Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill and the opportunity to speak on it. As we know, as it has been well discussed, the Bill is intended to close a loophole in Irish law which was brought into acute focus by events on North Frederick Street. I do not think we can mention often enough that scene when we had private security men in balaclavas and without identification in unmarked cars, while gardaí stood by. That is the background.

The background is also the precarious position of tenancies, and we have discussed this issue previously as well. Threshold's tenant sentiment survey 2020 revealed that 41% of participants had been in their rental property for less than a year, which shows a high turnover of tenants. Some 43% said they were forced to leave their previous rental accommodation, 91% said they found it difficult or extremely difficult to find rental accommodation, 19% were paying more than 50% of their take home pay on rent and 57% were paying more than 30%. I could go on and on, but it is important to set the background when we think of the scene I described when a building was occupied. The people in question were not tenants as such, but they were occupying the building and that scene resulted.

I welcome legislation that will close that loophole and provide a new category of "enforcement officer" and a definition of that role. I welcome the extension of powers to the PSA in respect of revoking, annulling or not awarding a licence, especially regarding a body corporate, and that information will be online for the public to see at no cost. One could not but welcome all those additions. There is a security authority with a board and we have legislation, which we are now amending. I was thinking about this topic, and I wondered why it took those horrific scenes on North Frederick Street before people realised there was a loophole in the legislation. Is there no proactive way of doing that? We have often asked for a proper review of legislation and its operation each year to enable us to be proactive and identify such loopholes. Was this issue discussed at the board, which has representatives of security employees and employers and An Garda Síochána?

Did it never come up for discussion? Is that something the Minister of State might look at to see if the legislation can be proactively reviewed with a view to changing it?

I read the Minister of State's speech, which was very detailed. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for its detailed briefing. It has been much discussed and I do not need to go into it. I must say that I looked at some of the annual reports, as did the staff in my office, whose work I appreciate. There seems to be a low compliance rate. I do not know if the Minister of State has looked at the annual reports. I am not sure if I am reading it right. The PSA investigated unlicensed activity and inspected existing licenceholders. According to the 2019 annual report, 150 contractor compliance inspections were completed, showing that contractor compliance rates had dropped from 25% to 19% in the period 2017 to 2019, and category 1 non-conformances, the most serious category, had risen from 47% to 64%. I would have thought that the level of non-compliance and the increase in non-conformances in serious matters is of great concern.

This brings me to the fact that the Oireachtas joint committee, in its wisdom, decided not to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny. I would have thought it was essential in this area, given what we are looking at. I do not know if I would like to describe it as a necessary evil, but I have difficulty with private security and the use of private security in evictions. I think we all have. I have concerns that it took the horrific scenes I have mentioned to show the loophole in the legislation. As for the legislation not being examined by the committee, I would have thought that it was essential to seek to tease out how we arrived at the situation whereby we are reliant on private security firms and their use in evictions and so on. I would have thought the committee would be the perfect place to tease all of that out.

There is also the matter of resources. I know that there was an interdepartmental committee and I believe the authority itself has pointed out that it did not have enough staff or resources in the past and now it is getting additional responsibilities. I do not think the Minister of State addressed that point anywhere in his speech. It is good to identify a loophole and to close it but if we are only doing it on paper, then we are going nowhere. The issue of resources and staff need to be addressed by the Minister of State in his closing speech in relation to this matter. Are there any vacancies on the board? Is the Minister of State familiar with the detail of the number of staff members who are required to enable them to carry out their duties properly? That is all I have to say on the matter.

See this speech in context