AD HOC COMMITTEE
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001
(Amendment) ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009
1 June 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Trevor Clarke (Chairperson)
Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Witnesses:
Mr Gavin Greenlees ) Northern Ireland Office
Mr Steven McCourt )
Mr Philip McCann )
Mr Stephen Magorrian ) Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade NI
Mr Colin Neill
The Chairperson (Mr T Clarke):
I welcome Ms Ruth Barry from Assembly Research and Library Services, who will make a short presentation before we hear evidence from witnesses.
Ms Ruth Barry (Assembly Research and Library Services):
The purpose of this presentation is to provide a brief overview of the research paper entitled ‘The Regulation of the Private Security Industry in Northern Ireland’. The research paper provides information on the draft Private Industry Act 2001 (Amendment) ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009. For the purposes of this presentation, I will refer to that draft legislation as the 2009 Order. The paper also highlights issues that arose in the Northern Ireland Office’s (NIO) consultation paper entitled ‘Regulating the Private Security Industry in Northern Ireland’, which was published in 2006.
Before I begin, I should apologise for a mistake in the research paper. There is a quotation on the first page that should read “paramilitary organisations”, not “parliamentary organisations”. [Laughter.] I will highlight the key points of the research paper and move on to more detailed background on the NIO’s 2006 consultation paper.
The draft Private Industry Act 2001 (Amendment) ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009 will pave the way for the extension to Northern Ireland of the remit of the Security Industry Authority (SIA). The proposal to extend the SIA’s remit to Northern Ireland was put out for public consultation by the Northern Ireland Office in 2006. The proposal was made in the light of the lack of regulation of the security industry in Northern Ireland, and evidence of paramilitary activity in the industry, which was presented in the fifth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission.
The results of the 2006 consultation report showed overwhelming support for regulation of the security industry in Northern Ireland. The current interim arrangements under the Justice and Security ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007 require persons offering or providing security guard services for reward to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State. After December 2009, it will be illegal to engage in licensable conduct in Northern Ireland without a licence from the SIA. In addition, the 2009 Order will amend the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to take account of sports grounds, in that certain security operatives at sports grounds, under specific circumstances, are exempt from regulation by the SIA. That will keep Northern Ireland in line with the situation in the rest of the UK.
The key responsibilities of the SIA are to reduce criminality in the security industry and to improve security standards. The key dates for the extension of the SIA’s remit to Northern Ireland are highlighted in my research paper. Training leading to the availability of SIA-approved qualifications was to have been completed by January 2009. The SIA was to begin accepting licence applications to its approved contractor scheme in May 2009. After December 2009, it will be illegal to work in certain designated roles in Northern Ireland without a licence.
At the time of the consultation period in 2006, the private security industry in Northern Ireland was regulated under the provisions of schedule 13 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which was later repealed in July 2007 by the Justice and Security ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007. The consultation report stated that schedule 13 to the Terrorism Act 2000 was not working effectively, and that it had no set criteria for the vetting of convictions or professional standards.
In its 2006 report, the NIO considered options for the future regulation of the industry. The “do nothing” option was not adopted because the Government felt that self-regulation would not achieve the objective that they had set out. The report also stated that a scheme established four years ago by the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade (FRLT) and the British Institute of Innkeeping provided training and registration for door supervisors, but that local councils did not seem interested in the scheme, and opted out of using it. The Government also felt that the “do nothing” option would leave the industry open to criminal activity.
The second option was to create a permanent version of schedule 13 to the Terrorism Act 2000. However, the Government felt that schedule 13 did not address best-practice issues, nor did it specify levels of training or provide for criminal conviction checks.
Option 3, which was eventually adopted, was to extend the remit of SIA to Northern Ireland. The Government stated that they thought that that option was the most efficient and cost-effective form of regulation for Northern Ireland. Individuals would require only one licence, no matter where they are in the UK. The Government felt that that would create consistency throughout the UK security industry.
Option 4 was to establish a dedicated Northern Ireland agency. The Government stated that that option would be unlikely to deliver the same benefits as an established agency, and they felt that it would have a negative impact on the industry, due to higher regulation costs. The report estimated that, for a Northern Ireland agency to be self-financing, it would have to charge up to £600. Even were it to charge the bare minimum, that would still be £300 to £400, and it would have to ignore the issue of enforcement and focus purely on the process of licensing. The Government felt that that would result in a less effective system in the UK and Ireland, and that it would also involve disproportionate costs.
The conclusion of the report stated that the most effective choice would be to extend the remit of SIA to Northern Ireland on the basis that that would ensure equal standards across the UK, and reduce offending by the security industry, which would therefore result in greater public confidence in that industry. As well as the overwhelming support for the extension of SIA’s remit, the report called for a joined-up approach between SIA and the Private Security Authority, which is the Irish regulatory body.
In my submission, I identify two reports that provide analysis of the success of SIA. The National Audit Office report outlined how the system was initially unable to cope with the level of applications, which led to an additional cost of £1 million. However, it went on to state that the approved-contractor scheme was a success, and it identified strategic aims to deal with future challenges.
I also referred to a research project that is commencing this year in the department of politics at Sheffield University. Two professors are analysing the role of SIA in regulating the private security industry. Their report is due in 2010, and will address the two crucial issues: to what extent is security provision being brought into the orbit of state authority, and, most importantly, does SIA have the capability to regulate the vast number of security suppliers operating in Britain? Perhaps the Committee should keep an eye on that research, which will be useful when considering how SIA will operate in Northern Ireland when its remit is extended.
That concludes my presentation. If members wish to ask questions, I will be happy to receive them.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for the presentation.
Mr McCartney:
Thank you, Ruth. Did you carry out any research on what will happen when policing and justice powers are transferred?
Ms Barry:
No. The submission was intended to represent a brief overview of the reports.
The Chairperson:
Thank you, Ruth.
We now move to an evidence session with representatives of the Northern Ireland Office. Members have received a copy of the NIO submission. I invite Mr Steven McCourt, head of the operations branch of the policing and operations support division, and Mr Gavin Greenlees from the operations branch, to come forward. I invite Mr McCourt to make a brief opening statement lasting approximately 10 minutes, and to speak about the relationship between the earlier consultation and the present proposals.
Mr Steven McCourt ( Northern Ireland Office):
Thank you very much for the opportunity to outline the legislative amendments and proposals in the draft legislation. I will briefly explain the rationale behind a number of provisions. Your researcher has quite comprehensively covered most of those. I will explain why the Government felt it necessary to regulate the private security industry in Northern Ireland and what objectives they wanted to achieve from regulation. I will also outline the options for regulation that were considered, the views of people involved in the industry, and why, ultimately, the Minister decided that SIA regulation was the most appropriate route for Northern Ireland.
Thereafter, I will briefly outline the legislative changes that are needed to extend the legislation to the industry here.
Why regulate? Many of us rely on the private security sector for our personal safety or for the security of our property, business or possessions. Given the absence of a thorough and permanent regulatory framework in Northern Ireland in recent years, this important growing industry has been infiltrated by some unscrupulous operators who seek to exploit the potential for profit for personal gain or for the gain of paramilitary organisations. It was, and continues to be, a Government priority to tackle that problem. Regulation can help to improve quality of service in sensitive areas, and the trust, confidence and safety of the public are paramount.
For those main reasons, it was decided in 2006 to undertake a thorough review of the private security industry in Northern Ireland and to explore the various options for regulation. Furthermore, we hoped that the public, the PSNI, others who avail themselves of security services and the industry itself would welcome a robust regulatory framework. The Government’s objectives for regulation are to: increase public safety and confidence in the industry; drive organised crime out of the security industry; raise standards of competence and professionalism for security companies; protect and recognise companies and individuals who operate to high standards; specify minimum levels of training for security personnel; and make the industry an attractive career choice.
As your researcher said, there are four options, the first of which is the “do nothing” option. Government said that they did not think that self-regulation would achieve the benefits that an appropriate licensing scheme would achieve. That action risks leaving the industry open to criminal activity. It would become inviting to those who wish to exploit it and, potentially, become a target industry for extortion. In turn, that could create a risk for public safety. Given that regulation exists in the rest of the UK and Ireland, failure to regulate in Northern Ireland would send the signal that it is a safe haven for bad practice.
The second option was the permanent extension of NIO’s interim scheme. The scheme was always intended to operate for an interim period and to focus on the greatest threats to public safety. It was specifically designed to prevent proscribed organisations from profiting from the private security industry. The extension of that scheme would not address best-practice issues such as specifying levels of training for individuals who work in the industry and would not have required a criminal conviction check that could render an applicant unsuitable for the job. Those are the particular areas that the Government wanted the regulations to improve. The Minister firmly believed that making the current scheme permanent without addressing the inherent shortcomings would have been an ineffective solution.
The third option was to extend the SIA’s remit to Northern Ireland. As members are aware, the rest of the UK will adopt a system of regulation, which the SIA will govern, that is similar or identical to that in England, Scotland and Wales. The SIA’s function is to raise standards in the private security industry by licensing the individuals who work therein. In turn, that helps to improve the industry’s image so that the public and the wider business world have a much clearer understanding of how the industry is regulated and who is entitled to work in it. They achieve that regulation by applying criteria such as minimum levels of competency and by carrying out identity and criminal record checks on all applicants. That information is assessed according to the defined standards, and applications for a licence are granted or refused on that basis. It is an offence for someone who works in a licensable sector to operate without an SIA licence or to supply unlicensed security operatives. Conviction carries robust penalties.
The final option was to establish a dedicated NI agency to govern and set standards for the industry. It was envisaged that that agency would have a role similar to the SIA in the rest of the UK and would be responsible for issuing licences and enforcing standards. If such an agency was established to govern the industry, it would have been expected to be self-financing. Therefore, the licence costs would have to bear not only the administrative cost of regulation, but the cost of enforcement.
The industry in Northern Ireland is smaller. Therefore, in order to deliver the same benefits as the SIA, the cost of a licence from a Northern Ireland agency would be disproportionately high — around £600 — and the associated bureaucracy would be disproportionately large. Moreover, establishing a dedicated agency in Northern Ireland would take a significant amount of time. That would leave the industry without regulation for a long period, which would be unacceptable.
Costs could be reduced by making the dedicated local agency responsible for licensing, but removing enforcement powers. That would have resulted in a less effective system than in the rest of the UK and Ireland. Because of that, combined with the disproportionate cost to the industry, the individual and the Government, the Minister dismissed that option.
As I mentioned earlier, those options were published for an eight-week consultation period in August 2006. That public consultation gave the Government the opportunity to receive the views of interested parties and consider them before deciding on the best method of future regulation in Northern Ireland. All the security companies that responded to the consultation were strongly in favour of the proposal to extend the SIA’s remit to Northern Ireland. That view was shared by councils, the PSNI and the British Security Industry Association. The consultation process showed that there was an overwhelming desire in the industry for regulation and that it should be in line with best practice in the rest of the UK. Communication during any future implementation project was assessed to be of great importance to the industry. Consequently, the SIA has put on a series of roadshows, and a substantial marketing campaign is ongoing.
The Government decided that, on balance, the extension of the SIA’s remit to Northern Ireland was the right way forward, particularly with regard to the objectives that were set at the outset. That option was considered the most efficient, cost-effective and satisfactory form of regulation for Northern Ireland. By recognising the SIA as the regulatory body, standards are automatically made equal throughout the UK, increasing Northern Ireland’s ability to operate and compete on a national level. That will have a positive knock-on effect on the economy in Northern Ireland.
In the main, individuals require only one licence, no matter where they are or where they work in the UK. The further achievement of consistency throughout the UK in the number of licences, licence conditions and training standards will also improve the standard of the service provided by companies, and, importantly, will protect the reputable operators, driving out those who have been acting with little regard for the law. That will further protect those who avail themselves of private security services.
The SIA’s multi-agency approach to compliance and enforcement activity sits well with the methods that are currently used in Northern Ireland, and has great potential for success in tackling the problem of organised crime in the industry. The extension to Northern Ireland of the SIA’s remit will achieve the objectives that the Government identified when they reviewed the industry. The Minister firmly believes that such a course of action will result in a major improvement of the current arrangements. The Minister has agreed that the SIA would open for business and begin accepting applications for licences in May 2009. From December 2009, it will become illegal to engage in licensable conduct without a licence.
A number of legislative changes will be required in preparation for the extension to Northern Ireland of the SIA’s remit. The vast majority are technical changes, which simply extend existing legislation to Northern Ireland. The legislation that is currently under consideration is a case in point. The first amendment relates to an exemption in section 4 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 for those working in certain sports grounds from any requirement to hold a licence under the 2001 Act. That exemption does not apply in Northern Ireland because it is defined by reference to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Fire Safety and Places of Sport Act 1987, neither of which extends to Northern Ireland.
The amendment will extend that exemption to Northern Ireland by adding references to the Safety of Sports Grounds ( Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which is the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation. That exemption from licensing applies to in-house employees when carrying out duties in connection with their employer’s use of a certified sports ground or certified sports stand for purposes for which its safety certificate has effect. Employees of a visiting team to such premises are also exempt provided that the visiting team has a certified sports ground or stand.
The second amendment relates to schedule 2 to the 2001 Act, which lists the various activities that can be designated under the Act. The designation triggers the requirement to hold an SIA licence. One of the activities listed at schedule 2(8) is the work of door supervisors or other security personnel in licensed premises. The definition of licensed premises in schedule 2(8) currently refers only to licensed premises in England , Wales and Scotland. The amendment will add references to licensed premises in Northern Ireland, ensuring that those working in Northern Ireland are also covered by the Act.
I hope that that introduction has provided members with a useful summation of the rationale and background to the extension to Northern Ireland of the regulatory remit of the SIA. Mr Greenlees and I will be happy to provide clarification if we can.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. You said that the consultation took place, and you talked about the security industry. Retailers are more probably more affected than the security industry. What was their response to the consultation?
Mr McCourt:
We have provided an outline of responses from the security sector. As I have indicated, in the main they are positive about the introduction of the SIA in Northern Ireland.
The Chairperson:
I appreciate that that is the security companies’ response. I am thinking about people who will actually incur charges, such as licensed traders. I am curious about the points that they raised during the consultation and about whether they were in favour.
Mr McCourt:
We do not have any information about specific responses from individuals from each sector. In general, the licence is personal and transportable — it allows an employee to engage in activity across a number of areas, both in Northern Ireland and throughout GB. In that context, therefore, although the licence and the training that it involves will have costs, the Minister believes that it is important that the legislation be introduced in Northern Ireland in order to bring it into line with the rest of the UK and so that it can enjoy the benefits that are accrued elsewhere.
Dr Farry:
Welcome, gentlemen. I support the broad thrust of the legislation. I want to ask a few questions, however. The consultation was conducted in 2006. Why did NIO not, at that stage, bring forward a full Order to extend the SIA to Northern Ireland, as opposed to the interim arrangements that were brought about by the 2007 Act? Why is that being done in two steps in Northern Ireland, rather than in 2006 through the route that you now advocate?
Mr Gavin Greenlees ( Northern Ireland Office):
In 2006, the Terrorism Act 2000 was due to be repealed. Therefore, prior to implementation of SIA, which was the route that the Minister decided on, there would have been a period during which there was no regulation of the industry. Therefore, the interim scheme was brought in as a stopgap measure while full consideration of what was required for the industry was taken forward. Therefore, we had an interim scheme so that the industry was not left without any regulation while that consideration was taking place.
Dr Farry:
When you talk about the Terrorism Act 2000 being repealed, do you mean part 7 of the Act, as opposed to the Act as a whole?
Mr Greenlees:
Yes.
Dr Farry:
Can you clarify whether we depend on part 7 being dealt with in order for any measures to go forward?
Mr Greenlees:
Part 7 is being repealed. The interim scheme was brought about under the Justice and Security ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007. After that, Northern Ireland will come under the remit of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Therefore, we have gone through a transitional period and are potentially at the start of new arrangements.
Dr Farry:
Therefore, you are not conducting a repeat consultation? Is it the case that you will use the 2006 consultation to inform legislative action in 2009?
Mr Greenlees:
The consultation in 2006 was a broad exercise on the overall policy of implementing a new regulatory scheme for the industry in Northern Ireland. We believe that policy decisions that were taken at that stage are still valid. The scheme is a practical and technical outworking of that decision.
Dr Farry:
Am I right in saying that it is a little bit unusual to have a consultation three years before action will be taken?
Mr Greenlees:
I understand that point.
Dr Farry:
I appreciate all of the arguments for a standardised approach throughout the United Kingdom. However, is there a case for higher standards in Northern Ireland, given its particular affliction by paramilitary activity and organised crime? Would a common, UK-wide standard and approach be sufficiently flexible and adept to pick up the subtleties of Northern Ireland’s situation?
Mr McCourt:
The UK-wide scheme is robust with regard to assessment of criminal-convictions criteria for individuals and background checks in respect of mental-health considerations, for example. The Minister believes that the GB arrangements are robust, which is why he wants to move ahead and introduce them in Northern Ireland. They are much more robust than the interim scheme that is currently in place.
Dr Farry:
We have received a statement from the IMC that there is direct evidence of paramilitary involvement in Northern Ireland’s security industry — or there has been in the past. When that new regime is in operation, how will it be able to tell definitively whether there is a paramilitary or organised-crime agenda behind any organisation when the people who apply for a licence do not have a conviction?
The people involved may not have a conviction, but there may still be an organised crime agenda behind what is being put forward. Is this foolproof, or is it merely a partial measure?
Mr McCourt:
The SIA does not take only criminal conviction criteria into consideration. It also takes consideration of additional information that may be forwarded to it by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Its remit is much broader than purely criminal conviction criteria and assessment.
Dr Farry:
Take the example of broader uses of intelligence leading to a conviction. What protection does the state have against a legal challenge from a company that takes out a judicial review against the SIA for not granting it a licence based upon intelligence that has not been formally tested in public?
Mr McCourt:
That is one of the issues concerning protections and intelligence that the Minister is considering. It is an aspect that still has to be bottomed out in the movement between an interim scheme and the general SIA.
Dr Farry:
It is a key problem that must be addressed.
Mr McFarland:
Most of the respondents were quite positive, but there seems to be a suggestion that not everyone was positive. Who was not positive, and why were those people not positive?
Mr McCourt:
That information has been provided to the Committee. A number of organisations were not in favour of the regulations that were set out. One such organisation was the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), which disagreed with the extent in the SIA’s remit to which Northern Ireland is the best option. Other organisations were also of that opinion.
The Chairperson:
The Federation of the Retailed Licensed Trade will be presenting to us later. I am just reading that it is another of the organisations that is not positive. Perhaps you will still be here when the FRLT makes its presentation.
Mr McCourt:
I was just about to speak about the FRLT, and we will certainly stay for its presentation.
Mr McFarland:
I could have read the answer that you have just given. I would like a potted version of what you see as the problems that we will face as we receive evidence. You have been working on the matter for several years, so what else have you spotted? You must have an inkling of what the Committee is about to uncover and encounter. We are seeking your help and your assessment of where the potential difficulties lie, because we will be examining the issue over a fairly short period of three to four weeks. Will you provide the Committee with a potted version of where the problems lie?
Mr McCourt:
The main issue concerns criminal conviction criteria and, in particular, how conflict convictions will be treated under the SIA. Other groups will probably provide evidence in that regard as well. That issue is not contained in the remit of the Order that is before the Committee, but there are concerns about how it will be dealt with under the SIA.
Mr McFarland:
We are essentially talking about the Eames/Bradley group, because it raised the issue of how past convictions should be dealt with. The issue has been ongoing on a number of fronts for some time.
Mr McCourt:
In general, the SIA takes account of the relevance, seriousness, recency and disposal of each offence. It will consider all the offences on a person’s criminal record, regardless of whether those offences may have been considered spent in other circumstances. That has particular relevance to the issue of whether the SIA’s process takes account of the Good Friday Agreement. Some people in the industry and, indeed, some of the wider bodies that are represented have general concerns about that.
The SIA has taken legal advice on the matter, and it believes that the approach that it is taking of considering offences is consistent with the judgement of Justice Kerr and the guidance to employers that was issued by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) about conflict-related convictions that predate the Good Friday Agreement. There was growing concern that everyone who had a criminal conflict-related conviction would automatically be penalised by the SIA. The SIA met with ex-prisoners’ groups and others to try to outline its specific approach about licensing in Northern Ireland. The Minister is keen that public safety must remain the priority, but there is no desire to unfairly penalise anyone who is genuinely rehabilitated. Therefore, we tried to address the industry’s concerns about that.
Mr Greenlees:
Members will be aware from the summary of responses that Sport NI raised concerns that account may not be taken of the particular consideration about Northern Ireland’s sports grounds. I want to touch on this issue because it specifically relates to the legislation that we are taking forward and that the Committee must consider. Sport Northern Ireland’s concern was that the form of regulation would be unreasonably burdensome on small sports grounds. Therefore, I thought that it may be useful if I laid out what areas are not required to have a licence in the SIA regulation for sports grounds, because that illustrates quite well how far the regulation extends. The Minister met representatives of Sport Northern Ireland, and he felt that he had addressed those concerns. It is useful to air that matter.
There will be no need for an SIA licence at a sporting event provided in-house security staff are used, that is, that they are not contracted staff and the venue is not licensed to sell alcohol or to provide regulated entertainment. There is no requirement for an SIA licence at a sporting event providing that staff are volunteers within the HMRC guidelines, which means that they cannot receive payment or benefits in kind, but they can receive reasonable expenses.
The final issue is pertinent, because it is the legislative change that we are attempting to make through the Order, and that is to ensure that appropriate reference is made through the safety of sports grounds regulations in Northern Ireland. Making correct reference to that legislation means that if a certified sports ground or stand is covered by a safety certificate, there is no requirement for any in-house staff to have a licence, even if they work in an area with a licence to sell alcohol or to provide entertainment. That is an important distinction, because, if a safety of sports grounds certificate does not apply, people who work in a sports ground where there is a licence to sell alcohol and provide entertainment are expected to have a licence. The overall outworking of that is to reduce the burden on sports. The Minister felt that he addressed those concerns that were raised as part of the consultation.
Mr McFarland:
Can it be confirmed that the Minister is minded to have the SIA follow Mr Justice Kerr’s advice, that employers should, where possible, ignore terrorist-related convictions? I do not know how that fits in with increasing public safety and confidence in the industry if the issue of former convictions is overlooked. The whole essence of the issue was that we were stopping people who were involved with paramilitarism from getting involved, or continuing to be involved, in the industry?
Mr McCourt:
That is not what we are saying.
Mr McFarland:
I thought that you said that the Minister was minded to have the SIA follow Mr Justice Kerr’s advice to employers. Is that not what you said?
Mr McCourt:
The SIA said that its approach is consistent with Mr Kerr’s judgement. The SIA is not the employer, but it will undertake the risk assessment process when considering an individual’s convictions, whether it is post-1998 or pre-1998. A risk assessment will be made as would be the case for anyone with a similar conviction. The SIA is saying that its process is consistent with the guidance that has been issued, and that it will take the Good Friday Agreement into consideration.
It does not necessarily follow that people with so-called Good Friday Agreement convictions will get a licence. It will be a matter of a risk assessment of the relevance, seriousness and recency of the offence. The SIA will assess those people for licences as it would do for any other application.
Mr McFarland:
You will have been following the issue of public confidence over the devolution of policing and justice. Do you not think that this is an area that may cause a few excited moments when it goes public?
Mr McCourt:
The Minister has taken the decision that the process will be consistent with that in the rest of the UK. The SIA believes that its approach is consistent with what is being applied in GB.
Mr McFarland:
Has no one spotted that this is apt to cause an unholy row when it is deployed over here?
Mr McCourt:
The process that is being applied with criminal convictions is consistent with the rest of the UK in regards to risk. Irrespective of whether someone has a Good Friday Agreement conviction, the process of assessing risk will be the same. Therefore, the SIA will treat each case on an individual basis.
The Chairperson:
So, there are no clear guidelines on whether having a spent conviction —
Mr McFarland:
As I understand it, the advice is that where possible, the conviction should be ignored. Mr Justice Kerr’s take on it was that employers should be encouraged not to stop people getting jobs if they had a terrorist conviction. We know about the sensitivity that exists on the issue of terrorist convictions, and if we are now saying that the SIA is going to use the advice from Mr Justice Kerr that unless it is absolutely clear that there is still involvement in terrorism, the conviction should be ignored, my guess is that it will cause a bit of a row here.
The Chairperson:
I can see where you are coming from.
Mr McCourt:
The issue is that the conviction will not be ignored. The SIA will make an assessment on risk based on relevance, seriousness and recency of any offence. Therefore, no criminal conviction will be ignored by the SIA.
Mr McCartney:
When you were considering the options, particularly option 4, was any consideration given to the transfer of policing and justice powers and the establishment of a justice Department?
Mr McCourt:
I hesitated to answer because not having been involved with that issue back in 2006, I do not know what level of thought was given to the scale of the future devolution of policing and justice. However, the general issue with the devolution of policing and justice will be that the overall policy of the SIA will be devolved to any new Department of justice. Therefore, if the Home Secretary or a Department of justice wishes to change any aspects of the criteria, or to amend any of the licensable areas, they can do so. The Home Secretary will consult on other areas of the Act. The devolution of policing and justice powers is taken into consideration. However, I do not know whether it was a factor for consideration back in 2006.
Mr McCartney:
In light of recent developments, was the options paper brought back in to suggest that we should reconsider whether the dedicated agency here is a better idea now than it was in 2006?
Mr McCourt:
I will check on the consultation process and come back to the Committee on that question.
Mr McCartney:
Mr Justice Kerr ruled that people with Good Friday Agreement, or conflict-related convictions, as they are called, could be awarded PSV licences. Until then, people with a political conviction could not get one. What will be the role of the SIA in future vetting procedures? Will it make the decision or will it seek guidance on from a new justice Department? Will the SIA decide the importance or relevance of a political conviction as opposed to seeking guidance from OFMDFM?
Mr McCourt:
The SIA will be responsible for deciding on each licence application.
Mr McQuillan:
How realistic is it that the legislation will be in place by the December deadline? I ask that in the context of having to have the training completed and up and running in the current economic climate as well as asking people for £250 for the training.
Mr McCourt:
The Minister is conscious of the overall cost to applicants for the licence. Training providers have been up and running since early January, and the SIA has been open for business since May. The final aspects of the legislation, including the Order that the Committee is considering, will be introduced in mid-November. The SIA and the NIO have held numerous roadshows and met numerous groups — user groups as well as those involved with each sector — and have made it abundantly clear that, with regard to the voluntary licensing process, employers and employees should move ahead as soon as possible and apply for their training and licences in time.
Approximately 1,300 licences have been issued to individuals who have a personal address in Northern Ireland. The SIA believes that there are just over 9,000 people involved with the sector in general.
The Chairperson:
That leaves approximately 7,700 people who need a licence between now and the end of December. Is that achievable?
Mr McCourt:
The SIA certainly believes that it is achievable.
Mr Greenlees:
The timeline is consistent with the implementation projects that were rolled out in England and Wales, and, with the lessons learned, in Scotland. The expectation is for a slow uptake at the start with a peak towards the deadline.
The Chairperson:
Surely it is not a case of a slow uptake. If we are setting a December deadline for people to have a licence, there is no slow period for the uptake. We have given people a six-month window in which to apply for and to be in receipt of a licence before they can legally operate in licensed premises.
Mr Greenlees:
The uptake has been slow at the start in other implementation projects. However, the uptake increased towards the end of the six-month period. In this project, fewer people need to be licensed than in the English, Welsh and Scottish models. Therefore, there is not an expectation that the uptake will affect SIA operations or it meeting its deadlines. The SIA has assured us that it is resourced to operate this programme on the model that it expects, namely, that there will be a big increase in applications nearer the end of the six-month period.
The Chairperson:
You are referring to a model that is already in place. Surely, this is absolutely new to Northern Ireland. I can understand how such a model would suit Wales and other devolved regions. It is new to Northern Ireland, and we are still talking about a six-month window in which to turn it round. Do you really believe, with that number of applications, that that will be achievable?
Mr Greenlees:
The SIA, using its experience in other jurisdictions, believes that it is possible.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
What are the current mechanisms for clearing and vetting door supervisors in particular?
Mr McCourt:
Do you mean with regard to the application process to the SIA?
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I mean even before they approach the SIA. What has been the practice in local government? How are such people vetted before their licences are granted? If the SIA cannot meet its targets for December 2009, are we to assume that a couple of thousand people could potentially be without employment?
Mr McCourt:
Obviously, Ministers would have to make a decision and the SIA would have to review its whole process for the project. If there was a significant difficulty with delivering the project in the given timescale, the Minister would take account of that; there is not a blinkered approach. From the advice that the SIA has given us, and from its consultations with individual employers and governing bodies, it believes that it will be able to adhere to the timeline for the application process.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Out of curiosity, how many people who work in the industry have been convicted for extortion and exploitation?
Mr McCourt:
I do not have the figures, but I will get back to the Committee with them.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
That would be helpful to the Committee.
Mr McFarland:
The Assembly Research and Library Service briefing paper states that the Audit Office was quite rough on the SIA in its 2008 report and that the SIA incurred additional costs of more than £1 million. The Audit Office report identified the large number of licences to be renewed in 2008-09 as a future challenge. Presumably, that refers to renewals in GB. If we are adding hundreds more applications from here, will the SIA be up to the extra work? How can we find out whether the December target will be met? The SIA is having trouble doing its job in England and Wales, and it has a lot of licences to renew in 2008-09. The report also identifies the new sectors and regions to be regulated as a future challenge, which, I presume, does not refer just to Northern Ireland.
Mr McCourt:
To reassure the Committee on the SIA’s ability to deliver, particularly with regard to the criticisms in the Audit Office report, I will ask the SIA to outline the current process and how it is delivering against its targets. I will get back to the Committee with that, because it will provide a snapshot in time, and it would be appropriate to find out how the SIA is processing its current applications. I believe that it is meeting its targets.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I am keen to get that information. The awarding of an entertainment licence is dependent on the applicant having door staff who are properly trained and licensed. Therefore, there is not just potential for current door supervisors to be out of work, there is also potential for entertainment licences and perhaps even liquor licences not to be awarded. In the current economic climate, that should be taken into account. I am in favour of regulation, but it seems vague as to whether the December deadline will be met.
Dr Farry:
I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council, which has had a licensing scheme for door supervisors for a number of years, as has Belfast City Council. However, the licensing of door supervisors is patchy across Northern Ireland.
With regard to the speed of the licensing process, have lessons been learned from the situation at AccessNI, where, until this year, there was a lot of frustration with the long delays in the processing of applications? I appreciate that that may be a slightly different concept, but a similar methodology may be used.
Mr McCourt:
The short answer is yes. The SIA and AccessNI have been modelling the application process and how to deal with the throughput that they envisage. AccessNI has been able to assure the SIA about meeting the necessary deadlines.
Dr Farry:
My other point is about people with convictions. A distinction can be made between looking to the past and drawing a conclusion that because someone was involved with a paramilitary organisation, they are linked to a wide network of organised crime. That may or may not be the case. Some subtlety in the process is required with regard to that. I emphasise the need to look to the future rather than the past, and we should be careful not to generalise.
Mr Greenlees:
Although the SIA is not bound by the rehabilitation of offenders legislation, its work is consistent with the spirit of it. The intention is that people who can prove that they have been genuinely rehabilitated will not necessarily be excluded from licensing. However, there is an onus on them to prove that through an appropriate reference from an employer or someone who is not personally related who can verify that that person has moved forward.
Mr McCartney:
What does “genuinely rehabilitated” mean?
Mr Greenlees:
The SIA will take into consideration information provided to them that, for instance, shows that someone who has been involved in the security industry for a period of time, despite their past conviction, has performed well and has contributed to the industry.
Mr McCartney:
Is the SIA not being asked to make a value judgement? Justice Kerr made a judgement in 1998, for whatever reason, that people with political convictions should be involved in a process of moving on. Therefore, people should be allowed to move on without a requirement for “genuine rehabilitation”. That is merely subjective.
Ms Ní Chuilín :
It is too arbitrary.
Mr McCourt:
It is a matter of risk. A process is set out in the ‘Get Licensed’ booklet. That is a comprehensive booklet that allows people to make assessments against the criteria involved. It is a matter for risk-assessment. As Gavin outlined, the SIA will take mitigating circumstances into consideration in determining risk in the round.
Dr Farry:
I do not have exactly the same point of view as Raymond in that I accept that there has to be a risk assessment, though we should be careful not to generalise. To a certain extent, any risk assessment is subjective. If someone feels that they have been unfairly turned down, can he or she appeal the decision to find out how the risk assessment had been carried out?
Mr McCourt:
Yes. They can appeal to a magistrate’s court.
Mr McCartney:
There were 100 court cases about PSV licences, and each person was successfully granted an application for a licence. Justice Kerr then made his ruling, and there now exists a broader definition of who can get a PSV licence. This is the same scenario. We will end up with 300 or 400 court cases before we come to a conclusion, and we will then have an audit report telling us that it was a waste of public money.
Dr Farry:
I am trying to find the middle ground —
The Chairperson:
The Committee Clerk and I discussed the issue, and we may be able to call on the Minister to provide a presentation. We could put those questions to the Minister, as opposed to questioning these guys who are not in a position to give answers. I do not want to get stuck on this issue for the rest of the afternoon. With great respect, we need the Minister here to answer that question.
Let us consider the PSNI submission, and leave it at that. One of its points is that it may be necessary to continue with some form of vetting that takes into account more than the criminal convictions, for example, suspected involvement with criminal or paramilitary activity. That is even wider than what we are talking about. Let us park this discussion for the present.
Dr Farry:
That refers to police intelligence.
The Chairperson:
We would do best to park the discussion for now, and if we get an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister, we can press him for an answer. We can let Steven off the hook this time round. I thank Steven and Gavin for coming today and for their presentation. I am grateful to them for indicating that they will stay for the presentation by the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade.
Are you happy to stay with a view to responding to any further questions that may arise from the next evidence session?
Mr Greenlees:
Yes.
Mr McCourt:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
We will now hear evidence from the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade. Members have been supplied with a copy of that organisation’s written submission. I welcome Colin Neill, who is chief executive of the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade in Northern Ireland, Philip McCann, who is a publican, and Stephen Magorrian, who is managing director of Botanic Inns Ltd. Thank you for coming along today. You have approximately 10 minutes to give a presentation, and then members will take the opportunity to ask questions.
Mr Colin Neill (Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade):
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our views on this matter. I will present a brief overview of the federation and the industry, so that you know where we are coming from.
The Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade is the only industry body of its kind in Northern Ireland. It is a membership organisation representing about 70% of the industry, the majority of which are publicans; however, we also represent a number of off-licences and hotels.
Our industry employs some 34,000 people and contributes more than £1 billion to the Northern Ireland economy each year. The retail licensed trade is now seen more as a career than a dead-end job. For example, one in eight staff of Botanic Inns becomes a manager; therefore, the industry is progressive.
We are also a major part of the tourism product in Northern Ireland. Tourist Board figures show that more than 70% of all tourists visit a pub and that more than 60% of them eat in one.
As an organisation, we also lead the agenda for the responsible retailing of alcohol. We are driving that agenda forward to ensure that we exceed any regulations, so that the misuse of alcohol becomes an item on the agenda, rather than being the agenda itself. Therefore, by highlighting that, the industry brings other benefits.
I put on record our full support for the Minister’s aims and objectives in respect of the requirement for door supervisors to be regulated. The draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2009 will put that regulation in place; however, that also raises some issues for the industry. The NIO dropped the ball in respect of that legislation. Even though licensing laws are different here, the NIO used an English model, hence the catch-up process. We have a major issue with that catch-up process, and woven through that are concerns about the cost, the time frame and the Good Friday Agreement, all of which have implications for the industry.
In respect of the time frame, we heard earlier that the training window has been open and will remain open for about six months. The problem is that the NIO dropped the ball on the deadline for compliance with the legislation. Given the economic climate, the federation has encouraged employers in the industry to get their staff trained; however, an awful lot of them are reluctant to do so in case the legislation is not put in place.
We have been told that the legislation will be put in place by September. If I had a crystal ball, I would know which Government would be in Westminster in September, what process this Committee decides on, and whether the 60-day time frame exists to allow the proposals to become legislation. A number of people are holding back to see whether that happens. If the legislation is put in place, a large chunk of the industry will then try to be trained and licensed by 1 December 2009. Given that we did not create the anomaly, the compliance deadline should be shifted.
We have had numerous conversations, one of which was as recently as last Friday, with the SIA about the issue of the Good Friday Agreement ramifications. Our issue is that in order carry out the process and apply for a licence, door supervisors must first be trained at a cost of around £250. In most cases, employers are footing that bill because door supervisors work only one or two nights a week, so it is simply not financially viable for them to pay for their training and licensing.
Employers are picking up the tab for their employees’ time off work, training and, in many instances, licences. Given the cost of the training, the employers of the people affected by the Good Friday Agreement will have to foot that bill for the process before they know whether those employees’ applications have been accepted. Therefore, money will be spent before anyone knows the outcome.
I spoke to SIA on 29 May 2009, and, from that conversation, it seems that it has moved its position slightly. Up until now, it would not give any information, other than that it did have a process, but it has now said that it will take mitigating factors into consideration. However, that will lengthen the process, because when a doorperson does their training and applies for a licence, there is a six to eight-week turnaround. Once we start getting into mitigating circumstances, each case will be judged on its merits, adding weeks to that time frame. Indeed, I have yet to obtain a definitive explanation from SIA of what that time frame will be.
Belfast City Council estimates that around 1,000 people employed in door supervision are affected by the Good Friday Agreement. If the introduction of the new scheme is delayed until September, because most of them are employed in-house rather than in the security industries, there will be a much longer process for those employees to obtain a licence. Therefore, it will be somewhat of a double whammy.
On the issue of the Good Friday Agreement, SIA has told us that some employees will be able to proceed on the basis of mitigating circumstances, but that some will not. The political world is obviously nothing to do with the federation, but we envisage losing good staff, because they will not even enter that process. In the current climate of unemployment, that is unacceptable.
The federation also has an issue with non-front-line licences. As the Committee has heard, door personnel must pay £250 for a 30-day training course and £245 for their licences. Additionally, owners of bars, because they employ security staff, also must obtain non-front-line licences at a cost of £245. Therefore, in a family-run pub with four directors, each of those directors will have to hold such a licence, meaning that that pub will have to pay out £1,000 for those directors to tell a doorman once a week to guard the door and carry out general housekeeping. In total, those licences could perhaps add £3,000 to the overall running costs of a small public house. That figure scales up drastically when one examines a business such as Botanic Inns. I will now hand over to Stephen to speak about the cost factors in that business.
Mr Stephen Magorrian (Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade):
As Colin has said, we have spoken to the SIA about the legislation. We have also been in negotiation with a chosen training provider about how we can move forward to meet the deadline.
Botanic Inns has 14 on-trade outlets, directly employing 40 security personnel, and a further 40 security personnel are indirectly employed through an agency. The total cost to the company of putting our security staff through training could be £34,500. That figure includes 30 hours of training for 40 people at £12 per person per hour, a payment to the training provider of approximately £250 per person and a further outlay of £10,000 for our licence. Furthermore, the company must also pay for the provision of non-front-line licences to personnel such as myself, some staff at head office and other staff across the outlets. We are still trying to determine how that will operate in the outlets and whether one person will be in charge of all door staff or if that responsibility will fall to the general manager. However, because Botanic Inns has 14 outlets, that could mean that a further 30 people would need to be licensed in that manner, with a further cost of £25,800. Moreover, the agency that provides the other half of our security personnel will obviously incur similar costs, and no doubt it will pass those costs to us through an increased rate per hour. That could equate to a further £34,000, resulting in Botanic Inns having to pay £95,000 in total to comply with the system.
The cost element is difficult to swallow, but I am also concerned about staff retention. Some of the 40 security personnel whom we directly employ have been with us for years. Indeed, one person who works for us one night a week, and who has been with us for 14 years, has spoken to me to ask whether it is really worth his while going through the training and obtaining the licence. Therefore, we could potentially lose a very experienced employee. Many of the other staff members are in similar positions: they have been with us for so long, they know us, and they know their jobs and what is expected of them. All of those employees have already registered through the Belfast scheme and have done various courses in the past, yet no consideration is given to that, with consideration only being given to training that has been completed in the last three years. Therefore, it is a concern that we could lose good people from the industry because that could push us down a more agency-orientated route. That would mean that we would not have the same level of ownership over the individual, which would make me worry about the quality of door service that we would be able to provide.
I am also worried about our foreign workers. A couple of guys who work with us are from Poland, and the time that it will take to vet them worries me. I am concerned about the cost and the time. I need all 80 of those guys to be working from 1 December for Christmas, but I may not be able to have that. One of the questions raised by the door staff is: “Will you make us redundant?” I said, “No — it just means you are gone.” They ask about all the years of work that they have done for me. I have had to tell them that it is not my problem and if they cannot get licences, it is their problem.
December is the worst time of all for these measures to go live. I hear that there are 6,000 applications to be processed. I have had to vet people in the past and it has taken me a long time through the Belfast City Council scheme. Even when I have phoned police officers whom I know to call in favours, it is still a slow process. In short, we are worried and we have our reservations about the timelines.
Mr Neill:
There is a significant cost at a time when our industry is under severe pressure.
You are all aware of the news that comes out of England continuously about five pubs closing each day. In April, we surveyed our members and the situation is no different here. Some 35% have had to lay off staff; 24% expect to lay off staff; and 4% expect to close. I could give further statistics.
Our industry is in crisis. Low-cost alcohol renders the industry unprofitable. Over 60% of alcohol is consumed at home or on the street. We sell only a small part of it. Lots of other costs are associated with running an on-trade business that are not incurred in off-sales. We attended a Committee the other day to give evidence on a proposal to double the cost of the entertainment licence. Sky TV may seem simple and cheap. Most people think it costs us £40 or £50, but for a bar in Belfast it costs in the region of a couple of thousand pounds per month. There is a wide range of hidden costs that keeps increasing. We support the process of improving quality and making sure that doormen are regulated. All of the hidden costs, such as non-front-line licences, are unreasonable. The time frame is undeliverable.
The Chairperson:
I concur with your remarks, and I share your concerns, although I am not directly connected with your trade. That is why I asked the question at the outset about those who were not satisfied. I am not surprised that you are not impressed by the whole notion of licensing. Steven and Gavin gave their presentation, and the responses could be analysed: those who have agreed are mostly connected with the security industries, and I am not surprised that they are in favour of it. The police and the councils will be in favour. It is good management for a council. It makes it easier for a council to monitor what is happening. However, from your point of view, this is another burden.
I attended the presentation that you gave to another Committee. Most of us concur that the proposals require more expenditure from the point of view of your business. However, all of us welcome some form of regulation in our own private way. When one does the sums, as Stephen has shown, there is a financial burden on each of the businesses involved.
Mr McCartney:
In Stephen’s presentation, he said that he had 40 direct employees and 40 agency staff. Is that pattern typical of the industry? Typically, are 50% of doormen directly employed and 50% hired?
Mr Philip McCann (Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade):
Not really. I come from the smaller end of the business. I am an owner-operator. Typically, there would be only one or two people, and generally the owner would employ them. Not only that, the federation has pushed hard for control of the employment of door staff. We pushed very hard in Belfast. We have a scheme that is up and going, and has been working fairly well. We have the concerns that off-front-line as well as non-front-line staff will become an important issue. Every director and virtually every manager will have to get a licence, even though he does no more than make a cursory judgement as to whether to let in individuals. We will be breaking the law if we do not have licences.
It gets a bit silly after a while. As Colin said, the industry is deteriorating, unfortunately, and we are doing our best to increase turnover. However, another large amount of money will have to continually go towards meeting the requirements of SIA licensing.
There are other major issues. For instance, small pubs generally employ local people, usually on a part-time basis. With respect, the SIA will be paying a certain amount of lip service to the Good Friday Agreement. We attended a presentation last month at which representatives of the SIA said that it will make decisions about licensing criteria. However, Colin attended a meeting last Friday at which the SIA representatives said that they might make licensing decisions but would still set the criteria. We do not have that luxury. If we are going to employ someone, we have to totally forget about the ramifications of the Good Friday Agreement. We will go ahead and spend money on training people because we have to. All of a sudden, we may get a summons, and we have to go back to the magistrate’s court, etc. The result is that there is nobody on staff to look after the door of the premises. If the legislation goes through, we will be totally lost, because from September, people like us will jump in and try to get staff trained, but there is no time to do so. There is no common sense in an approach that says that 6,000 people will be licensed, especially if at least 1,000 of those are to be reviewed and then reviewed again.
Mr McCartney:
I will follow up on the point that you made about the Good Friday Agreement. I declare an interest as the chairperson of Coiste na nIarchimí, an organisation that works with republican ex-prisoners. Your experiences with people who have been convicted of conflict-related offences seems to have been good. Alan McFarland said that there might be matters of wider public interest, which is fine, but your experience to date has been that the people that you have employed are capable of doing the job.
Mr Neill:
We have not asked our members individually about their experiences of employing such people as door staff, but the fact that they are employed, are doing the job and are being retained would suggest that our members are happy with them.
The Chairperson:
I do not want to play devil’s advocate, but that it not necessarily so. There are other factors, but I do not want to go too deeply into that. There is concern on both sides of the community that some of those guys, who, although they have spent records, are probably still involved. I do not know whether Alan McFarland shares that view or not. I do not believe that simply because you have not had an indication to the contrary, your members do not have a problem with those people. I just wanted to put that on record.
Mr Neill:
Our argument is apolitical. It is not about who should be employed in those roles; it is about the implications of not adopting a clear and concise process that leaves the whole thing awash. We do not want to have to pay for someone’s training because we cannot decide whether they pass the required standard, only to get knocked back when applying for a licence, or go into a process that disappears into a black hole for six months. We will leave the political side of things to you and the members, Chairperson.
The Chairperson:
It is probably better to leave it at that.
Dr Farry:
You are welcome, gentlemen. We should recognise the responsible role that is played by your organisation in the drinks industry and in the creation of a safer environment in which people can enjoy a drink. I presume that, in general, you accept the principle of licensing of all staff at some stage. The question is how to achieve that and how long it will take. Is that your message today?
Mr Neill:
Yes. We welcome and support fully the regulation of doormen and improving the quality of their training. We support the Minister’s aims and objectives, but the costs will be incredible. The legislation is obviously designed for the security industry because security companies are run by one director. However, all of a sudden, all four directors of a family-run pub have to have a licence to employ one doorman. That legislation, on top of the ramifications of the Good Friday Agreement and the time frames that it will require, will result in the industry being bogged down in a quagmire. The legislation was parachuted in without looking at the detail, and we are trying to patch it up, leaving us with a two-month window in which to train everyone. With the best will in the world, I can understand why people do not want to spend the money up front.
Dr Farry:
My next question will lead into another one; you will see the link. I am trying to be as frank as possible with the Committee and without naming any businesses — accepting that most businesses are well run — what are the examples of bad practice in your industry, even among pub owners who are not members of your association?
What is your view on the problems in your industry with unregulated door staff?
Mr Neill:
It is about quality of service. We want to move away from the image of a bouncer as an aggressive individual in a Puffa jacket. Our doormen are concierges, who are quality meeter and greeters. Their role is to find customers a chair, ensure that everyone behaves properly and identify and mediate with people who are acting inappropriately. I agree that some people in the industry are untrained; that is why we are keen to ensure that everyone is trained and qualified. We must consider how to do that and the cost.
Dr Farry:
How does the industry respond to complaints about door staff, particularly those about the excessive or inappropriate use of force, or use of force in itself?
Mr Magorrian:
I will give an example from Botanic Inns. In my several years as managing director of Botanic Inns, we have employed hundreds of door staff through agencies and through direct employment. I have never had an issue with a paramilitary link. Since 2003, I have laid off about four people for using excessive force. The rule is that anyone who uses excessive force is sacked. I have only done that four times in five years.
As Colin said, a grumpy doorman who does not welcome customers appropriately can render all marketing and other work a waste of time. All of our guys are told to deal with any issue by walking and talking. That is it; there is no need for excessive force. If a doorman is attacked, he should call the police, rather than deal with the matter himself. That is the trade’s general approach. A few years ago, it was highly publicised in Bangor that all publicans met and decided to use the same company to employ doormen. All doormen in Bangor now work for Eventsec and were all briefed about what is expected from a doorman, and so on.
Dr Farry:
Your door staff are only allowed to use force in self-defence; is that right? The other common complaint is that door staff are selective about who they let into a venue. Are such complaints policed?
Mr Magorrian:
It is awkward to set door policy, because the intention is to remove conflict from the doors. Although a door policy should be black and white, when it is applied in that manner, it can sometimes be unfair. Some of our doors carry messages that sportswear is forbidden. Some people turn up in sportswear and shoes that are probably more expensive than my suit. However, the door policy forbids sportswear. That can cause concern. However, the policy is written down, and the doorman can tell the customer that it is not his fault or decision, but rather that of management. A door policy is intended to remove the confrontation from the door and allow a doorman to blame a faceless person inside the venue, which, ultimately, is me.
Dr Farry:
The NIO representatives may want to respond to the matter. The logic of what you are saying means, perhaps, a phasing in of this system. The Northern Ireland Office should, perhaps, conduct a risk assessment across the range of different security activities in Northern Ireland. In some respects, in the public imagination, the real problem with an unregulated system in a wider sense is the potential risk of extortion from paramilitaries or organised crime in the security industry.
The problems with an unregulated system in the pubs and clubs are more about people not being properly trained on health and safety or using force inappropriately. Some people may reach the conclusion that that is a less risky situation than the status quo in other systems. Therefore, are you open to a phasing in of the commencement of the scheme across different sectors of the security industry in Northern Ireland?
Mr Neill:
The UK-wide, one-size-fits-all approach has been mentioned umpteen times. I like to think that we are different, and I am proud that we have many examples of best practice here. This is a one-size-fits-all policy for the security industry, and we have a different sector that has different criteria. If we have four directors, it is because we are a family-owned business, not because we run a security company. We welcome the quality-improvement aims and objectives. If measures were brought in within a proper timescale and people can get processed, the issue around the Good Friday Agreement is taken out of our hands and made into something whereby we know where people stand before we incur the cost.
The federation is leading an industry-wide approach to revise the current code of practice on the misuse and mis-promotion of alcohol, and to rename that as a quality standard, because it will not just take into account the selling of alcohol, but will also take account of entertainment licenses. We are also creating an independent complaints panel, which we will have nothing to do with, to adjudicate that. We really want to drive the highest standard that we can.
Mr Magorrian:
To use my example, I have 80 employees, either agency or directly recruited staff. They are all registered through the Belfast City Council scheme, so they have completed the training courses and got their licence. I will not employ an agency person unless he has a licence, because that is one of the conditions of our entertainment licences.
Potentially, on 1 December, the Belfast licence will become null and void, and door supervisors will have to have an SIA licence. I would have preferred to have seen a situation whereby, until such times as mitigating circumstances are appealed and go to the courts, or wherever they might go, that those people who have already been recognised and passed as fit by Belfast City Council would be allowed to continue working. That is currently not the case. The validity of the licences ceases on 1 December, and if for whatever reason we have not completed this process, I cannot employ those people.
Mr P McCann:
To augment some of what Stephen was saying, and to answer some of your questions from the perspective of small city and small country pubs; it is very important to them. In a local community, the door staff’s role is that of “meet and greet”, because they are welcoming people in. They also know, through experience, which people have been causing trouble, and so on. Having local input and local people is very important.
In some ways, this scheme takes that choice out of their hands; they will have to start going to agencies to find staff. Agencies are not always in the same city or the same town. It becomes a bigger problem, not an easier problem, to solve.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I totally support the idea of regulation. That is the way to go. If any door person, regardless of where they come from, is involved in criminality, the PSNI needs to deal with it. That is the bottom line.
I have an issue with an English firm that is getting a lot of money from here. I think that we should be able to benefit from that. In councils, the beneficiaries are the ratepayers, because when we buy services in, it brings the rates down, and it seems to be more local.
If, in December 2009, people who have currently got a Belfast City Council or North Down door supervisor’s licence are not successful in having that licence continued, we are in danger of causing unfair disadvantage through our work on this Ad Hoc Committee. That is my concern, and I would like it to be recorded. I know that regulation has to occur — who and how we regulate is still up for discussion, regardless of what the NIO says.
The Chairperson:
That is something that we can discuss if we get the opportunity to have the Minister appear before the Committee.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I think that we need to consider —
The Chairperson:
There is probably a slight difference of opinion there, because the research paper highlighted that there was a cost implication to option 4, which was a system dedicated to Northern Ireland.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I do not know where the evidence for that comes from.
The Chairperson:
We have got our own researcher, and I trust that that has been explored.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I am not questioning Ruth Barry’s work; I just think that that is quite high, considering what is currently happening. There is a much lower cost if a person applies for a door supervisor’s licence through a local council. That is something that we need to talk to the Minister about when he is here. We need to consider that issue, and if it means gathering evidence in preparation for the Minister appearing here, we need to look at interim arrangements for people whose licence expires beyond 2009.
I would like some legal advice on that matter, and that is why I am asking the Committee to bring evidence forward, because I am not happy that people who are in employment and who have been employed for a number of years will find themselves unemployed if they cannot have their licence continued, albeit through another route, such as through AccessNI. I would like some clarity on that.
The Chairperson:
The problem is that the matter is reserved. Therefore, we are consultees with no direct power to make changes. We can only suggest improvements.
The Committee Clerk:
The Committee is not in a position to make changes, although it can influence them. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that the Committee is asked for its views.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
That is fine. Other members can speak for themselves. I will not rubber-stamp something just because it is the protocol to do so.
The Chairperson:
Do not think that I will simply rubber-stamp it either; I will not. I had a conversation with the Committee Clerk —
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I do not think that anyone here is a nodding dog. If Committee meetings are the place to raise an opinion —
The Chairperson:
Let me finish. Questions have arisen. That is why we need the opportunity to raise our concerns with the Minister. If he listens, he will, in turn, make changes. The NIO has asked us to consider the matter and to give feedback. We must go through that process and put questions to the Minister. If we still have concerns, we must put together a paper to say that we are not satisfied with the outcome. We must go through the entire process.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
That is fine. To repeat myself again, I ask only that in preparation for our meeting with the Minister, we get legal advice about the question that I asked at the start, which is whether we will, by giving advice, raising questions, or even by simply not flagging that up, place people who have a licence at an unfair advantage after December 2009? Even though we have no real influence on making the decision as such, can we get legal advice? Is it sufficient to say simply that we have concerns? That is all that I ask.
The Chairperson:
Are members content that we put those questions?
Mr McFarland:
It is worth doing. My guess is that there is no legal issue, because all that we are doing is mulling over the matter and giving our advice. It is a matter for the NIO. If it were a devolved matter, upon which the Committee could decide, there would be issues about what we say.
There are a number of clear concerns. The Audit Office said that the SIA is already overwrought. The concern is about whether the SIA can cope with the extra workload, especially given the tight timescale. That is a major issue.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
We are aware of that.
Mr McFarland:
The idea that hordes of people will be out of a job and that the industry will be left, if you like, with the bare minimum number of doormen by December because it cannot cope with the system is, clearly, daft. There is a suggestion that someone could nominate one person out of four directors to be in charge of security. That would ease the problem. Provided that everyone plays the game, it may be a way out of it.
There is a major issue with the business of the Good Friday Agreement and intelligence assessments. MI5 is now responsible for anti-terrorist intelligence. Are we now saying that MI5 will feed into the SIA? Are we suggesting that the SIA goes to M15 about every single potential doorman to check whether he is active, inactive or may have been active? Some major issues are unclear. It would be useful to tease those out with the Minister.
Mr McQuillan:
Stephen partially answered my question. Coleraine Borough Council was one of the first councils to consider the issue of licences for door supervisors. Is there any way to marry the two in some way, so that anyone who has completed Coleraine Borough Council’s course, for example, could go forward a couple of steps in the SIA training?
Mr Neill:
We are the body that provided training for Coleraine Borough Council, among others. Someone who has a current licence is exempt from the first part of training. In real terms, that saves approximately £30 because of all of the costs that go with that. Therefore, there is small recognition.
We argue that a security-industry regulation will not fit a different type of pub industry. In England, lots of pubs are owned by large organisations. We have a different structure. The majority of our pubs are owned by owner operators.
A common-sense approach is required. For example, if a band plays in a venue, under health and safety requirements, a doorman must walk the band to the stage. That could involve three minutes of his working night; it is not his primary job. However, to walk the band to the stage, he needs a close protection licence, which involves four weeks’ training. No common sense is applied to the issue; at least, I cannot find any.
Mr P McCann:
Our organisation has established a reasonably strong teaching structure for all the doormen, and we have not had too many problems with that. The SIA training structure is not as relevant as ours. For example, it covers training for cash in transit, which is unnecessary for a door supervisor.
Mr Neill:
We provide the training for the courses that are offered by most councils. That training covers first aid, whereas the SIA training does not. However, I was told on Friday that the intention is to make it available as part of the SIA training in a couple of years. An extension of the remit of the SIA would dumb down the quality of training and drive the costs through the roof.
Mr Magorrian:
I listened to Ms Barry’s presentation, which highlighted that a Northern Ireland system had been investigated. Such a system could have been established cheaply. Pubs cannot survive today without entertainment licences. If one of the criteria for being granted an entertainment licence was that all the doormen have to have completed door-supervision training, it would have tightened the system up. If those doormen then had to produce the badge to show that they had completed that training every time the venue was visited by council officials — council officials visit at least one of our premises every week — that would have been a much cheaper and better way of establishing a system of regulation. The training that we provide is better than that provided by the SIA, and the regulation could have been established within Northern Ireland.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for your presentation. We are fast running out of time. If members are content, I will call back the representatives from the NIO for a couple of brief questions, so that they can address the points that have been raised.
Mr Neill:
For members’ information, we are meeting the Minister on 22 of June 2009 to drive home our arguments. Thank you.
The Chairperson:
I am conscious that some members will have to leave soon. Mr McCourt, you were present to hear the presentation given by the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade. I must admit, I was taken by the fact that, if a business has four or more directors, each of those will need a licence. I think that all members here are frustrated at some of the points that were made in that presentation. Will some of those points be taken on board? Perhaps we could have a further discussion in the next couple of weeks about the points that have been raised.
Mr McCourt:
As Colin said, representatives from the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade are meeting the Minister on 22 June 2009 to make their views known. We will certainly provide feedback to the Minister about the points that have been raised today by all concerned. Obviously, if the Committee wishes to call the Minister to give evidence, he will be aware of the issues that have been raised.
The Chairperson:
It is beneficial, for the purposes of the Hansard report, that it is on the record that you have taken into consideration the points that have been raised. For expediency we will move on at this stage, unless any members have any pressing issues that they wish to raise.
Mr McFarland:
We could go on with discussions, because there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, but it will be quite useful to have an initial discussion with the Minister.
Ms Ni Chuilín:
For clarity, is this the last time that the NIO officials will be in front of the Committee?
The Chairperson:
Not necessarily. We have a timetable, but there may be an opportunity to fix another meeting with the NIO officials.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
That is fair enough.
Mr McQuillan:
Is it possible for the Committee to get an update from the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade on its meeting with the Minister?
The Chairperson:
We can request that.
I advise members that public notice, giving details of the legislation, was placed in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, ‘the Irish News’ and the ‘News Letter’ on Friday 29 May 2009.
The Committee Clerk:
On foot of the information from the previous consultation, we have gone out to the consultees to check their interest. Many of them have not responded, which is part of our difficulty in planning for next week. As members pointed out to the witnesses, we do not have a great deal of time.
I have produced a programme, though it does contain a number of blank spaces. It includes the evidence session of today’s meeting and a possible evidence session for the same time next week. I suggest that, given that the Committee has agreed to call the Minister, we aim for Monday 8 June 2009. Fundamental issues are to be discussed. If all sorts of concerns emerge from the responses, a number of sessions may be required, which may mean having two sessions a week. If Committee members are happy with that, we will try to work with it.
Mr McFarland:
Chairperson, Belfast City Council and North Down Borough Council have schemes. Perhaps, at some stage, you could talk to their representatives. Stephen, are you involved in that?
Dr Farry:
I am a member of North Down Borough Council.
Mr McFarland:
Are you familiar with the Belfast scheme?
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I am familiar with it, although I am not a member of Belfast City Council.
Mr McFarland:
It would be useful to speak to those two hands-on organisations in case we have missed anything.
The Committee Clerk:
We have contacted other councils, but not those two, so I shall follow that up.
The Chairperson:
Are members content that we do that?
Members indicated assent.
Dr Farry:
I appreciate that there are a range of views among Committee members on the issue of convictions. Perhaps we should encourage representatives from NIACRO to attend to try to guide us on that issue.
The Committee Clerk:
We contacted NIACRO, but it has not got back to us yet.
The Chairperson:
If no one has any other matters to raise, that simply leaves me to advise members that the next meeting will take place on Monday 8 June at 1.00 pm.