AD HOC COMMITTEE
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001
(Amendment) ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009
15 June 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Trevor Clarke (Chairperson)
Mr Alan Bresland
Mr Thomas Burns
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Stephen Moutray
Witnesses:
Mr Paul Goggins MP ) The Minister of State for Northern Ireland
Mr Ronnie Armour )
Mr Gavin Greenlees ) Northern Ireland Office
Mr Steven McCourt )
Mr Philip McCann )
Mr Stephen Magorrian ) Federation of the Retail Licensing Trade
Mr Colin Neill )
The Chairperson (Mr T Clarke):
I welcome the Minister, Mr Paul Goggins MP. Please introduce your team?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Paul Goggins MP):
Ronnie Armour is head of policing operations support division in the Northern Ireland Office. Steven McCourt is head of operations branch, and Gavin Greenlees is from operations branch. The two gentlemen on my left you have heard from before.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. We hope that this will be a constructive discussion. The Committee welcomes the opportunity to discuss the details of your proposals to regulate the private security agency in Northern Ireland. Minister, I invite you to make an opening statement.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
My opening statement will cover two things. The draft Order is before the Committee for its consideration as part of our consultation process. As members can see, it is a piece of technical legislation. It does two things. It applies the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 in order to exempt certain individuals from the licensing arrangements, namely: in-house security staff; staff at grounds in which alcohol is not sold; all volunteers, and in-house staff where the grounds or stands have a safety certificate under the appropriate legislation. Those provisions are important, because sports organisations in general across Northern Ireland are concerned that they are being over-regulated. They will be reassured by those provisions that that is not the case and that regulation is appropriate.
The second feature of the draft Order is to make an addition to paragraph 8 of schedule 2 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 in order to include in-house door supervisors. Inadvertently, they were omitted from the legislation when it was originally drafted. It is important that they are included, and this legislation will enable that to happen.
Another thing we can do in this session is to have a general discussion about the operation of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and the new system of regulation that I will be introducing in December. I will take a moment to explain that, as I was the Minister who took the legislation through Westminster in 2007. As the Committee will appreciate, several provisions in legislation would have fallen with the repeal of Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 had we not made provisions for those areas in the Justice and Security ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007. One of those areas was the licensing of the private security industry.
Under the old system, there was very limited regulation. It applied only to manned guarding and not to all the other sectors that are now included. It related only to companies and not to individuals who work in companies. A license could be refused only if there was evidence of paramilitary involvement, and no account was taken of criminal involvement. We knew that we needed to at least replace the previous regulation and we also wanted to enhance it. That is what we did. We faced a choice. We could extend the remit of the SIA to Northern Ireland or introduce a whole new agency to Northern Ireland that would perform the equivalent task. Partly because we wanted to ensure that the arrangements were consistent across the UK, and partly because it would have been very expensive to have a Northern Ireland agency operating on its own, we decided to extend the SIA remit. The SIA will be responsible for licensing all operatives in the private security industry. Minimum standards of training will be required, which is an important new feature of the regulation and there will be comprehensive criminal records checks made on all applicants. Therefore, it will be a much improved, much enhanced system of regulation.
My final comment is about the timing of the introduction of the new licensing arrangements. As the Committee is aware; from 1 December, it will be an offence to operate in the private security industry without a licence. I acknowledge that for in-house door supervisors, there would only be a very short period of time between the legislation coming into operation and 1 December; no more than two or three weeks. Even though the SIA has been open for business since May 2009, it is only fair to allow a greater amount of time. Therefore, I am putting the implementation date back for in-house door supervisors to have a licence to 1 April 2010, which is fair to those who operate in the industry.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for that introduction. I welcome the extension of the deadline from December to April. However, that welcome is guarded, because some people feel that the system in Northern Ireland is already over-regulated. They feel that the current system is sufficient because certain councils have their own systems for training door supervisors. If we are to become part of UK-wide regulation, then extending the deadline is welcome, as that will give people time to receive preparation and training.
Dr Farry:
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I welcome the principle of a common regime throughout the United Kingdom. There are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland due to the legacy of the Troubles and the current situation with paramilitaries. Will a common regime throughout the UK be able to take those particular complexities into account?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
It will, for a number of reasons. It is important to emphasise that when the 2001 Act went through the Westminster Parliament, there was widespread concern across Great Britain about the involvement of organised criminal gangs in the private security industry. At that time, there were all kinds of protection rackets across England, Wales and Scotland as well as Northern Ireland. The involvement of organised criminal gangs in private security is not peculiar to Northern Ireland; it was widespread.
The SIA has issued more than 300,000 licences, and criminality has largely been driven out of the private security industry. Therefore, the SIA has experience of dealing with complex and tough challenges. Conflict-related convictions in Northern Ireland do pose a particular set of problems, and I have had good contact with the SIA and with my opposite number in the Home Office, Alan Campbell, who understands such issues very well. Although some of those discussions need to continue in the run up to December, I am very happy that the issues relating to Northern Ireland are understood. We will have a licensing organisation that understands the context and background in Northern Ireland and ensures that we have common systems across the UK.
Dr Farry:
One of the primary motivations behind the legislation was to ensure that paramilitaries and organised criminal gangs do not infiltrate the security industry. Running criminal background checks is one way to establish the threat, but that can lead to a more complex situation. Someone who has been convicted in the past may not now be part of a paramilitary organisation or organised criminal network. Therefore, past convictions for such activity alone should not preclude people from working in the security industry. On the other hand, people can be involved in paramilitary or organised criminal activity and not have a criminal record. How can the system be made sufficiently robust to identify the threats and prevent such people from holding a licence?
That leads to the use of intelligence: to what extent will the security services be involved in the vetting of applicants? Although it is an important aspect of the process, what safeguards can be put in place to ensure that people with negative intelligence reports can challenge what has been said against them? Intelligence, although important, is never 100% watertight.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
There are a lot of issues in those questions, so I will give my answers with care. Conflict-related convictions are significant here, and I want to emphasise from the outset that there is no question of expunging criminal convictions from the record. All applications must be determined on the facts, and if they reveal that someone has committed a serious offence, that must be understood.
However, the Good Friday Agreement made it clear that even people with serious convictions predating the Good Friday Agreement who want to move on, and who no longer pose a serious threat to society, can be considered for employment. That approach was confirmed in Justice Kerr’s judgement in the judicial review of the McComb case in 2003. It is also reflected in the OFMDFM guidelines to employers. That is the right way of acknowledging the past and enabling people to move on to earn a livelihood and engage properly in a fully lawful activity.
The SIA must look at all the facts and evidence and make a decision based on risk. Its judgement and the guidelines that OFMDFM has issued to employers will reflect the judgement made by Justice Kerr in the McComb case. An application can be made, and mitigating factors including conflict-related convictions can be considered as part of that application. If an application is rejected, an individual has the right of appeal.
I am seeking to make the process as seamless as possible, balancing the fact that there is a criminal record that cannot, and should not, be expunged with an attempt to move forward and enable people to engage in lawful employment. It is important that all criminal convictions are revealed as part of the process. It is also important for the Committee to know that non-conviction information can be shared with the SIA; and the Association of Chief Police Officers has signed a protocol with the SIA to that effect. However, there are some limits. Non-conviction information that is shared with the SIA will never be used by the SIA as the sole determinant of its decision. If it did so, and were challenged, it would have to share that information with the applicant and defend itself in the Magistrate’s Court, which does not provide the same kind of protections as the High Court. Therefore, I acknowledge that there are some matters of fact involved.
It is important for the Committee to understand that, under the new system, everyone will be regulated and licensed; not just those who own and run the companies. We reckon that there are potentially 9,500 staff in private security companies. Involvement in a paramilitary organisation or organised criminal gang is a criminal matter, which should be, and will be, investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland with other organisations in the Organised Crime Task Force that deal with organised crime of that kind every day. Therefore, the Committee can be assured that this will not be a hands-off approach. Every individual will be licensed, and any evidence of criminal or paramilitary involvement will be investigated by the PSNI and dealt with in that way. As I said, the evidence from Great Britain is that organised criminal activity was a feature of private security as recently as 10 years ago, but that has been largely driven out by the regulation.
That was a lengthy answer, but it was a detailed question. It is important to recognise that there was no golden age of regulation of the private security industry in Northern Ireland in which national intelligence information was considered alongside convictions. Between the Terrorism Act 2000 coming into operation and its being superseded by the Justice and Security Act ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007, only one application was refused under the old legislation, and that was in the context of widespread concern about paramilitary activity and organised criminal activity in the private security industry. The direction in which we are moving with the new system is light years from where we were.
The Chairperson:
The British Security Industry Association feels that companies as well as individuals should be licensed, and the Justice and Security ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007 requires the screening of people who are in the control of their businesses. Do you have an opinion on that?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
As you pointed out, we need to get the balance right regarding regulation. Those who own and run companies will be subject to checks even though their companies will not be regulated in the same way as they were under the old system and the interim system. That is only right: anyone operating as an individual in the industry must be subject to criminal record checks and must be trained appropriately. We have got the balance right in focusing on individuals who operate in the industry.
The Chairperson:
The Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade Northern Ireland expressed concern to the Committee about small companies with, perhaps, two, three or four directors. Their interpretation of the new guidance was that those individuals and door supervisors alike would be subject to the same tests. Is that fair? It puts additional pressure on small businesses, especially in the current economic climate, because, perhaps, up to four individuals would have to be trained along with the door supervisors they employ.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
We all understand and acknowledge that many companies are facing difficulties at the moment because of the economic downturn. We hope that things are looking up and that we can begin to move forward. However, it would be risky and unfair to expect the employees of a private security company to go through the training and the checks to get the licence and not expect those who run the company to go through the same process. That would leave a large gap in the scrutiny and regulation of the system. In fact, many people who run small companies of that nature are involved in the day-to-day work. What is being proposed is fair, but we are focusing on individuals rather than organisations.
The Chairperson:
It is the requirement that certain individuals be made subject to checks and training that is putting financial pressure on those businesses; and I am dwelling on that point. Is there an opportunity to make an alteration so that only one person representing the business will be subject to the regulations? When I studied the issue, I recognised their concerns. It is the door supervisors who face the public, and the concern in the past was that that was where regulation was required. I know that some companies signed up to voluntary schemes run by local councils. We can all accept that door supervisors have to be screened rigorously, but I share the industry’s concern in cases in which more than one individual involved running a business will be subject to regulation. Could one person not represent the company, as long as all of the door supervisors were subject to the regulatory process?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
I do not think so, the reason being that we are extending the existing system operated by the SIA, which has considerable experience of operating the regulatory system. The evidence shows that its system has worked well. I am content to work in a way that ensures consistency in standards and operation across the United Kingdom. I understand that times are difficult for some companies, but I can see that, beyond the immediate future, things will get better.
The private security industry knows that higher standards, better training and more rigorous checks increase public confidence and give the industry a more competitive edge. Historically, the private security industry has not been as well developed in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom because the state had to take on many security-related functions during the Troubles. There are huge opportunities here for the private security industry to move forward with more confidence and certainty under the regulatory system that we are proposing. I do not see any reason or justification to change the system that is operating in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Thank you very much; you are all very welcome. Extending the training period to 2010 is very helpful. Stephen Farry articulated many of my concerns regarding conflict-related convictions and, up to a point, I am happy with the explanation given. However, other issues have been raised consistently.
Belfast City Council and North Down Borough Council have been running successful voluntary licensing schemes since 2002, and the licences from those schemes cost participants £30. However, the price of a licence will go up to £250, with a further £250 on top of that. Most door supervisors do not earn that amount in a month. I know that it is an investment in their employment, but putting that cost on people — particularly political ex-prisoners who do not often find employment in other sectors — needs to be considered.
I have no difficulty with regulation, or with anyone who feels that there is potential criminality reporting it to the PSNI; but I have a huge problem with giving a lot of money to an English firm — I do not mean to sound biased; I am just being upfront — that does not have an office here and that will not be implementing the scheme here, as such. How will the scheme be implemented, tracked and scrutinised?
Local authorities are going to be reorganised under the RPA, and that will provide an opportunity for them, and indeed our taxpayers, to see the benefits of local regulation. No one is arguing against regulation. Some people have concerns about conflict-related convictions and the cost that the new legislation will have on the industry. Extending the training period has taken the sting out of that, because had the new licences to be in place by December, one of the busiest periods for licensed traders and door supervisors, that would have been a disaster.
Are you totally fixed on option 3? Can aspects of option 3 be looked at with aspects of option 4 as regards local regulation? Although the extension to April 2010 is very welcome, would it not be best to wait until policing and justice matters are devolved and bring this scheme in at that point? That makes sense to me.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
I applaud the voluntary schemes that have been put in place by Belfast City Council and others. They saw the problem, and they wanted to create greater public confidence. They have taken action, and I applaud that. However, the schemes only go so far. We want all councils and all organisations that use private security industry operatives to benefit from the scheme.
We propose that a range of aspects of the private security industry be legislated for and therefore be regulated, not just in-house door supervisors. Yes, there is an issue about cost. It works out at around £1·50 a week for the licences. I think that is good value for money given the reassurance it will provide; the checks that will be done, and the quality of the training that must be provided on a comprehensive basis rather than to individual organisations. The SIA does and will employ enforcement officers, who will work actively with the police and local authorities in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is proper enforcement.
We looked at option 4 seriously, but we concluded that the cost per licence would have been in excess of £600 as opposed to £245 under the SIA. Frankly, to create an organisation to carry out these tasks for a population of 1·7 million people would be too expensive. We thought it better to extend the remit of an organisation that was already tried and tested and was doing this work very effectively in the rest of the United Kingdom.
You mentioned the devolution of policing and justice, of which I am a very keen supporter and proponent and continue to work every day to make sure that we can move to that point. We were discussing these policies in 2006, even before there was stage 1 devolution. We have to carry on with the legislation and the regulations that we put in place at that point.
It has taken some time to reach this point. That was largely because we had to ensure that the SIA was comfortable with undertaking this work in addition to its other work. It deals with 5,000 applications a week across the rest of the UK, so it has a considerable workload.
Some time ago, we decided that 1 December 2009 is the right date from which it should start. It is clear that after the devolution of policing and justice, it will be up to you to determine the future. No doubt, you will examine all the issues with a view to the long term. However, as long as I have responsibility for policing and justice, I consider that the right thing to do and I am, therefore, proceeding to do it.
Mr McQuillan:
To follow on from an earlier point, it is a bit ridiculous that, if a company has seven directors, every one must be trained in the legislation. Some of them may be, for example, financial directors who have no day-to-day contact with running the business. Is it not a bit silly to force them to become accredited?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
I have answered that question. I may not have convinced you, but the SIA’s experience is that that the best approach is to have in place a universal rule that is fully understood and properly implemented.
Mr McQuillan:
Is there no means of moving away from that requirement?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
No, because it is clear that we cannot pick and choose the bits of the SIA that we like or otherwise. The SIA has to deal with 5,000 applications each week and must, therefore, be able to get on with that. A consistent system is, therefore, required, rather than a complex system that differs among various parts of the UK. The evidence is that the system has worked in Great Britain. The way in which the SIA has operated has produced not only more regulation but more confidence in the industry and the wider public. I see no reason to change that system.
Mr Moutray:
You are most welcome, Minister. The recent Audit Office report on the SIA advises that it is:
“on the way to meeting its target of processing 80 per cent of applications within six weeks.”
What assurance can you give that the SIA is well equipped to deal in a timely manner with the volume of applications that it will receive from Northern Ireland? Secondly, will the intelligence services have a role to play in the consideration of applications?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
In April 2009, the SIA dealt with 90% of applications within the timescale that it set for itself. The evidence, therefore, is that the SIA is delivering on the targets for that process. It deals with 5,000 applications each week from GB. We estimate that the total of approximately 9,500 applications for Northern Ireland will represent about 3% of SIA’s throughput. I am confident that the SIA can manage the workload. All the evidence shows that the SIA has effectively regulated a part of the business world that had been totally unregulated before 2001.
The second question touches on Dr Farry’s earlier point. Non-conviction information can be shared with the SIA; there are protocols with the police for that. However, the SIA will not take decisions based solely on non-conviction information because that must be shared with the applicant and would have to be revealed in a magistrate’s court, which does not have the protections of the High Court. That limits the type of information that will be shared.
The reassurance that I can offer to the Committee is that where the PSNI, or any law enforcement agency, believes that a criminal element is at work, or that there is some paramilitary involvement, it will treat that as seriously as it would any hint that such organisations were involved in fuel fraud, extortion, or any other criminal activity. The PSNI will investigate such matters thoroughly and, if people are breaking the law, it will bring them to justice. That, coupled with the reassurance that everyone operating in the private security industry will have to be checked and licensed, is a reasonable balance that should give people confidence.
The Chairperson:
Do people in Northern Ireland and England pay the same price of £245 to the SIA for an application?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
Will that be delivered to businesses here or will they have to travel to the mainland?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
They will not have to travel, but they will have to make the payment.
The Chairperson:
I was referring to whether the training would be delivered in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
The training will be delivered here. That is beginning to happen since the doors were opened to applications in May. The training is being provided, and I think that people will see that this is not about just form filling and regulation for its own sake, and the payment of a fee. It is about training and raising standards.
The Chairperson:
Was the SIA the only company that the Government considered to provide training, or was there a tendering process? This looks a bit like a monopoly. If there were no other companies in the frame, once this matter is settled we have no control over how much fees could rise. Were other companies considered when the regulation was introduced on the mainland, or was the SIA the only company that was prepared to deliver training?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
The SIA is the regulatory body. Training is provided locally, and the key issue is that the SIA has to be happy that the training meets certain standards. That is its role in this. The SIA is not a training provider; others provide the training. The SIA has to be satisfied about the standard of the training.
Mr Steven McCourt ( Northern Ireland Office):
The SIA has training organisations that are accredited to the SIA as part of the overall scale and development of training. The SIA itself does not provide training.
Mr Bresland:
Local councils have raised concerns about the added cost of enforcement. How will the SIA undertake responsibility for the licensing and enforcement of the legislation and ensure that it does not become an extra financial burden on local councils?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
I understand that there is concern about that, and I hope that I can reassure you. The SIA is responsible for enforcing its own regulation. Therefore, it grants the licences but also enforces the regulation across the industry. If there is any evidence, whether from a council, the police or any other public body, that people are working in the industry without a licence, that should be reported immediately to the SIA. The company employs and deploys enforcement officers across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland from 1 December. It will be the job of the enforcement officers to make sure that people are complying.
The whole purpose of the SIA is to get people to comply with regulation. That is its priority. When people do not comply, however, they face the possibility of court sanction, including fines or, in certain cases, imprisonment. The penalties are, where appropriate, harsher for those who supply operatives into the marketplace.
Therefore, the procedure is clear. People may report to the SIA instances where they think that there are breaches of the regulation. It is for the SIA to enforce the regulation, and, ultimately, for the courts to enforce any sanction that is imposed.
The Chairperson:
It has been useful to hear some views aired, and to know some of the concerns before you came here today. Those concerns will probably not have gone away. Some of us have concerns about various aspects of the legislation. However, we can see that you are strong willed and you do not look as if you will change your mind. However, I thank you for coming.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
I am grateful for the opportunity. When I was considering this matter in 2006, and we took the legislation through in the Justice and Security ( Northern Ireland) Act 2007, we did not have the devolved Assembly or Administration in operation. Therefore, there was not the same opportunity to have this type of exchange. Even though we focused on the wider issues, this meeting was helpful.
We just want to reassure you that, as we move to implementation, I will carefully consider what the Committee says in its own findings and conclusions. I will continue to liaise with the industry, and I believe that the Committee will be taking evidence later from the Federation of the Retail Licensing Trade. I will be meeting federation members in the near future. I have also met the trade unions that are involved. I am keen to make sure that we do not do this in a high-handed way, but liaise with people and discuss any issues. We will also continue to have discussions with the SIA and the Home Office to make sure that we introduce this legislation as effectively and sensibly as possible.
Mr McQuillan:
How many enforcement officers will there be in Northern Ireland?
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland:
The SIA currently has 48, and I believe that it is recruiting with a view to having 50 enforcement officers for its entire operation. Clearly, the SIA decides where to deploy those staff, and it might have different numbers in different places at different times.
The SIA will obviously pay particular attention to Northern Ireland when the new licensing arrangements come into operation.
The Chairperson:
OK. Thank you again, Minister.
We will move on to the evidence session with the representatives of the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade Northern Ireland. They have been invited to return for a further discussion of the Minister of State’s briefing to the Committee. I welcome Mr Colin Neill, the Federation’s chief executive; Mr Philip McCann, who is a publican; and Mr Stephen Magorrian, the managing director of Botanic Inns. You will have heard the previous discussion; I am sure that it has inspired various questions. I invite Mr Neill to make his presentation.
Mr Colin Neill (Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade):
Thank you, Chairperson, for giving us the opportunity to come back to the Committee. We have not had time to consult during today’s session, so my colleagues will join in as I make my presentation.
My perception of the Minister of State’s approach is that he still views the issue from a security industry perspective. We are in a different industry; our primary role is not security. That is not what we do on a day-to-day basis. That links back to the non-front-line licence because one has to be of good character anyway to obtain a publican’s licence.
I will restate our position. We welcome the Minister of State’s objectives and believe that the members of the Committee will share those objectives about the control and improvement of doorkeeping regulation. However, we feel that that the existing schemes in Northern Ireland that are run by councils are good schemes, and we do not believe that a new agency is needed. We could enhance existing schemes, retain the money for them in Northern Ireland and ensure a much more cost-effective approach.
We also welcome the Minister of State’s announcement that he will extend the deadline for training and licensing under the SIA regulatory process from 1 December 2009 to 1 April 2010. We lobbied hard for the extension, because the 1 December deadline would have been catastrophic for our industry at such a busy period.
I appreciate that the SIA has moved somewhat, in light of the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. From our point of view, however, people will still have to undergo training and obtain a licence, both of which they have to pay for, only to find that they may have to engage in another, longer process. I would much prefer to ask first whether I will be able to obtain a licence, and then do the training and pay for it. To discover that you have lost your £500 after all that does not seem terribly fair.
We are not involved in the security industry. Security is not the primary role of the directors of a family-owned pub. As I said, one has to be of good character to get a publican’s licence. Tools that are geared for one industry are going to be applied to another. With respect, I appreciate that the Minister of State wants to ensure a UK-standard approach, but what we are requesting will not alter licences; it will just change the numbers of people that have to be licensed. The application process would not be altered by allowing one director to apply rather than four.
The Minister of State does not believe that the council-run licensing schemes are an option. We believe in the existing arrangements between the industry and the local councils. There is no need for a new agency, because the bodies are already there. There is always room for enhancement of the existing system, but I am still of the opinion that the quality of the existing training is better than the training required by the SIA.
The problem with the six-week application process is that an application by someone who is affected by the Good Friday Agreement provisions will take much longer than six weeks to process. The mitigating circumstances of such a case elongate the process, and no one can say how long that could take.
Enforcement becomes complicated if somebody has to find out something and then report it to another. It is different if councils look after the entertainment licences. There are proposals under the draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendment) ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009 to look after the liquor licence, and one wee bit of it will be hived off to GB organisations.
Mr Stephen Magorrian (Federation of the Retail Licensing Trade):
Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. Mr Neill has said everything that needs to be said. We welcome the extension to 1 April 2010. I was worried about introducing any new legislation in December, because that is a very busy time. I was also worried about organising and carrying out training. Training is arranged to start tomorrow night, but I am going to cancel it because I have not had a chance to look at it. It was organised in haste, so the extension gives us more time to organise.
We are not in the security industry; that is a small part of our business. I employ more than 30 doormen, and, at Christmas, the number is closer to 40. They are part-time workers. I did a radio interview this week with one of our chaps who has been with us for almost seven years. He is trying to run his own business, but he has been asked to do 30 hours training and pay for a licence. It is not only the £250 for the licence that is causing him concern; he has to give up 30 hours for training as well. The same applies to all of the guys who work for us. Some of them cannot do it. One chap has told me that he will be leaving, because he lives in Newtownards but the only work that he can get is in Enniskillen. Therefore he travels every day, and he cannot fit in 30 hours training.
The point was well made that the guys do not earn £250 a month. They work one or two nights a week, and the chap whom I started with works three nights a week. They do not see the costs as £1·50 a week, as the Minister said, but as £250 cash that has to be found. Therefore, I am still concerned about the costs, and, I am concerned about the industry losing good people because of those costs.
Mr Neill talked about the smaller pubs. Some of those outlets will decide not to employ door staff, because it is easier not to. If they do not employ door staff, they will not have to get a licence; if they do not have to get a licence, they will save on a couple of costs. I am not sure that the overall standard would improve as a result of the legislation.
I have worked with Belfast City Council for a long time, and its scheme is excellent. I have some indication of what the SIA training involves, and I know what Belfast City Council training involves. The Belfast City Council training is more in-depth. For instance, its training involves first aid, and the SIA training does not. The Belfast City Council system is much cheaper. The licence costs £30, and it can be linked to an entertainment licence. It involves one visit from the council officials to enable them to ensure that the door staff are wearing their name badges, for instance. There is no need for other enforcement officers. I do not see the benefit.
Mr Philip McCann (Federation of the Retail Licensing Trade):
Thank you for listening to our comments. I have concerns, because it seems that the Minister is keen to do it his way. He said that the opportunity would come in a few years’ time, and that we could do it the way that it is done elsewhere. The same thing happened when David Hanson parachuted in licensing regulations. His thinking was that it had to work here, because it works in England. It does not work in the same way because the licensing system in England is different. It is not necessarily going to work in the same way here.
The SIA system is more global. As Mr Neill said, we are only interested in what is happening in respect of door staff. The SIA is looking at the whole gamut, and we are trying to fit that square peg into a round hole. I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with the training. As some of the members asked, why will every owner or director have to be trained? We have directors who are 60, 70 and 80 years old. Are they going to go through security training because they employ one or two door supervisors? That is ridiculous.
The Chairperson:
I share your concerns in relation to some of the points that have been made. The delivery of training will cost £245 through the SIA, but the Minister claimed that training by a stand-alone Northern Ireland body would cost £600. Perhaps we did not press the Minister sufficiently on that.
Mr Neill:
It costs £245 for an SIA licence, regardless of who provides the training. The requirement is that one must have training with an accredited body, and there are a range of trainers. As an industry body, we provide training, and we have always done that for the other councils with door schemes. Pricing varies, depending on the numbers involved. A quality rate would be in the region of £200 to £250. I would have concerns with anyone who provides training below that level.
The Chairperson:
Are you saying that one can go to any accredited firm?
Mr Neill:
Yes, as long as those firms are providing training to an accredited level. There are several bodies, such as City and Guilds, and one can go anywhere for the training. The market price would be around £220, £230 or £250 for each person.
Mr Magorrian:
Since the training has to be provided, a number of people have seen the opportunity to create a business and make money. Several people have gone forward and managed to become accredited by the SIA. We now have a choice of people who provide the training, from colleagues to individuals who have worked in England and have an SIA licence, to people who have never worked on doors but who have managed to do the training in England and get an accreditation and set up a business to train doormen in Northern Ireland. We have a choice of people whom we can deal with.
The difficulty is that there are still some grey areas with the SIA, as it has been set up to cover the number of hours taken for the training, and the SIA recommends 30 hours. There is the question of how many people can be trained at one time and there are general rules around that. However, there are a number of options in Northern Ireland for people who can provide training.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
There is a concern about the issue of liquor licensing and what David Hanson did in the past. It is even more worrying, because I did not realise that the Department for Social Development is due to bring forward legislation on liquor licensing. The SAA has an impact on entertainment licensing, because if door supervisors cannot be trained, premises will not get an entertainments license. That will still be the case, no matter whether it is implemented in December or April. We will still face that problem. The big concern is that liquor licensing will now be partially affected as well.
However, we still have to deal with the issues. Mr Neill raised the point about whether we could have some sort of clearance on payments. I am not convinced that people who have received £245 to provide training and who then find out that clients are not eligible will return that money. Equality issues are involved. A person needs £500, and he or she must be able to invest 30 hours for the training. Anyone who has a part-time job and who works on the doors would find that 30 hours of training would cost quite a lot. That figure must be built in as well, which means that we are talking about at least £500. People who need the training would have to take two hours off work each week, and their hourly rate would need to be added on. We are dealing with an artificial figure.
There is then the proposition that it will cost, on average, about £500, but possibly £600, for option 4. The Committee has not received the breakdown of figures for that, and it needs to know the details. No one is arguing that regulations are not needed. However, the problem is the way in which it is happening, and I am not convinced of its benefits to the people living in the North. I am not convinced that it will not have a bigger impact on people with conflict-related convictions. It will have a big impact on clubs and pubs and on entertainments licences, and it will dilute the authority of local councils. Having said all that, I am still not convinced — even after what the Minister and his colleagues from the NIO have said.
I do not know whether it is right for me to ask this question, but if you were drawing up the legislation, what would it look like? If you were to amend the proposed legislation, what would it look like? What would you put in, given what you have said?
Mr Neill:
Our preferred option would be to develop a Northern Ireland model in co-operation with councils. I have worked in local government. It is an NIO-orientated proposal, in that the NIO’s concept of the only option is to go with a Northern Ireland agency.
There are currently 26 councils, which are soon to be reduced under the RPA, and those councils already exist and deliver services. Our proposal would mean giving those councils the power to enforce. There would be no necessity to create another body, and it would only mean an extension of the role of those councils. It would be an opportunity to create a bespoke system in Northern Ireland, with the industry working in partnership with local authorities, as they do already.
As I have said previously, our current door-training scheme includes a first aid element, but the SIA one does not. Therefore, the introduction of that scheme would mean a dilution of the quality of training at a much increased cost, when a much better system already exists. Too often, we are told that best practice exists in GB, when, in reality, best practice already exists here. Furthermore, the pub industry is not the same here as it is in GB. The industry in England, for example, involves pub companies running thousands of bars, whereas here the industry is predominantly owned and operated by local individuals. That is a much better system for the councils to work with.
In relation to the point that has been made about people getting time off to train, it has been suggested that people would be taking two hours off each week, meaning that the training would take months to complete. In fact, many people may have to take a week’s holiday leave to complete the training. Therefore, the cost of paying their salaries would have to be added to the existing costs.
Mr Magorrian:
I, like Colin, believe that the councils could have more teeth than the SIA. The Minister has suggested that an SIA enforcement officer will visit pubs and try to work with people, and if individuals do not work with that officer they could, potentially, be taken to court. However, under the new licensing legislation, councils will have powers to introduce penalty points. If one of the requirements was that door staff had to be registered through the council scheme, and that was then found not to be the case, councils would have more power to take immediate action than the SIA.
The Chairperson:
I again thank the witness for their attendance today.
The point that Carál raised on background checks was missed when the Minister was here. If Members are content, the Committee can write to the Minister to ascertain whether background checks can be done before the training commences for those personnel who are concerned about their past. That will not affect every licence applicant, but if members are content, the Committee could ask the Minister if such a mechanism could be built in for those with concerns about conflict-related convictions.
Members indicated assent.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Is there a body that represents councils? I know that NILGA looks after councillors.
Mr Neill:
SOLACE is the authority that represents local authority chief executives.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Although the Committee has offered an opportunity for people and bodies to give evidence to this inquiry, it may be worthwhile writing to NILGA and SOLIS with respect to the concerns raised about the local authorities here.
All councils have a building control department in which entertainment and liquor licences are granted. With the roll-out of the RPA, I think that it would be worthwhile inviting contributions from those bodies to try to strengthen some of the comments that have been aired here.
The Chairperson:
The Committee is possibly running out of time for that, but perhaps it could obtain written evidence from those bodies.
Mr Neill:
Before we finish today, we would like to provide the Committee with the federation’s current wish list. We were due to meet the Minister on 22 June 2009, but that is the date of the election of the new Speaker of the House of Commons, and, as he will be involved in that, he has moved our meeting to 30 June 2009. Therefore, as the Committee’s inquiry also concludes at that time, we will not be able to update it on that meeting.
Our stance to the Minster will be that the best option is to retain and enhance the process of the industry working with councils and the councils policing the system. We feel that that is an effective model and that it fits in with our move to a Province-wide code of practice on responsible retailing for the industry, with an independent complaints panel. All of the statutory bodies, and the whole industry, have signed up to that model, and that is moving forward.
If responsibility is to be transferred to SIA, although we welcome the delay for implementation to April 2010, we would also like the reduction or removal of the need for non-front-line licences, because the licensee has already proved good character in obtaining a licence. We also want all the criminal justice checks to be done up front before all of the money gets sucked away.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much.