute enforcement strategy undertaken by the authority's dedicated enforcement team. To date, the authority has brought successful criminal prosecutions against 21 unlicensed operators, while over 600 consumers of security services have terminated contracts with unlicensed providers.

The establishment of the authority has brought about a fundamental transformation of the security industry in the State. We have observed the removal of unscrupulous security providers and the restoration of public confidence in the industry as a result of the authority's endeavours. The introduction of a standards and training based licensing system has had many positive benefits for the industry, the wider business community and the public. The licensing of the security industry is a significant body of work which is delivering a professional security service. I am assured that the authority's licensing process is robust and the public can be assured that only those who meet the authority's criminality guidelines are licensed. The improvements in the industry brought about by the establishment of the authority should be supported and commended.

With this proposal which is poorly drafted Fine Gael is seeking to create a regulatory structure which, if one interprets the draft text of the Bill, would require the licensing of every business in the country as a debt collector. Each person or company would have to be vetted by the Garda Síochána and satisfy a quite vague fit and proper test. Deputy Flanagan has not enlightened us on how this objective can be achieved, given its vast scope. That is what the text of the Bill involves. This is, unfortunately, an underdeveloped proposal. Deputy Morgan was of a similar view last night. He suggested focusing on other legislative proposals which deserve greater priority at this time. He rather sensibly suggested this was an area which the select committee on finance might consider to examine the options that might be available. These options might be effective and low cost, and not require legislative intervention.

Debt collection agencies seek to recover debts arising from a wide range of activities, including borrowings, utilities and so forth. Lenders that are regulated by the Financial Regulator sometimes outsource debt collection. In such cases, the Financial Regulator's consumer protection code requires that the regulated firm must ensure persons contracted to carry out an outsourced activity which would include debt collection comply with the requirements of the code.

There is also some confusion concerning the offences in the Bill proposed by Deputy Flanagan. The proposal seems to take no account of existing provisions of the criminal law in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. There is no evidence that this legislation which applies to demanding money with menaces or false representation is inadequate for its intended purpose. No reason has been advanced as to why we should introduce special legislation specific to this area of activity. I heard Deputy Flanagan's speech last night. Although I support the principle of what he is trying to do, the motivation and catalyst for his proposal are a particular operation on which he elaborated and a particular debt collector. The legislation to which I have referred should be used if that person is collecting money with menaces. That is the appropriate approach. It is unfair not to indicate to the House that legislation in that regard is in place and should be used.

To conclude, I am not sure how effectively we can regulate what might be alleged criminal behaviour with regard to debt collection. I appreciate the sentiments behind the Deputy's proposal but do not believe it is the correct one.

See this speech in context