AD HOC COMMITTEE
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001
(Amendment) ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009
8 June 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Thomas Burns
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Mr John Dallat
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr David McNarry
Witnesses:
Mr David Brown ) North Down Borough Council
Mr James Cunningham )
Mr Brian Magill ) Belfast City Council
Mr Trevor Martin )
Mr Pat Conway )
Ms Anne Reid ) Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
Ms Heather Reid )
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McCartney):
Good afternoon. I welcome Mr David Brown from North Down Borough Council. The Committee looks forward to hearing your evidence. The normal format is for witnesses to make a brief opening statement, after which members will ask appropriate questions.
Mr David Brown (North Down Borough Council):
Thank you very much for inviting me along. I was asked to come to speak about our door registration scheme that has been running for a number of years and then to talk about how we feel about the new legislation. I hope that that is correct.
A door registration scheme has been in operation in north Down since 2002. It was one of the initiatives that we came up with to deal with the problems of the night-time economy in north Down. Our scheme is largely run by a management committee, which is made up of councillors, the local licensing trade and the police. The committee will agree who will be registered in the borough.
Our scheme covers all door supervisors who are employed at premises that are licensed for entertainment and where alcohol can be purchased. Door supervisors must undergo a criminal record check and approved training before they can be registered with us. That registration is valid for three years. The licence application fee is £30. When we receive an application for registration, we seek the criminal record check and forward that to the police, who will examine it and comment on it. They use the guidance when reviewing the registration application.
If the police are happy with the application, we will issue the registration. If there is a problem with the criminal record check, the police will report that to the committee. The committee will then either decide that there is not really an issue with the application, or it will refer it to a selection panel, which will be made up of three members of the committee. It will meet the door supervisor to discuss the criminal record check and will discuss whether there were any mitigating circumstances as to why the offence was committed. The panel will then make its decision, after which, the door supervisor, if still unhappy, has a right of appeal to another subcommittee.
If there is no training available at the time at which a door supervisor makes an application, he will be allowed to work for six months in the borough, providing that the criminal record checks are passed and that he works under the supervision of another registered door supervisor. We also have selection panels to consider offences in cases in which door supervisors breach the code of conduct that they have to have signed up to. We have the power to withdraw the registration or include certain conditions to which they must adhere.
Our scheme has worked quite well. There has obviously been a problem of enforcing the registration because of the number of door supervisors and establishments that exist. We also face various other problems because some door supervisors do not want their identities to be known to others. At the beginning, they refused to even have their photographs displayed on their IDs, but each door supervisor is now required to wear a photographic ID with a registration number.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Your submission includes your views on the proposed legislation, but perhaps you could run us through them.
Mr D Brown:
We had a meeting with our door supervisors and the Security Industry Authority (SIA) a number of weeks ago. It was a rather contentions meeting as there was a lot of bad feeling from the door supervisors about the implementation and, specifically, the cost of the new scheme. A considerable cost is being levied on people who work only part time. The £265 cost of the registration scheme plus training is a considerable amount of money for someone who may work only two nights a week. We generally support the introduction of some sort of registration scheme, and we have found the scheme that we have run in the borough to be useful. If the new legislation takes effect in December, we will probably withdraw our scheme at that time.
Our other issue with the new registration scheme is its monitoring and enforcement. At present, our council would be unhappy about the proposals for council officers to enforce the new legislation through a condition in the entertainment licence.
Our door registration scheme is set up mainly to deal with the night-time economy. Our biggest concern is that if door supervisors are unable to afford to be registered because it is much too expensive, it could lead to a lack of available door supervisors to work in the borough.
We are also concerned about the criminal record checks. There seems to be no allowance for offenders who may be out on licence after the Good Friday Agreement. That issue has not yet arisen in north Down. Surprisingly, few people who have committed serious offences have gone through our registration process. However, we envisage that it could be a problem in the future, particularly in many other boroughs.
A number of pubs in our borough do not employ door supervisors. The new legislation may require them to register, at additional expense, to deal with the security on their premises, and that will cause them problems.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
David, thanks for your presentation. You said that you welcomed registration and a degree of regulation in north Down. However, you expressed a concern that, because of the cost and other barriers involved, the legislation may lead to fewer licensed premises being registered or employing registered door supervisors. You said that, if that is the case, it may affect the entertainment licence. Will you expand on that?
Mr D Brown:
At present, no legislation requires a bar to employ door supervisors. Bars decide whether to do so based on a risk assessment. If bars employ door supervisors, however, they must be registered. In future, door supervisors will also be required to be registered with the SIA. Our concern is that the high cost of that registration would mean that some of the door supervisors who currently work in bars may not take out the additional registration and, therefore, not be available to work. Therefore, potentially, fewer staff will be available.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
How long has North Down Borough Council operated the door supervisory scheme?
Mr D Brown:
The scheme has been in operation since 2002.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Has the council had any major issues with the registration of door supervisors who qualified for release under the Good Friday Agreement?
Mr D Brown:
We have had no such issues so far. Two people applied to register who had committed serious offences, and one was turned down, but that had nothing to do with the Good Friday Agreement. The other had committed a serious assault, but as seven years had elapsed, we were able to register him under our scheme. The registration scheme in north Down has not been affected by the impact of releases under the Good Friday Agreement. I am, however, aware that my colleagues from other boroughs are much more concerned about that issue than we are.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
How many people who qualified for release under the Good Friday Agreement have gone through the council’s registration scheme?
Mr D Brown:
I could not answer that.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Would it be scores of people?
Mr D Brown:
I do not think that anyone who has been registered in our scheme was released under the Good Friday Agreement. I have seen all the criminal records of applicants, and I do not think that that is a problem that has affected us. I have, though, spoken to colleagues in other boroughs where the problem will have a much bigger impact.
Mr McNarry:
David, you are welcome. Your submission is easy for a simple guy like me to follow, which I appreciate.
Your submission states that premises are not required to employ door supervisors. Do premises that have not employed door supervisors have a history of problems?
Mr D Brown:
One bar in north Down refuses to employ door supervisors as its owners feel that it does not need to and that it gives the wrong impression. The issue was the possibility that supervisors at adjoining premises would have to give support to that bar. Therefore, although the bar in question is reducing its costs, it could be relying on the services of supervisors at nearby premises.
Mr McNarry:
Is that bar under any compulsion to employ door supervisors? Have the police spoken to them about the situation?
Mr D Brown:
We have spoken to the owners of that bar, as have the police, and said that they should employ door supervisors. However, if a bar owner or owners have carried out a risk assessment of their premises and decided that they do not need to employ door supervisors, we cannot force them to do so.
Mr McNarry:
In north Down and in my own constituency, massive Loyal Order events take place and Ulster-Scots events are becoming popular. Do you see anything in the legislation that may impact on such community events?
Mr D Brown:
I have not really given that much consideration, but I do not think that the legislation will impact on those types of events. However, it will possibly impact on some council events that require liquor licences, because staff working at them will have to be approved by the SIA.
Mr McNarry:
Are you thinking of an occasional licence?
Mr D Brown:
Yes.
Mr McNarry:
Your submission states that:
“If the PSNI are satisfied with the applicant they will advise the Council and the applicant will be registered”.
Are any complications caused because of the time that it takes the PSNI to present information on applicants? I ask that because I see that there is a caveat whereby a door supervisor can be temporarily registered for six months.
Mr D Brown:
We have a very good working relationship with the PSNI, so that has not been a problem. A sergeant has been assigned to do that work for us.
Mr McNarry:
I see that the PSNI is on the scheme’s management committee. When you established the registration scheme, did the PSNI have a remit to guide you? Do you have a working paper or a remit to work through with the PSNI, or has the process evolved?
Mr D Brown:
I have copies of the committee’s remit, which lays out the responsibilities of all committee members. I can provide members with those copies. The original committee was established at a time when there was severe night-time disorder in north Down. It was one initiative that we put in place to try to improve the impression of the town and to assure people that it is a safe place to visit. It took us quite a while to do that.
A number of schemes are running in Northern Ireland, and I understand that you will be speaking to representatives of another council today. Some schemes provide training and do not involve any security clearances. Other schemes have training and a type of criminal record check. Our scheme is possibly the only one that involves training and a full police criminal record check. The scheme is run by the committee, and the police have always been supportive of it.
Mr McNarry:
You are fortunate that you have not had any major concerns about someone’s criminality.
Mr D Brown:
We have not had any concerns about people who were released under the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr McFarland:
Thank you for your presentation. There are quite a number of part-time door supervisors, and they may not be able to afford to pay for the training. However, with cover still required, presumably more and more premises will pay large security companies to provide door supervisors. If door supervisors have worked on premises for some years, but cannot afford to pay for the training, surely logic dictates that the owners of the premises should pay.
We heard last week that it is likely that a lot of owners or companies would pay for training rather than individuals. The only difficulty that we identified was of a lone pub out in the countryside, where old Jimmy has worked for years as a doorman on Friday and Saturday nights. A problem arises if neither that lone pub nor old Jimmy can afford the training. Have you any thoughts on that?
Mr D Brown:
Our borough is possibly unique in that none of our door supervisors are provided by large companies; they are tied to individual premises. However, we are concerned about what will happen in the future. Licensees are experiencing financially tough times, and they may not have the money to support their door supervisors like they did in the past.
In north Down, we have always strived to support our door supervisors with training. We had the necessary resources and finances to pay for the previous training session that was run. We are seeking ways to make that possible in north Down in the future, but the £265 registration fee is a large amount of money for people who work only one or two nights a week.
Mr McFarland:
We heard last week that Mr Justice Kerr’s ruling on PSV licences has resulted in a number of organisations, particularly Government organisations, feeling obliged to ignore the convictions of those who were released under the Good Friday Agreement. My understanding is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister issued an edict in 2007 that those convictions were to be ignored by the Civil Service. I was not aware of that myself, but I since heard it from another source. It may be worth considering that issue and being able to examine those regulations or instructions.
That matter did not come up in last week’s meeting, but it arose somewhere else. One of the Departments was running a check on someone, and it was unhappy about a conviction. However, the Department was told to get on with it and that that conviction could not prevent the person being employed. If that was the case, our whole Government is bound by the edict, as is, presumably, the SIA. However, what is the legal basis of that?
My original understanding was that the Secretary of State simply issued advice, whereby employers were encouraged to ignore terrorist convictions. However, if that has become part of an edict from Government, in which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have instructed that such convictions be ignored, we are in a situation that was not clear to most of us.
Do you get your clearances through Access Northern Ireland?
Mr D Brown:
Yes; at the moment.
Mr McFarland:
So, it is not done through the police directly.
Mr D Brown:
We dealt directly with the police before AccessNI was established.
Mr McFarland:
Other people who have used that service report that it takes ages. However, from what you said earlier, it seems that you have not found that.
Mr D Brown:
AccessNI has very much improved. We had problems for a while as the process was taking at least three or four months, but it now takes only three or four weeks.
Mr Dallat:
I am completely new to this subject. Will you describe the circumstances in 2003 that led you to set up the voluntary scheme for door supervisors? I ask that question because a similar scheme was set up in Coleraine after a number of young people lost their lives and there were court cases on murder, manslaughter and all sorts of crimes.
Mr D Brown:
There was a lot of bad local press about what was happening in one of the towns. There were a lot of riots.
Mr McNarry:
I heard that the rioters were all from Belfast.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Ah, stop it. [Laughter.]
Mr D Brown:
I would not like to say where they were from. However, there was a lot of trouble.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
They were not from my constituency anyway. I can assure you of that.
Mr McNarry:
How do you know?
Ms Ní Chuilín:
They would not be seen dead in the place. [Laughter.]
Mr D Brown:
The press was reporting assaults and so on nearly every week, and one person died outside a nightclub. I think that it was —
Mr McNarry:
Cancel those Bairbre de Brún votes.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Yeah, right.
Mr D Brown:
I think that a door supervisor had thrown somebody out and they died on the street. There were a number of incidents. Certainly, at the time, there was a very bad press about how unsafe the town was at night. We took steps to try to improve that.
Mr Dallat:
You say that nightclub owners and others are experiencing hard times. I do not accept that. The money is rolling in because so many people have nothing else to do.
Do you accept that nightclub owners and others should make a fair contribution to ensuring that the type of occurrence that you just described does not happen outside their venues?
Mr D Brown:
I would be very much of that opinion. They have a responsibility to do all that they can and to pay for it.
Mr Dallat:
I am sure that north Down is not the only place to have had a bad press. I know from enquiries that in Portrush at times it costs between £70,000 and £100,000 for police to manage the situation, which is grossly unfair to our hard-pressed taxpayers and ratepayers.
Mr D Brown:
The economy of the borough has suffered badly from the Good Friday Agreement, because people now go to Belfast. That is a problem for Bangor in particular. Certainly, the door supervisor scheme has gone a long way to improve the borough. We are going in the right direction.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I know of parts of Belfast that were rough, again, not in my constituency, David. As a result of a good door supervisory scheme, the levels of policing dropped because they were not needed as much. That scheme has worked. I am not sure that that is the case across the whole city, but I know that when the doors are run well, particularly in the areas of training and health and safety, the police tell us that they do not need to go into those parts of the city as much. I agree with John that most people argue that there should be regulation, but not at the expense of disqualifying or putting people out of jobs or putting businesses at stake.
A contribution should be made. Your scheme costs £30 for applicants to gain registration, in comparison to £250, that is a marked difference. If individuals are being asked to pay for the licence, they will be unable to work. That is an issue that we need to consider.
Mr McFarland:
The standard of training is one of the issues that came up last week. The training that costs £250 does not simply involve the role of a door supervisor; it includes other aspects, and there is a question over whether that level of training is necessary. However, it may be beneficial if the industry were brought up to the same standard across the UK and the Republic of Ireland, so that people could be trained for a variety of events, rather than being trained only to be a good nightclub bouncer.
Mr D Brown:
There are two parts to the new training scheme. The majority of door supervisors in Northern Ireland have completed part 1, but part 2 is an additional aspect to it. Councils agreed that we will all work to unify the door registration scheme. Therefore, at least the training will be the same for most councils that are running the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is beneficial.
Mr McNarry:
Will you paint a brief picture of typical door supervisors? Is it a second job for them? Is there a standard rate of pay? On average, how much do they earn? Are they a particular age?
Mr D Brown:
I cannot really comment on how much they get paid, but it is enough for them to continue doing the job. I can speak only for North Down Borough Council, but most of our door supervisors remain in their jobs for a long time. There is a vast range of ages, and some of them are in their 60s. They generally work only two or three nights a week, and they certainly enjoy the job. I do not get the impression that they are all thugs or that they are ready to beat people up.
Mr McNarry:
I was not suggesting that.
Mr D Brown:
I am simply saying that they are normal guys.
Mr McNarry:
Is there a perception that people think that they are thugs?
Mr D Brown:
Yes, there is that perception, but it is unjustified. There are always bad apples, and we have removed some of those through our scheme. I hope that the SIA scheme will be able to deal with them.
Mr McNarry:
That is useful. Is there any way of finding out whether there is an average rate of pay and whether those people have second jobs?
Mr D Brown:
For most door supervisors in north Down, it is their second job.
Mr McFarland:
Last week we heard evidence from the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade. The problem seems to be that although some events companies are well regulated, I could set up an events company tomorrow and employ whomever I wanted, and there is absolutely nothing to stop me from doing that, apart from my local council objecting to it. Therefore, it is a mixed bag in that area.
The idea is to weed out organisations that are covers for criminal activity, because there is evidence that some of them have been in the past. To stop all that, the idea is to have a central agreed system. Enlightened councils such as North Down Borough Council and Belfast City Council, who went ahead with the scheme early, and have good schemes, are going to get caught up now in trying to weed out the bad areas. Therefore, there is an issue about whether part 1 is accredited already. If door supervisors have completed part 1, they get a tick in the box for that and they should not have to do it again. There is a timescale problem, because they are trying to complete it by 9 December 2009.
An Audit Office report has just been published which states that the SIA in England is in chaos, it has not met its targets, and it has not been able to cope, which is a problem. Therefore, if the system is transferred over here and they are being asked to train everyone here, that could be a major issue.
That leaves question marks over a number of areas, one of which is how severe the regulations should be for training, cost and timescale.
Mr Boylan:
Thank you for your presentation. I should have said that my brother was a doorman, but he qualified because he was 6 ft 1 in and 15 and a half stone. It was not his character that helped him to get a job as a doorman, but he got paid good money working in Monaghan.
Does the £30 registration fee cover both parts of the training, or is the training subsidised? In response to the costs, the doormen feel that no one has listened to them. Has there been any follow on from that, or is that still the impression about the proposed regulation?
Mr D Brown:
We tried to subsidise our training from other resources, such as community safety, to help them with their training. In North Down Borough Council, we are trying to help them to achieve the full training, because we believe that that is the right measure to take. Sorry, what was the second question?
Mr Boylan:
It was about whether doormen have been listened to. Is there a proposal that part 1 of the training will be sufficient to qualify as a doorman, as opposed to going on and taking the full training programme?
Mr D Brown:
Part 1 of the training was sufficient grounding for the needs of our scheme at that time. I am not really involved in the training aspect of the scheme, so it is probably for others to respond to that. However, it is always good to get door supervisors to make them feel better about themselves and to make them feel that it is a good occupation. That is one reason why we had the training, and we would probably have advanced that training at some stage in the next few years.
We met the door supervisors, and they feel that they have not been listened to. They do not believe that they had any direct input into the registration scheme, and, on account of that, we faced a lot of unhappy people. They can be quite a strong body to deal with.
The Chairperson:
The impression seems to be that things are moving too fast for them. Is it fair to say that?
Mr D Brown:
Things are moving too fast for them, especially as there are only six months to go. However, most of them know that it is coming, but they may not be aware of the full implications. We found that bar managers knew that it was coming, but they did not really know the impact that it would have on them and what they need to do.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for your evidence. It was very informative.
We will now receive a presentation from the representatives of Belfast City Council. Trevor Martin is head of building control; Brian Magill is the assistant building control manager; and James Cunningham is the regulatory services manager. Thank you for attending the Committee to present evidence. The normal format is for witnesses to make a short presentation, after which members will ask questions.
Mr Trevor Martin ( Belfast City Council):
I will talk for 10 minutes: five minutes on how and why we set up the Belfast scheme and five minutes on the SIA scheme and our concerns with that. Brian has 30 years’ experience in licensing and manages the licensing unit. James manages the doorman registration scheme in Belfast and has lengthy experience.
Belfast City Council is a corporate member of the Institute of Licensing, and we have been working with it on its experience of the scheme in England and Wales. Therefore, we are up to speed with the issues that have arisen.
Belfast City Council has been licensing premises for approximately 40 or 50 years. That was done through old regulations regarding public entertainment licensing; it is now done under the ( Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1985). Approximately 400 premises in the city are licensed for entertainment. They are mostly theatres, pubs, nightclubs and some auditoriums, approximately 250 of which have doormen. Some premises are excluded, such as church halls, registered clubs and some other buildings.
Approximately 600 doormen are registered under the Belfast City Council scheme. The scheme was introduced in September 2002 following a successful pilot scheme. That was done for much the same reasons as the SIA’s scheme: to establish professionalism and to best utilise door staff in situations such as emergency evacuation awareness and drugs awareness.
The scheme was introduced under entertainment licensing regulations. There was no legislation at the time under which we could introduce such a scheme, so we used a condition of the entertainment licence to introduce a provision of the entertainment licence that concerned registered doormen. In a sense, it was brought in through the back door, because there was a need for it. Accordingly, the only premises on which we have registered doormen in Belfast are those that are registered for entertainment purposes. We do not control pubs or clubs that do not have entertainment licences.
We worked hard with the Federation of Retail Licensed Trade, the PSNI and other groups when we were introducing the scheme to ensure that everyone was catered for; that everyone was taken on board; and nobody was disenfranchised with the system that was being brought in.
The system is fairly tight. It comprises 14 hours training followed by a one-hour exam. The scheme is run by accredited bodies and is accredited through the British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) and the National Open College Network Northern Ireland. We have worked with some trainers in Belfast, such as Castlereagh College and Coiste. We provide our own officers to teach those particular courses. They are accredited courses; door supervisors receive a certificate on completion of the course; and they are run by accredited bodies. Application for the scheme costs approximately £30, and those who complete it will get a badge of registration that lasts for three years.
One of the significant points about the scheme is that the council does not decide on the suitability of the applicant. That is because we would have to set up a fairly intensive selection mechanism. There would then have to be an appeals system in case someone failed to be accredited, which would then leave us open to a possible legal challenge. We thought that, with the number of doormen that we had, to set up the scheme would be very unwieldy and would cost a lot of money, but we did talk at length about that when the scheme was being introduced.
We talked with legal services, and worked it in a slightly different way, in that we rely on the licensee or the employers of the doormen to make the decision as to whether a certain person should be registered. Belfast City Council still carries out a criminal evidence check. If the person has convictions, as happens in approximately 10% to 15 % of cases, we share that information with the employer and discuss whether they want the person to be registered.
The system works reasonably well. We have a backstop for control in that if there is an employer who, for whatever reason, wants to employ people who the council would not deem appropriate, we can control that through entertainment licensing. We can revoke that licence or restrict it in some way. It is important to say that, because different people run their schemes in different ways, and we do not make that decision.
Anecdotal records show that approximately 30 people have been refused registration. We find that the employers do not want those sorts of people on the scheme anyway. It is not the case that there is a conflict between the council and the employers’ decision. If people have convictions and the employers do not want them, the council tends to agree.
We police the scheme through performance inspections. All our staff are out at night-time, and as part of their fire safety checks of the buildings, they also police the scheme. We will put pressure on employers if they do not have registered doormen. The PSNI told us that there has been a massive drop in assaults by doormen after the scheme was brought in, so we are fairly happy that it works reasonably well.
The council has discussed the national scheme generally, although there is no specific Belfast City Council opinion on it. The council generally welcomes the national scheme, as it will create a consistent approach. Unlike the current schemes, it will be enforced throughout all council areas in Northern Ireland. It is a UK-wide licence.
If the proposed scheme looks as though it will work, we may drop the Belfast scheme. At £30, the scheme in Belfast costs a lot of money. In a sense, it is a rate-borne activity.
Our concerns include how it will be enforced by the SIA, which is, essentially, a body that operates in England. We are not sure how the SIA will enforce the system in Northern Ireland. It has talked about us making it a condition of the entertainment licence, although we are very dubious about that. If I were to make it a condition of the entertainment licence, I would have to police it. In essence, I could be policing the SIA scheme through entertainment licensing conditions, and the councils would have to bear all the costs of that.
The SIA talked about a partnership approach with local authorities over the enforcement issue, and it has also had the same conversation with the PSNI. That is something that we may engage in. We have examples of where we have done that and where we are doing it at present. For example, the issue of energy performance certificates looks as though it could be enforced by the councils through a partnership, in which case central Government will pay the council for the enforcement. Precedents have been set, and we could do it, although we would need to talk to the SIA about it.
We have concerns about the introduction of the scheme and its timing. The legislation comes through in September and will be effective from December, which is not a big time frame. We have two options: either we run the Belfast scheme until the SIA’s scheme is in place and all the doormen are registered, which means that a dual system would be in operation; or, if we were to drop the Belfast scheme, we could potentially have unlicensed doormen from 1 December 2009. A slightly longer transition period will be necessary, for example, April 2010 as a deadline. A lot of people have to go through the system in a short time.
Another option in the SIA scheme is the exemption of registered clubs. We do not have a problem with registered clubs. Belfast City Council has always maintained the option that if it needed to put registered doormen in registered clubs — such as working-men’s clubs and social clubs — it could do so. The SIA does not do that, and I understand by the way that the legislation is drafted that it may be difficult for it to do so.
The substantial costs involved are another factor. Licences for doormen will increase from £30 to £245 under the proposed scheme. Many of the doormen are part-time and work only one or two nights a week. Event stewarding for community festivals, which involves part-time and voluntary stewards, must also be examined to see how it would work.
The final issue is about conflict-related offences. We understand that it is UK-wide legislation. However, the Good Friday Agreement is a factor. Initially, when the issue came up, conflicting messages were coming from the SIA, and the industry had concerns. I chaired a couple of seminars, and it was evident that that was one of the main issues. Since then, Belfast City Council has facilitated meetings between the SIA and some of the loyalist and republican groups that are affected. I am glad to say that there is now a much better understanding of the position and a real desire to move towards a situation in which we can try to resolve the issue.
That is how the Belfast system works. I have raised some of our concerns; however, there has been a great deal of impetus during the past few months in working with the SIA and the Northern Ireland Office to try to resolve many of those problems. Thank you for listening. We will answer any questions that members may have.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
We talked to representatives from North Down Borough Council just before you came in, and it is no coincidence that they raised similar issues. You referred to the interim scheme. I am concerned that if the scheme were to end on 1 December 2009, it would displace a group of workers who would not be registered on time. You answered any queries I had on that issue, and you have also answered any queries about the Good Friday Agreement.
I am not asking for exact figures, but does Belfast City Council know of any incidences in which people who qualified for the scheme, and who were also ex-prisoners who qualified under the Good Friday Agreement, lost their licences as a result of any activity?
Mr Martin:
That is a question that would perhaps be better asked of the SIA. My understanding from speaking to that body is that it has not refused to grant a licence to anyone in Northern Ireland.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I was thinking of the door supervisors who have gone through the council scheme. Has any door supervisor held a licence and then had that licence withdrawn?
Mr Brian Magill ( Belfast City Council):
No. Belfast City Council has not refused to grant anyone a licence.
Mr Martin:
There have been approximately 30 refusals. However, those applicants had been convicted for crimes such as burglary and theft, and were probably people who the licensees would not want as part of the scheme. Belfast City Council has not refused any door supervisors a licence as a result of their participation in the conflict here.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Therefore, to your knowledge, refusals have been made only on the basis of criminality rather than those who qualified for early release under the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Martin:
That is our understanding.
Mr Magill:
When I speak to licensees about potential door supervisors and highlight that candidates have been convicted of drugs offences, GBH, or theft, they tell me that they do not want that type of person working for them. They put a great deal of weight against such issues when considering such candidates.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
It seems to me that unless there is clarity or an arrangement is made through a potential partnership, an additional burden will be placed on councils, and ratepayers will endure much of the associated costs. Is that your understanding about the enforcement of the legislation?
Mr Martin:
Councils must consider whether they wish to drop a scheme as a condition of licence. If they do so, they would have no enforcement role; instead, that role would fall to the SIA. However, if the SIA do not take on the enforcement role, there will be unlicensed door supervisors, and I could be asked by councillors what I was doing about it. That is a difficulty, and we would move from a council registered scheme to a scheme with unregistered people working as door supervisors. If it were to be made a condition of licence, I could not ignore it and I would have to police it. The SIA has suggested that we may want to examine that. In that case, the council would incur the policing costs.
One could be really cynical about the issue. Potentially, the SIA could effectively sit in England, take all the money for registration, then contact councils to tell them that unregistered doormen are working in their area and ask them what they are going to do about it. I am not suggesting that it would do that, but that could happen under the new scheme.
Councils must think very seriously about whether they retain the licensing schemes as a condition of licence. If they do, and the SIA policing is not as robust as it should be, a council could be in the position of having to police the scheme, because it cannot ignore a breach of condition of entertainment licences.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
If there was an extension of an interim period to April 2010 as you suggested, do you envisage all your door staff being cleared and qualified through the SIA by then?
Mr Martin:
The timescale is very tight, and because the legislation will not be introduced until September 2009, some people are sitting back and waiting to see what happens. We are concerned about those people.
Mr James Cunningham ( Belfast City Council):
Some 359 people in Northern Ireland hold a SIA door supervisor licence. Prior to March 2009, when people began to be informed about the SIA, 296 people held those licences. Therefore, effectively approximately only 50 people here took up a SIA door supervisor’s licence in 2009. Most people are hanging back, and we anticipate that people are waiting until the legislation is introduced.
The processing time for the SIA to grant the licences is also an issue. We have suggested that the deadline is put back for to 1 April 2009, which would not affect the rest of the security industry. However, that extension may not, in itself, be enough. It is though a suggested time frame that will allow for some leniency. It would also mean that people will not be working illegally here come Christmas.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Do you feel that the training that those people have received so far with the support of Belfast City Council is up to the standard required by the SIA?
Mr Cunningham:
Two training courses are in operation. One of those is carried out through the National Open College Network Northern Ireland, and the SIA has stated said that that course is up to its standard. We understand that those who complete that course in Northern Ireland gain a certificate and receive additional training from their training provider. Courses are also run by the British Institute of Innkeeping, and completing them allows an exemption from part 1 of the SIA’s course. People who complete that course have to do a further 14 hours of training and a one-hour exam to allow them to apply for an SIA licence.
I understand that the SIA’s requirements for training will be reviewed in the next couple of years. Additional requirements will be included for door supervisors, for instance, for first aid. The SIA is conscious of the high level of door supervision that is provided in Northern Ireland and that the rest of the UK lags behind.
Mr McNarry:
You are very welcome. The discussion appears to have majored on criminals who work as door supervisors. Can I take it that the majority of people who are employed in that type of work are not former criminals?
Mr Martin:
I thought that that question would come up, so I checked through our records. We think that there are no criminal convictions on approximately 90% of the applications that we receive; therefore, approximately 10% of applications come from people with some form of criminal record. That is not an accurate figure; it is anecdotal evidence based on our experience.
Mr McNarry:
That information is very useful; thank you.
Your briefing document states that the ultimate decision on whether people with a criminal record will gain employment rests with the employer. You said that, in many cases, you respect the decision of the employer and that you effectively endorse it. I am not sure about what employment status door supervisors have, given that the jobs are mostly part time, although, employment is employment. Is there any evidence that an employer would be open to a legal challenge if he were to refuse to employ an individual who had a criminal record?
Mr Magill:
I am not an expert on human resources and employment law. When prospective door supervisors seek employment with some of the big licensees and providers with whom we work, their employment is subject to a satisfactory criminal record check. It is made clear to the door supervisors at the outset that part of the recruitment process involves their consenting to a criminal record check. If anything adverse were to result from that check, the employer would have the right to refuse employment. I do not know where that stands in employment law.
Mr Martin:
If employers were to refuse a prospective employee on the basis of something that is considered to be discriminatory, they could be subject to legal action. If a potential employee were to feel that he was being discriminated against because of his race, religion, age, creed, and so on, I assume that possible legal action could follow against the employer. That is one of the reasons why Belfast City Council left the responsibility for employment to the employer.
Had we taken on that responsibility, we would have had to set up a scheme to administer the process. We would have had to set out all the criteria and put in place an appeals mechanism for cases in which people were refused employment. The council felt that legal action could have been taken against it, so I assume that employers feel that it could possibly be taken against them.
Mr McNarry:
I asked whether you had any evidence of cases being taken to date, and you are saying that you have no evidence of that.
Mr Martin:
We have no such evidence.
Mr McNarry:
Are you saying that the proposed legislation may result in the likelihood that people will seek redress through the law on the basis of discrimination because of their criminal record?
Mr Martin:
That could be the case. For example, someone was refused a taxi licence because of a conflict-related offence. Under the Good Friday Agreement, either a judicial review or an appeal took place, and case law on that now exists. If the SIA were not to recognise the Good Friday Agreement, I think that appeals or a judicial review would be put in against it to establish the Good Friday Agreement’s place on the matter. Therefore, it is a difficult issue, but I imagine that there must be legal redress if people felt that they were being discriminated against when applying for doorman registration.
Mr McNarry:
My impression is that the work that professional door supervisors undertake, and how they are supervised by yourselves and other councillors, is first class. That is great. However, I am beginning to hear alarm bells. Although we have a system, perhaps the system that we are talking about introducing may unravel, with licences costing more and employers being encouraged to pay part of that cost. Employers may also be concerned about ending up in court and being hit by large legal costs and even a claim if they make a mistake. That needs to be taken into account.
Your submission states that:
“The Council will need to consider whether it wants to partner with the SIA in enforcement of Door Supervisors in any other way.”
What do you mean by that?
Mr Martin:
The SIA was not pushing the council when it initially spoke to us, but it said that we should consider making that a condition of licence. As I explained, if the council makes it a condition of licence, we have to enforce it, because we have to enforce all conditions of licence. The SIA then said that it would like to discuss with the council the possibility of other forms of partnership for enforcement. Obviously, that is because the council has local knowledge — we know the premises and the people involved. The SIA has not said what form that partnership could take.
Energy performance certificates are being introduced by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). The Department does not have the staff to enforce the certificates across the 26 local authorities. It has, therefore, told the 26 local authorities that if they come to an arrangement on enforcing the legislation in their areas, the Department would create a scheme to pay the councils for doing that. Therefore, there is an offer on the table whereby DFP is offering funds to the 26 councils for them to employ staff to enforce the use of energy performance certificates. The Department has also indemnified the councils, and said that it will cover the legal costs if they need to take anyone to court.
That is an example of a fairly good partnership between a Government Department and a council whereby we could enforce someone else’s legislation at no cost to the ratepayer. If the SIA was to come up with a similar offer, saying that it does not really want to police the Order in Northern Ireland and would like the 26 councils to police it in their areas, we could put that to the councils and ask them whether they wanted to take part. All the funding would come from the SIA, and councils would have the assurance that the system was being policed without any additional cost being imposed on the ratepayer. If that is the sort of partnership that the SIA is talking about, we will consider it, but those talks have not yet even taken place.
Mr McNarry:
Thank you; that is very interesting. I do not want to read something into your submission that is not there; at least, I hope that it is not there. The submission states that:
“Event Stewarding has generally employed students.”
That is OK. However, it continues:
“There will now be a requirement for some stewards working at outdoor events to be SIA licensed”.
I do not know what “outdoor events” means. Would conditions imposed by another body, such as the Parades Commission, on an outdoor event be featured in the legislation with regard to stewards? The Parades Commission, for example, has laid down stipulations for stewarding.
Mr Martin:
James and I were talking about that on the way here this morning. I will let James talk about outdoor events.
Mr Cunningham:
Rather than stewarding at events, most door supervisor licences apply to licensed premises. For example, a parade is generally not “a licensed premises”. It would be up to the SIA to specify that, but our understanding is that parades would not require that type of licence. We are more concerned about events such as those on the Stormont Estate or the Tall Ships exhibition, which are run by events companies that employ stewards, which are generally students or retired people, as door staff to take tickets or whatever else.
People doing some of those jobs will be required to be licensed door supervisors. Some other such jobs will require a close protection licence, which is outside Belfast City Council’s remit, but will require substantially more training and will increase costs. A close protection licence would be needed by a worker who escorts someone from a changing room to the stage. It is not simply applicable to a bodyguard with a gun.
The door supervisor would simply be required to stand at a bar to organise a queue or to search bags at the entrance. That issue is causing problems in the events industry, and we have raised our concerns with the SIA about the potential implications across the Province.
Mr Martin:
To be fair, the SIA is very much aware of the issues raised about the stewards, and is considering how to clarify the position. The question of how far the legislation extended was one of the matters that caused confusion at the seminars that we ran.
Mr McNarry:
We are, unfortunately, not likely to have the likes of Elton John and Pavarotti back at Stormont, but is the council saying that an events company in control of such concerts must closely monitor the licensing requirements as described by Mr Cunningham? That would add substantial costs.
A lot of events appear to me to be ad hoc; they are not run by registered companies. Therefore, they do not fulfil the legal requirements of a registered company. Under the proposed Order, must bunches of people who get together to run events become registered companies? I am not talking about fly-by-night organisations, which are a concern. However, must the regulations be tightened up now or eventually for an event that is organised, for example, by a family owned business that may not be registered as a company?
Mr Martin:
Such issues need to be clarified. There is no dispute that doormen fall within the scope of the legislation. Down the scale, however, it becomes a question of where to draw the line. We raised the issue of our popular community events and festivals, and asked whether the people who controlled those types of events have to have registered door supervisors and events supervisors. The SIA said that if they were unpaid, voluntary staff, they would not have to be registered.
We then asked what would happen if they were paid. The answer was maybe. We told the SIA that, before the legislation is introduced, some clarity was required about exactly what was included and excluded, because the council was fairly clear about the schemes that it was running. However, the SIA is broadening the scheme beyond entertainment licences. In doing so, people will inevitably be caught in the net. The council asked, because people must know, how wide that net is. We must avoid implementing the legislation only to discover that the council is controlling groups that it had not envisaged needed to be controlled.
Mr McFarland:
If a festival were being held at Botanic Gardens at which alcohol was available, does Belfast City Council issue a licence?
Mr Martin:
Yes, we issue outdoor entertainment licences.
Mr McFarland:
Presumably, the site of such an event would be like a big pub, which happens to have a group playing in it?
Mr Martin:
Yes.
Mr McFarland:
If the rules apply to a wee pub in Bangor or Belfast, in that they have to have a doorman, how can you not apply them to an enormous pub in Botanic Gardens? In effect, that site is the size of six pubs, which doles out drink to hoards of people with. That seems slightly daft, so I agree that the situation must be clarified. One cannot have a system that penalises one person while another is allowed to run an enormous event with the equivalent of six pubs on one site that is not being policed.
Mr McNarry:
Are there no windows in that big pub that you are talking about?
Mr McFarland:
In effect, you police the licensing of premises. Presumably, you would be recompensed for the extra cost of policing the added stipulation with respect to door staff. Furthermore, whoever carries out a licence inspection could also carry out a doorman check. Therefore, the extra responsibility should not become an enormous burden to you.
Mr Martin:
Absolutely.
Mr McFarland:
It should be possible so long as it does not cost you extra effort.
Mr Martin:
The main expense would be the legal costs. Most weekends, our staff carry out performance inspections, during which they check that noise levels are acceptable, fire safety is sorted out and emergency exit doors are free of obstructions. Therefore, as you said, to check that all the doormen are registered and recorded would not be a big deal. The big issue for us would be about enforcement, and that is why, at this point in time, we are reluctant to impose that stipulation as a licensing condition, because, by doing so, we would not be able to ignore it.
Mr McFarland:
If old Jimmy, who has been running a country pub for years, and, indeed, other part-time publicans, must now find a load of money to pay for door staff authorisation and licensing, one possible outcome is that they will stop trading. Publicans need somebody to do the job, so one can envisage big security companies, with a load of door people on their books, getting involved in this area. We can see from what has happened elsewhere that the security industry often moves in to carry out event security. Therefore, if I wish to run an event, I do not need to worry about hiring people; I simply call in a company to do that for me. Presumably, such companies pay, and are responsible, for licensing their people on the ground?
Mr Martin:
Yes.
Mr McFarland:
Do their directors have to be qualified as well?
Mr Martin:
Yes.
Mr McFarland:
Do you see things moving away from individual, part-time chaps who get a few quid for working on a Friday evening towards big business?
Mr Magill:
Belfast has a number of service providers, like the companies that you talked about, with a pool of 40 or 50 men, from which they farm out doormen to various pubs and premises on various nights. Eventsec is one such company. However, the proposals would impact on the majority of smaller pubs, particularly in the country, which might have a regular guy on the door. Those pubs will have to pay for their doormen to go on a course and for their registration. Therefore, there would be a financial burden on the guys who do the job on Friday and Saturday nights to earn a few extra pounds.
Mr Cunningham:
Another issue will involve in-house, or contracted-in, security. Currently, anyone who is contracted to a bar is covered by the SIA. Under the changes to the legislation that are coming to Northern Ireland, in-house staff will be affected, so publicans who employ one or two individuals and the slightly larger pub groups will be hit. Those establishments employ people who perhaps work only on a Friday or Saturday night, and they will incur the high costs that are associated with training and licensing.
For example, a security company that employs Joe Bloggs to work on Friday and Saturday nights might also utilise him on other days of the week. Being a door supervisor is more of a full-time job, because many of them are required to move about and work in different establishments. The legislation will have an impact on the industry.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Last week, we took evidence from representatives of one of the larger hospitality firms in Belfast, Botanic Inns, and they said that 50% of the company’s security staff were employed in-house and 50% were contracted in. Is that a fair reflection of the situation in licensed premises across Belfast?
Mr Magill:
I work closely with Botanic Inns. Another big hospitality company in Belfast, which has a similar number of establishments to Botanic Inns, is Wine Inns. It employs security staff directly; it does not contract in any security.
The Deputy Chairperson:
How many door supervisors are put through the Belfast City Council scheme?
Mr Magill:
Approximately 600.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Is there a steady pool of employment?
Mr Magill:
Initially, there was a big influx because of the three-year licence. However, the numbers have balanced out now, and we do not get as many applications as we used to.
Mr McNarry:
For my own benefit, are private functions exempt?
Mr Magill:
Are you referring to the SIA scheme or the Belfast City Council scheme?
Mr McNarry:
Put it this way: does a private function such as wedding in a hall in the Belfast City Council area need an occasional licence or is it exempt?
Mr Martin:
For an event to be classed as entertainment, it must provide named entertainment and a there must be a charge. Therefore, a wedding in a hotel at which people are buying drink and a band is playing would fall within the scheme.
Mr McNarry:
Is it up to the hotel to provide that licence?
Mr Martin:
Yes. However, if a wedding were held in a church hall at which there was no charge for drink —
Mr McNarry:
A church hall would not need a licence, I am thinking more of a —
Mr Martin:
What I am saying is that the charge must relate to the entertainment. The concept of a charge was brought in to distinguish between that which is absolutely private, for example, music, singing or dancing at a house or people having a barbecue in their back garden, from that which is commercial.
A wedding in a community hall does not require an entertainment licence, even if a band were playing in the corner, because that is a private function; people are invited and there is no cost or charge. Weddings in hotels are also covered in that regard, because hotels are licensed. I am not sure how the SIA will deal with private functions.
Mr McNarry:
Can we find out?
The Committee Clerk:
Yes, we can.
Mr McNarry:
Is there anything materially important about having an occasional licence for a private function?
Mr Martin:
No.
Mr McNarry:
Thank you.
The Deputy Chairperson:
I thank Trevor, Brian and James for their evidence.
The Committee became inquorate.
On resuming —
The Deputy Chairperson:
We will now receive a presentation from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO). We are joined by Mr Pat Conway, Ms Heather Reid, and Ms Anne Reid. On behalf of the Committee, I apologise for the delay. We have seen copies of your presentation, so I ask you speak for five minutes to introduce it. Members will then ask questions. We have about 25 minutes.
Mr Pat Conway ( Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders):
We provided some background information to the Committee, and I can leave copies of the actual presentation. We welcome the opportunity to present our views.
The raising of standards in the private security industry, by appropriate regulation, is to be welcomed. We recognise that harmonisation will enable and assist security firms that are based in Northern Ireland to tender for contracts beyond the jurisdiction. The proposed legislation appears to favour option 3, which is the extension of the remit of the SIA to Northern Ireland.
In October 2006, NIACRO provided a written response to the NIO’s consultation document entitled ‘Regulating the Private Security Industry in Northern Ireland’. In that response, we stated that our preferred option was option 4, which was the establishment of a dedicated Northern Ireland agency. We are still of that opinion. Although we recognise the extra costs that would arise from such legislation, we believe that the long-term benefits, which include a clear message from the Assembly about the promotion of citizenship through access to employment, will outweigh the short-term cost. Fundamentally, we believe that the proposed legislation must be presented and implemented as being Northern Ireland specific.
NIACRO’s view is that option 3 does not take account of the Northern Ireland context, particularly the unique prisoner/offender profile that exists here, including that of individuals who have conflict-related convictions. It is estimated that approximately 25,000 people received lengthy sentences as a result of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In addition, there was a wide range of prosecutions for offences that were clearly associated with the conflict, but that involved people who were not acting on behalf of any paramilitary organisation, for example, those convicted of disorderly or riotous behaviour, assault on police, possession of offensive weapons, and so on.
Any proposed changes must be proofed against current Northern Ireland legislation and processes, and should not simply seek to transpose those that pertain to England and Wales. Specifically, NIACRO questions the fit, or otherwise, with the following: the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978; the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979, which was amended in 1987, 2001 and 2003; part V of the Police Act 1997, which gave rise to Access Northern Ireland; the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which relates to employment rights of existing employees; equality legislation and section 75; the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007; and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s (OFMDFM) guide to employing people with conflict-related convictions and employers’ guide.
The proposed grid for the assessment of convictions is somewhat inflexible. NIACRO believes that that process should be informed by current multi-agency risk assessment processes. If it is determined that the proposed legislation reflects option 3, NIACRO recommends that at the very least there should be an adjudicating mechanism that considers and informs conflict-related convictions without fear or prejudice, for example, a locally driven, accountable and transparent sub-panel.
The field of public protection employment legislation is already crowded. The proposed legislation, despite its declared aim, is likely to add to the confusion for employers and the existing and future workforce. Rehabilitative elements are practically non-existent in the legislation that I mentioned. NIACRO believes that effective rehabilitation contributes to public protection and that employment is a significant factor in reducing offending. The proposed legislation will undoubtedly erect more barriers to employment and, de facto, will contribute to an increase in crime, and, consequently, the numbers of victims that are affected by crime.
In NIACRO’s experience, many people have been discriminated against unnecessarily when applying for such posts by virtue of having any type of criminal convictions. To help to break down such attitudinal barriers, any proposed legislation must take account of the rights of an ex-offender who poses minimal risk to be re-integrated and to work. Obviously, that should be balanced by the need for public safety. It is crucial that employers are supported to understand and manage new legislation to minimise the potential for discrimination. It is imperative that the proposed legislation does not create any further unnecessary barriers to employment for individuals with convictions.
From experience, we anticipate that the proposed legislation will have a detrimental effect on existing licence holders and could result in job losses for individuals who are unlikely to obtain employment elsewhere. Were that to be the case, it may also have an effect on a contractor’s capacity for service delivery.
To conclude, NIACRO welcomes the raising of standards in the private security industry by appropriate regulation on the basis that the proposed legislation should be relevant and practicable to Northern Ireland. It is also imperative that the legislation does not create any further unnecessary barriers to employment for individuals with criminal convictions. This is not the time to reduce access to a contracting labour market.
Mr McFarland:
We heard evidence from North Down Borough Council and, last week, from the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade. There seems to be a general view that, after Mr Justice Kerr’s ruling on PSV licences, very few employers risk ending up in court as a result of Good Friday Agreement convictions. We heard this morning that some 90% of those who are employed in the security industry do not have any such convictions. A small number do, but because of the risk of court proceedings, they are effectively ignored. It is a difficult matter. If people who committed offences in 1975 have served their time and have been normal citizens since their release, we must be careful about excluding them.
On the other hand, are you suggesting that it should not be taken into account if someone is still involved in racketeering or criminal activity? Unless AccessNI approaches MI5, which handles terrorism issues, how will that be decided? How will the system work if you recommend that we take no account of previous convictions?
Mr Conway:
We are not saying that employers should not take account of previous convictions. We are saying that legislative, structural and attitudinal barriers exist. The St Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement referred to the politically motivated population. In our experience, those barriers have not been successfully addressed. A voluntary code, which I referred to earlier, is exactly that — a voluntary code. Employers are not obliged to comply with that code. In effect, that was one of our chief criticisms of the process.
Mr McFarland:
I thought that Justice Kerr’s ruling had changed that landscape completely. Did he not rule that people could not be discriminated against, for example, by being refused a PSV licence, because of a Good Friday Agreement conviction?
Mr Conway:
Subsequent to Justice Kerr’s deliberation, the Marks/McConkey case addressed the idea that people could not be discriminated against on the grounds of political thought. In that case, two individuals applied for a job in the voluntary sector. Approximately two weeks ago, the House of Lords ruled in favour of the Simon Community, which had refused to employ the claimants.
Mr McFarland:
That is important. We asked earlier for legal advice, because in 2007 OFMDFM apparently issued an edict to the effect that one could not discriminate —
The Deputy Chairperson:
Pat referred to that matter. He said that the document that OFMDFM issued contains guidelines; there is no mechanism to make an employer comply.
Mr McFarland:
I thought that the document was stronger than that.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
It is a voluntary code.
Mr McFarland:
That information is useful. There is a great deal of confusion about the law. In our first meeting last week, the Committee heard evidence to the effect that people could not do anything now. However, other people argue that that is not the case. We need to obtain a degree of clarity somehow.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
My question is one that I asked to previous witnesses this morning. Given that the SIA is asking businesses to prepare to meet new standards, a substantial number of door supervisors will become unemployed because they cannot access training. It is almost the oddest form of constructive dismissal that I have ever seen.
The SIA is a British-based firm that has no understanding of the Good Friday Agreement or its implications. I will outline a caveat about some of Alan’s confusions. However, schedule 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states that one cannot discriminate against someone because of a political conviction. In light of that, will the proposed legislation and guidelines that the SIA will use to regulate the security industry have an adverse impact on people who have a politically motivated conviction?
Mr Conway:
We think so. Furthermore, we are conscious that the cohort of people who have politically motivated criminal records is decreasing because of the age profile. The demographics are such that many of those individuals are probably in their 50s, 60s or 70s now. In general, employers would not consider such people particularly employable.
Mr McFarland:
That is age discrimination. We are into another area now. [Laughter.]
Mr Conway:
We consider that to be a structural barrier. Such attitudes are common in employers in any western society. It is almost ageist.
I referred earlier to six pieces of legislation. Ostensibly, two of those are about rehabilitation, and have the word rehabilitation as part of the title. However, in our view, they do nothing to rehabilitate, but are focused more on public protection or the way that people think that public protection should be achieved, which is through monitoring and overseeing people who have convictions. Our argument is that if there were effective rehabilitation, and resources were skewed into a rehabilitative framework, it would contribute to public protection. I am referring to what we consider to be the “ordinary” ex-prisoner and ex-offender population. We delineate between politically motivated offenders and the rest of the population.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Do you believe that option 4 will promote better equality for citizens in the North than option 3 would? The latter is the NIO’s preferred option.
Mr Conway:
Option 3 is the SIA bolt-on.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
It looks like it is the NIO’s too, but we will not argue over it.
Mr Conway:
Although there may be a cost to option 4 in the short term, our view is that it makes the most sense in the long term in that it promotes citizenship and recognises the unique profile that exists here. It also fits into a rehabilitative process that contributes to public protection.
The Deputy Chairperson:
If I understand your presentation, the view of your organisation is that, if there were a bolt-on in option 3 that had a substructure related to what are called conflict-related offences, that might satisfy your concerns. Is that a fair enough reflection of the presentation?
Mr Conway:
Yes. That would be our second preferred option.
Mr Dallat:
Perhaps I will demonstrate my ignorance, because this is my first attendance at a meeting of this Committee. Have you any concerns about door supervisors with a past who have yet to sever their links with a particular organisation? For example, I know of a person who was silly enough to hit a bouncer, and has now discovered that he has been excluded from all nightclubs along the Causeway Coast. He has been taken off the Christmas card list of a particular paramilitary organisation, and, in fact, is almost in exile. There is nowhere that he can go, because clearly the power of the bouncers extends far beyond the premises in which they work. Through their own structures, which have not been dismantled, they can effectively exclude a person from any form of entertainment at all.
Mr Conway:
There is clear evidence that organisations that have not disbanded, and the structures of which remain intact, are capable of fundraising. Historically, it is well known that the security industry and protection was one way of raising money. That needs to be addressed. It reinforces the notion that the regulations should be specific to Northern Ireland, so that people know the landscape and the best way of dealing with the issue.
Mr Dallat:
That is a fair answer.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Thank you, Pat. Again, I apologise for the delay. If you have any questions arising from today’s meeting, do not hesitate to contact us.