Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister. I also welcome this Bill. The private security area has been in need of regulation for some time. The Minister said this is urgently needed. Why has it taken so long? Nonetheless, it is welcome now and I hope it will progress quickly after it is passed by this House.

The private security area has grown significantly and we see it every day, whether it is at public houses, clubs or in the form of security cameras. The area certainly requires regulation. The Bill has its origins in a Private Members' Bill tabled by former Deputy, John Farrelly, and I welcome the fact that the Minister saw merit in it. I note that the report of the consultative group of the private security industry was presented in late 1997. It has taken a long time to get to this stage and it is proper that we should deal with the matter as speedily as possible.

I welcome the proposed establishment of a private security services authority to regulate and police the industry. Under this, training and proper standards will be enforced. However, legislation is only as good as the level of enforcement. We have seen that much legislation is not enforced in practice. We will be wasting our time if we do not have good enforcement in this area. It is vital that the Minister follows up on this to ensure proper enforcement.

I turn to another matter related to enforcement, namely happy hours and drinks promotions. As I understand it, these have been outlawed under the terms of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. However, they are still going on. One need only walk to the end of Kildare Street to see a sign advertising a happy hour. Our children tell us that they are still being given free and promotional drinks in pubs. This is wrong. Where is the enforcement?

This Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on if we do not follow it through with enforcement. People will adhere to the law if they fear the consequences of failing to do so. We need proper sanctions to ensure people adhere to the letter of the law. Small sanctions, such as imposing fines of €100 or €500, are not a sufficiently strong deterrent to ensure a person does not commit the crime again. There was mention of what action would be taken against those who do not adhere to this legislation; serious penalties must be imposed on them. While closing an establishment is well and good, any financial penalties imposed must be heavy enough to make this work properly.

I have a few minor concerns about the Bill. The Minister may answer them today, or I may address them by proposing amendments on Committee Stage. The Bill does not make clear that members of the Garda or Defence Forces will be excluded from participating in this type of work. There are exemptions to this. We must ensure that no conflict of interest exists. Members of the Garda and Defence Forces should not be involved in this type of work as it could lead to a conflict of interest. I seek clarification from the Minister on this.

I am also concerned about the potential for criminals to be actively involved in this line of work. While the Bill mentions that criminals should not be involved, it is not good enough to say that a former convict must declare his past experiences. This is much too loose. We could learn lessons from the manner in which the Minister for Transport has dealt well with this issue in the taxi industry. Former criminals can no longer obtain taxi licences. We should examine how this regulation has been implemented and use the same system to ensure criminals, who may pose a danger to members of the public, are not involved in this industry.

I asked my son for his comments on this. His generation is the one that most encounters bouncers — "door supervisors" is the correct term — and they experience difficulty with them. It will be helpful when bouncers wear identification. They will be identifiable and will realise that someone can take their number and report them. Young people are only allowed into a club at the discretion of the door supervisor. This is not dealt with well. For example, young people are judged on their clothes or even their footwear — they must wear shoes to gain admittance. This is ridiculous in this day and age. Many young people, particularly students, do not even possess a pair of shoes. A good pair of runners can cost much more than a pair of shoes. This can lead to discrimination. In the recent well-publicised Anabel court case, we heard of a young man who was not allowed into the night-club and stayed outside for several hours while his friends were inside. This occurs on many occasions. This Bill will be helpful to young people who feel they are discriminated against.

While I will table amendments on Committee Stage, I welcome the Bill. I would like to see it dealt with as speedily as possible.