Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 16, subsection (5), lines 44 and 45, after "other information" to insert ", including any information necessary to enable him or her to furnish a parliamentary reply,".

I am upset I missed the opportunity to move my first amendment as I had to leave to get a copy of the amendments.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can do nothing about that, Senator.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 4 will allow the Minister to receive as much information as possible. Too often we see State agencies dealing with information which the Minister should have. The amendment promotes accountability. When Members of the Oireachtas ask the Minister questions, the information necessary to answer them should be provided by the authority.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I am sympathetic to the concerns regarding accountability outlined by the Senator, I am reluctant to provide for the provision of information to the Minister for the specific purpose of answering parliamentary questions. Section 16 already provides that the authority shall give the Minister such information regarding its performance as the Minister may require and I am satisfied that is sufficient. Moreover, it would not be appropriate for the Minister to be answerable before the House for independent decisions of the authority. I refer, for example, to decisions taken by the authority to grant or renew a licence.

The Bill establishes an independent appeals board, to which the authority's decisions may be appealed. An appeal to the High Court on a point of law is also foreseen in section 40.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment is concerned with accountability and with facilitating Deputies and Senators in asking the Minister questions on behalf of the public. That information should be provided to him by the authority. I am disappointed the Minister is not accepting the amendment.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 8:

In page 20, line 8, to delete "section 24" and substitute "sections 24 and 25".

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are technical amendments inserting appropriate cross-references.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is another technical amendment removing a superfluous phrase.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 20, subsection (5), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following paragraphs:

"(a) shall not be granted to a person who is a serving member of An Garda Síochána,

(b) shall not be granted to a person who is a serving member of the Permanent Defence Forces,".

I ask that members of the Garda Síochána and of the Defence Forces would not be allowed to take up employment as door supervisors. On Second Stage, the Minister agreed that it would not be appropriate that members of the gardaí be involved in such an occupation, yet there is anecdotal evidence to suggest they are. There is certainly a conflict of interest if an off-duty garda is working at a night-club and has to deal with someone he has already encountered when working with the Garda Síochána. There is also a conflict of interest when members of the Defence Forces, who are highly trained to use physical force, work as door supervisors. It is inappropriate that these people be considered for this type of employment.

I ask the Minister to accept this amendment to ensure there is no conflict of interest in situations like those I have just described.

Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a certain amount of sympathy with Senator Terry's amendment. It is the case that gardaí moonlight in this sphere of activity, as do members of the Defence Forces and even prison officers to a lesser extent. It is also true that gardaí may go to a premises and seek the licence from the individual operating the security service, with whom the gardaí may also have worked. The same does not occur with the Defence Forces. The gardaí deal with the public and may be dealing with that same public at a night-club. The Minister agreed with us as he felt that the gardaí should not be involved in these jobs. Some consideration should be given to this issue.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I have some sympathy for the amendment, I am reluctant to accept it in the context of this Bill. The position regarding the involvement of members of the gardaí and the Defence Forces in providing security services while off-duty is as follows. As regards the gardaí, any such off duty activity is already prohibited. The Garda Síochána disciplinary regulations define prohibitive, spare time activity as including, inter alia, any activity which is prohibited by the Commissioner as inappropriate for members to engage in. Acting as directors or secretaries of security firms or being engaged in any way in security work or spare time activity is so prohibited. Section 16 of the Garda Síochána Bill, which is before the House, makes provisions for statutory codes of conduct. On balance, it would be more appropriate to deal with the off duty conduct of gardaí in the context of such codes rather than in this Bill.

As regards the Defence Forces, the Defence Forces regulations provide that involvement in off duty employment may be terminated or limited where such employment is likely to prove detrimental or prejudicial to the best interests of the service. I cannot accept the amendment.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the Minister of State's argument that members of the Garda are prohibited from involvement in such work. Perhaps that should be enforced. It is like many other rules and laws which are not enforced. While I accept the Minister of State's reply, the law should be enforced.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 21, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

23.—(1) Where a person, being the applicant for or the holder of a licence, is convicted of any of the following offences, namely—

(a) murder,

(b) manslaughter,

(c) an offence—

(i) under the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 (other than section 2 or 3), or

(ii) on—

(I) conviction on indictment, under section 2 or 3 of that Act, or

(II) summary conviction, under section 2 or 3 of that Act where the applicant or holder committed the offence while acting as a door supervisor,

(d) a sexual offence (within the meaning of section 3 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001),

(e) a drug trafficking offence (within the meaning of section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994),

(f) an offence relating to money laundering under Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1994,

(g) an offence under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001,

(h) an offence under section 2 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, or

(i) an offence under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Acts 1925 to 1990,

the person—

(i) in the case of being convicted summarily where a fine only is imposed by the Court, is disqualified for the period of 12 months,

(ii) in any other case, subject to subsection (2), is disqualified, for holding a licence and, accordingly, where the person is the holder of a licence, the licence stands revoked.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), after the period of—

(a) 2 years in the case of being convicted summarily, where a term of imprisonment is imposed by the Court, with or without a fine,

(b) 5 years in the case of being convicted on indictment, where a fine or a term of imprisonment of less than 10 years or both is imposed by the Court, or

(c) 10 years in the case of being convicted on indictment, where a term of imprisonment of 10 or more years is imposed by the Court with or without a fine,

of an offence referred to in subsection (1), the person may apply—

(i) where the offence has been tried summarily, to the judge of the District Court in whose District Court District, or

(ii) where the offence has been tried on indictment, to the judge of the Circuit Court in whose Circuit,

the person resides, to be allowed to apply for a licence under such terms or conditions as the Court may direct.

(3) Notwithstanding section 1(2), where a person has been convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) before the commencement of that subsection, and the relevant period referred to in subsection (2) for making an application under subsection (2) has elapsed before the commencement of subsections (1) and (2), he or she may make an application under subsection (2) before the commencement of that subsection.

(4) A person shall not make an application under subsection (2) where he or she is serving a term of imprisonment.

(5) A person who is disqualified under this section for holding a licence and who—

(a) acts or attempts to act as a door supervisor or seeks employment as a door supervisor, or

(b) operates or controls any business or activity relating to the provision of a security service,

is guilty of an offence.

On Second Stage, I spoke about the necessity to ensure that criminals are not involved in door supervision or security work. I advised the Minister that it would be worthwhile to consider how the Minister for Transport dealt with that issue when he dealt with the legislation relating to taxi regulation. We must ensure that people who have been convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, drug offences or rape, are not involved in security work, where they could put members of the public at risk. The Minister for Transport dealt with that issue well in the context of the taxi legislation. I am disappointed the Minister did not table such an amendment. Perhaps the Minister of State will accept my amendment. It is essential that we protect the public and this is one way to do that. We are copying what another Minister did in another Department.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment raises the interesting issue of the eligibility of persons convicted of serious crimes to get licences to provide security services. The 1997 consultative group report recommended that an application to hold a licence should be refused outright by the authority if the applicant had been convicted of a range of listed serious offences. These include murder, rape or sexual assault, armed robbery, drug trafficking or other offences carrying a sentence of more than ten years in jail. The group recommended a ten year gap before granting a licence to persons convicted of a range of other offences.

The Bill we are discussing does not incorporate the detailed and prescriptive approach recommended by the consultative group and now contained in the amendment. Instead it requires the authority to consider each application on its merits. Section 35 provides that an applicant for a licence and any licensee seeking a renewal who has been convicted of an offence or against whom proceedings for an offence are pending shall notify the authority of the conviction or proceedings in a prescribed manner. For its part, the authority may, having considered the applicant's character and competence, grant a licence or refuse to grant a licence if it considers that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to provide a security service. That is included in section 22. In arriving at its decision, the authority may require verification of information provided by the applicant by affidavit or may require the applicant to supply a certificate from a member of the Garda not below the rank of superintendent. Furthermore, the authority may request the Garda Commissioner to provide any information required for the due performance of its functions with regard to any applicant for a licence or any licensee.

The authority will seek to strike an appropriate balance by operating the licensing system in the public interest and in the best interests of the private security industry while at the same time recognising an individual's right to earn a living and support himself or herself and to provide for dependants. It is also relevant in this context that the membership of the authority will include a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing and a representative of the Garda not below the rank of assistant commissioner. In the circumstances, I am not disposed to accept the amendment.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am disappointed the Minister will not accept the amendment. It would provide a cast iron guarantee that every effort will be made to ensure that criminals who have committed serious offences will be prevented from holding a licence. I support ex-prisoners integrating themselves into the community and securing employment. However, in the case of criminals who have committed serious offences, the amendment will provide the security that is necessary to the general public. I will press the amendment.

Amendment put.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 14, 22 and 23 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 14:

In page 24, subsection (7), line 28, to delete "An individual shall not—" and substitute the following:

"In this subsection 'identity card' includes an identity card or other form of identification issued by a corresponding authority.

(b) An individual shall not—".

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 29(7) makes it an offence for an individual to produce for inspection an identity card issued to another person by the authority or to forge or use a document purporting to be such an identity card. It does not deal specifically with a situation in which a person produces an identification document issued by a corresponding authority to another person or a forgery of such a document.

This amendment broadens the definition of "identity card" for the purposes of subsection (7) to include a form of identification issued by a corresponding authority. This will mean that it will also be an offence for an individual to produce an identity card or form of identification issued by a corresponding authority or to forge or use such a document. The amendments to Schedule 3 are consequential, technical amendments involving the deletion of a superfluous subparagraph in paragraph 5(d).

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a minor drafting amendment.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is essentially a drafting amendment designed to clarify the content and improve the presentation of section 50(1).

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is essentially a drafting amendment designed to clarify the content and improve the presentation of paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 2.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 46, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following paragraph:

"21.—Where documents, information, observations or submissions are received under paragraphs 16 to 20, other than from the applicant for or holder of a licence, which are not by virtue of those provisions required to be transmitted for observations or submissions to such applicant or holder, a copy thereof shall be transmitted to the applicant or holder concerned who may, within 14 days, submit to the Authority his or her observations or submissions thereon.".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the applicant or holder of a licence has the last word in the appeals process. This is to ensure fair procedures are upheld. An applicant or holder has something akin to a property right or right to earn a livelihood and fair procedures must apply. Accordingly, he or she must have the right to comment on submissions made by others.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Schedule 2 sets out the procedure for dealing with appeals. The provisions regarding the service of a notice of appeal by an appellant and the making of submissions by other persons allow each person to make only one submission in regard to the appeal unless the appeal board requests further submissions or observations from that person. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with that approach. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to require all submissions received by the appeal board to be supplied to the licensee without also supplying them to the other parties to the appeal.

In addition, there may be circumstances where it would be inappropriate for submissions to be provided to persons other than the appeal board. To give an example, a situation could arise where a licence is revoked by the private security authority on foot of information from the Garda Síochána that the licensee is involved in paramilitary activity. If the licensee appealed the revocation of the licence and the appeal board requested a submission from the Garda, it might not be appropriate that the submission from the Garda regarding the licensee's activities be given to the licensee.

The amendment proposes that the licensee would submit submissions or observations to the private security authority. The authority is not the appropriate party to consider submissions made in the context of an appeal. That is the role of the appeal board. In the circumstances I am not disposed to accept the amendment.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does the Minister of State say about the issue of fairness? The licence holder or applicant could lose out because of something submitted about them, but will not have a final opportunity to respond to it. That would not be fair, given that the consequences are significant.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The advice from the Attorney General is to proceed in the way we have. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment. It amends the paragraph dealing with oral hearings of appeals by inserting a new subparagraph in order to make it clear that the time limit within which a party to the appeal, other than the authority, can request an oral hearing shall be one month from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment. It updates the list of provisions in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 that do not apply to relevant persons in order to take account of previous amendments.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 21 is a Government amendment, amendment No. 25 is related, therefore, amendments Nos. 21 and 25 may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 21:

In page 48, paragraph 2, line 8, after "paragraphs" to insert "(e),".

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These two amendments provide that any standards laid down by the authority in relation to the provision of security services in the State shall apply also to the relevant persons. An example might be technical standards for the protection of cash in transit. These standards will have to be respected irrespective of whether the person concerned is a licensee who holds a licence from the authority or a relevant person who holds a licence from a corresponding authority.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment involving the deletion of a superfluous paragraph in Schedule 3.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise for being late this morning. Unfortunately I missed my amendments. I hope I might be allowed to re-submit them on Report Stage. I understand that in order to do that I must mention them at this Stage. It is important that I get the opportunity to re-submit them. They relate to the compilation of the authority. There is also an amendment on contempt of court and on the Freedom of Information Act, which provides that the applicant should have to provide information. As the Bill is currently drafted, that is required on a discretionary basis. There is also an amendment dealing with identifying the beneficial owners of corporations. I would like the opportunity to re-submit them.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If they have been negatived they cannot be reintroduced. I suggest that the Senator consult with the Clerk's office, which will be able to guide her on this matter.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill and look forward to Report Stage when I will be resubmitting amendments in my name. I wish to resubmit, in particular, the amendment dealing with remuneration to ensure that door supervisors in clubs cannot get drink as part of their remuneration. I thank the Minister of State and his staff for their attendance.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 1 April 2004.