Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the response the Bill has received from Members of the Seanad. I thank Senators for their broadly supportive approach to the Second Stage debate. As I said, it is a matter of considerable urgency. As Senator Terry said, it is one thing to legislate but something different to produce results on the ground. It is an absolute certainty that if we do not produce legislation, we will not do the job. I accept her point that the production of the legislation alone does not guarantee that the job will be done.

A great deal of good can flow from this legislation if the proposed security authority works well, sets about its work in a sensible manner and has sufficient resources to carry out its functions. The working group study on which the Bill is primarily based stated the authority should be designed to be self-financing. The Government intends to provide for this. It is clear that in its initial stages it will have to be given some seed capital with which to get going. We have to contemplate how much funding will be necessary, the phased introduction of the licensing system and how the authority will function. A good deal of thought is required in respect of all these matters.

Senators Tuffy and Terry stressed the importance of knowing who was behind a company. I draw to the attention of Senator Tuffy who was particularly concerned about the matter that section 2 of the Bill defines a "director" as follows:

"director", in relation to a body corporate, includes—

(a) any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called,

(b) any person who effectively directs or has a material influence over the business of the body corporate,

(c) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the body corporate are accustomed to act, unless the directors are accustomed so to act by reason only that they do so on advice given by the person in a professional capacity, and

(d) where the affairs of the body corporate are managed by its members, any of the members who exercises the functions of such management;

It is a fairly comprehensive definition of control. One cannot avoid the investigation of one's character or one's beneficial interest in a company. If one de facto controls a company or has a material interest in its management, one is covered by this artificial extension of the term "director" in order that one is caught up in it. One's character, behaviour, fitness and propriety as a director are extended to cover situations of that kind, in which people act as shadow directors, in effect, or as manipulators behind the scenes of a company. For example, if members of a paramilitary organisation get a stooge to set up a company but it is abundantly clear that they are pulling the strings and there is evidence to that effect, it will not be possible for them simply to say they are not covered by the entity because they do not hold paper office in the body corporate.

Senator Tuffy also discussed the system of advertising applications for licences. There would be difficulties if we were to require every doorman, watchman or security guard to place an advertisement in a newspaper stating they intend to apply for a licence. The proposed security authority may decide, in the fullness of time, that such notices should be placed on its website. It may decide to inform the public that applications have been received from larger organisations such as bodies corporate. If we require people who wish, from time to time, to work as a security guard at a rock concert in their spare time to advertise in a newspaper their intention to apply for such a licence, we may be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I hope the register that will be open to public inspection will available to read on the Internet, in accordance with the Government's e-commerce and e-government strategies. As we live in the 21st rather than the 19th century, it seems information publicly available should be made available in a way that makes sense.

Senators referred to the training of those colloquially known as "bouncers" but who are more politely referred to in the Bill as "door supervisors". The training given to a door supervisor is probably quite different from that given to a site watchman who is considered in the Bill as a "security guard". While they may share certain training requirements such basic first aid and similar issues, other requirements might be inapplicable to a security guard but appropriate in the case of a door supervisor. A door supervisor may need to be trained in crowd control or dealing with aggressive or difficult people, for example, but a security guard may have different needs. The fact that there are two categories means that the authority is entitled to prescribe different levels of training. If one is employed on a building site as a security guard or night watchman, one's level of training will not necessarily be the same as that demanded of door supervisors.

Senator Terry mentioned that she was worried about happy hours and drinks promotions.