Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin will support this legislation, which addresses an issue that arose in many incidents across the country in recent years. The incident in North Frederick Street was the straw that broke the camel's back for many people. We have seen the actions of unregulated private security firms whose personnel were uncontrolled and untrained, unknown and often masked. There were incidents of security personnel coming into areas, sometimes from other jurisdictions, in a Wild West-type scenario, which is something that we could not allow to stand. In that context, this legislation is very important and I agree with the Minister that it should progress through the Houses as speedily as possible. Adequate training and regulation of those engaged in private security activities must be put in place.

This Bill is similar to legislation introduced by Deputy Ó Laoghaire in 2019, which the Government allowed to progress to Second Stage. The Government has now replaced that legislation with its own Bill, which is often what Governments do. Deputy Ó Laoghaire, myself and others were contacted by our constituents about this issue. We recognised that this was an urgent situation that needed to be dealt with and that legislation was required. We brought that legislation forward in good faith. I hope to see support in the House for bringing this Bill forward to Committee Stage, when we can amend or tweak it and get into more detail on it.

The broad principle of what we are trying to do here is for the benefit of everyone, including those engaged in property-related private security activities. We do not want to see too much of such activity in our society. These situations should be dealt with in other ways apart from seizing property. Unfortunately, this was something that many people have had to face because of economic decline. People all over the country have had their property seized and have been in conflict with various banks and lending institutions, including the vulture funds that came in here, bought up loans and rode roughshod over them. There is a suggestion that this is something that only happened in the past and that it is not happening now but that is not the case. A number of weeks ago, I dealt with a farmer who had a piece of land that was provided as security for a loan that he secured during the boom. He was a very hard worker and he did everything he could to pay his debts. He signed over all of this farm payments, including his area aid payments, to cover his debt and the interest. However, his loan was bought by another company, Pepper, which refused to accept the arrangement put in place by the previous lender. It insisted on moving the loan to a liquidator and putting the property up for sale. Fortunately, the issue was finally resolved by a personal insolvency practitioner, PIP but it is deplorable that companies can act in this way and try to ride roughshod over people. When I met the couple, they were hugely distraught and upset. They felt a sense of shame that this had happened to them, even more so given that they were actually paying the loan. They were meeting their debt and yet they were faced with their land being sold. The Government must find a way to be tougher on such companies to make sure that they cannot do that to people. Today we are dealing with the regulation of the security firms that are carrying out court orders but there is also a need to ensure that situations do not reach the stage of courts issuing orders and that resolutions are found prior to that. That is one of the lessons that we should have learned from the incidents that took place in recent years. It must be said, however, that there are some people who just will not pay their debts and who will default on loans. Naturally enough, action must be taken against them. I am not avoiding that issue but clearly some companies, including so-called vulture funds, swoop on loan books and go for the quick buck. They are determined to sell if the value of the asset is larger than the loan outstanding, regardless of whether payments are being made and that is wrong. We need to find a way to deal with that but unfortunately we have not found one yet, despite having talked about it for more than ten years.

To go back to the legislation before us, the issues here are licensing by the PSA and ensuring that those who have a licence have the appropriate skill set and training to carry out the unfortunate work they have to carry out. The Minister of State said that corporate bodies would obtain licences and that individuals would also be licensed. Must each individual have a licence or can the corporate body hold one on his or her behalf? I ask him to clarify that. I also ask him to outline the situation with regard to the cost of the licences. What does it cost to apply for and obtain a licence? I am aware that for many security personnel, including bouncers in nightclubs, their work is part time in nature and not very highly paid. I am concerned that the licence fee would act as a penalty for individuals, particularly if the fee is large. Some of the licences that are distributed by the PSA are quite expensive, which must be addressed in the longer-term.

In general, we welcome this legislation and the move by Government to deal with this situation. It is long past time that it was dealt with and that the people who carry out these kinds of operations where they seize properties under court orders are held to account, because there is certainly a feeling among the general public that they are not held to account. That needs to be reversed as quickly as possible.

This legislation will go to Committee Stage at which point we will dissect it and look at it in detail. The general thrust of it should find favour with the vast majority of Members of these Houses. I have seen commentary online stating that Government is somehow trying to make it okay for people to have their property seized. The truth is that people's property is seized on a regular basis because of the way the law stands at the moment. What we are trying to do here is to try to ensure that we do not have people coming from outside the jurisdiction, who are often masked and unknown and with no sense of responsibility towards the laws of this State, carrying out these kinds of actions and acting in a very aggressive way and using bully-boy tactics, as we have seen in some cases. The gardaí in these instances, because a court order is being executed, simply have to stand back and watch it. I have spoken to gardaí who told me they were quite frustrated that they were unable to intervene because a court order was waved in their faces and they were told that these people were doing their job. We need to understand that there should be at the least an element of respect for people who are in unfortunate circumstances where they are losing their property or, in some case, perhaps their home, and that is the most tragic part of all.

This legislation will hopefully deal with that aspect of it. I assure the Minister of State of our support in trying to get it through the various Stages in the Houses over the coming weeks and months.

See this speech in context