James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their valuable contributions to the debate on this short but very important Bill. We all recall what happened on North Frederick Street and in other repossession cases. We understand the risks involved in having unregulated security personnel getting involved in repossessions. We do not want to see those kinds of incidents repeated. That is our motivation in bringing forward this legislation. These situations give rise to serious flashpoints, cause distress to people and may hurt their dignity.

The Bill includes a new category to be regulated, namely, that of enforcement guard. This will ensure that private security firms and their employees who are acting on court orders for repossession are regulated, licensed, trained and will carry identification. Strong regulation of these types of actors will ensure there is confidence and, importantly, fairness in the process. I believe in the rule of law. I believe court orders should be enforced and upheld. However, those involved in enforcement must be regulated properly. They must be identifiable and they must be trained. They must carry out their role in accordance with the law.

Several important points were raised by speakers. Deputy Howlin asked about access to the register that will be kept online. I can confirm that every citizen will be able to access the relevant information online.

The Deputy also asked about section 6 and why we are bringing in a specific offence around the impersonating of inspectors. That provision was requested by the PSA due to reports it has received that individuals claiming to be inspectors had sought access to premises or the details of security personnel. I do not have specific numbers but it has been raised as an issue of real concern. That is why the provisions in section 6 are included.

Deputy Howlin also spoke about section 7 and expressed his support for the provision that the names of residents would no longer have to be published. He asked me to elaborate on the reasoning for that. It is for the safety of personnel in a modern world where the use of social media means that names and places of residence can, unfortunately, be shared very quickly and widely. For that reason, the decision was taken to no longer publish names and residences.

On the question regarding temporary staff, I have an idea what Deputy Howlin is driving at on this particular point. I do not have the information to hand but I certainly will get an answer for him.

I want to return to some of the points raised by Deputy Martin Kenny in the debate last week. Section 2 relates to licensing and fees for individual employees and contractors. A licence to conduct or provide the activities of an enforcement guard shall be required by both contractors and employees. Contractors may apply to add this function to their existing licences. As the licence fee is based on turnover, the prescribed fee shall depend on the turnover at the time of the application for the add-on to the licence.

The two-year licence fee is chargeable on the annual combined turnover. Contractors adding this sector to an existing licence will obtain credit for any unused portion of their existing licence. In the case of employee applicants, the prescribed fee for a single sector enforcement guard licence shall be €90. Consideration of security issues are ongoing between the board of the Private Security Authority and An Garda Síochána as to whether the enforcement guard licence should be stand-alone or combined with other sectors, with a decision expected in the coming months. This will provide clarification for applicants requiring a licence in two or more sectors. The fees for both contractors and employees shall be included in the regulations introducing the licence into the sector. Details relating to the application process, licence categories and licence fees will appear on the Private Security Authority website in due course.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle raised a number of specific questions. I understand there are sufficient resources in place but an extra inspector will be required and will be appointed because of the additional responsibilities that will arise from the addition of this new category. There are currently no vacancies on the board but one position will be up for renewal in November.

On the question of non-compliance, there is a high standard for compliance. I understand that in a situation where, for example, 100 points of compliance are required, if even one of those is not met, it goes down as non-compliance. That has been explained to me. Non-compliance means that one is not 100% compliant. That is in no way a justification for non-compliance but it is simply to say that it does not mean that the person or body found to be non-compliant is not complying in any way with the requirements. It means such a person or body is not 100% in compliance. I take the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's point because compliance is critical. I want levels of compliance brought up to 100%. That can and should be expected in these cases.

I reiterate the importance of this Bill. I am a firm believer that those providing security should operate to the highest standards. The amendments put forward today are vital components in both reinforcing the good work that the Private Security Authority carries out and strengthening the trust the public has in the sector. This Bill is important. Where security personnel are acting in accordance with the law in carrying out court orders, they must also be regulated. It is critical. Some of the events we have seen in the past are totally unacceptable. This legislation will mean that in the future, private security personnel carrying out repossessions will be identifiable, the sector will be fully regulated and those involved will be trained.

See this speech in context