Gaining access
The introduction of the doorstaff licence has so far resulted in problems and prosecutions. Tom Sandham probes Andy Drane of the SIA for answers.
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has come under heavy fire during the last 12 months as complaints have poured in over the implementation of the new doorstaff licence.
Stories of drops in the numbers of door supervisors and threats of the closure of pubs have been rife as the scheme has rolled out in various regions. Last month came the first prosecutions against doorstaff failing to apply for a certificate, on the Isle of Wight.
The trade has criticised high costs and the apparently impractical nature of application forms and, from those who haven't simply ignored it, comes the attack that there just hasn't been enough time to get on board.
In the resulting crossfire, the SIA has focused on the positives of the new scheme, particularly its part in cleaning up the industry.
Andrew Drane, deputy chief executive of the SIA (pictured), agreed to answer some of the criticisms that have been raised, in a bid to get the bigger picture from the organisation.
Has the licence been rushed in?
We have a very robust answer to that and it is "no". People knew this was coming into effect as soon as the Security Industry Act was passed in 2001. From then it was clear that the licence would become law. The idea that we have rushed this in is wrong. On the contrary, we have deliberately rolled it out regionally to make sure that isn't the case.
The fact is, doorstaff must be qualified. When we've announced it in a region, we have given a three-month deadline. It takes us four weeks to process applications so on each occasion there has been enough time.
You have had complaints that the application process takes too long. Is that fair?
Where there have been mistakes and delays - because of us - we hold our hands up and apologise. There are obviously cases where we should have done better and we are sorry for that. But 80 per cent of the applications we've received have been processed in a four-week period. The 20 per cent that haven't are individual cases, some of which need more time because they present different circumstances. Some firms haven't appreciated that they need to take time to prepare for this and should have booked onto a training course much earlier.
So why are there delays?
It might be argued that we have underestimated the job, but the leisure industry as a whole has to share responsibility for this. It had a duty to prepare workers and sadly, in a lot of cases, it hasn't. People have accepted the line from some companies that they are preparing doorstaff, but this hasn't always been the case and some haven't even applied.
The myth continues that this is our fault but where there have been delays you will often find it is because people have been slow to apply. I consider a lot of the criticisms we receive on this as diversionary tactics.
Should companies be doing more to speed the process up?
Yes. Completing the application form is down to the individual, but I'm convinced that if employers helped, the process would have been quicker. As part of the qualification we have ensured that training schools must help all applicants with literacy and numeracy if required.
It's true that there are very specific rules to completing areas of the form and they have to be filled out correctly or they are returned. This is no different from passports or driving licence applications.
Some argue more could have been done to promote it, do you not agree?
If we are talking about television and radio then that wasn't appropriate. This affects a minority of people in the UK and such campaigns are very expensive. We are using taxpayers money and have to justify the expense. We did a lot of market research and identified our target audience, then advertised accordingly with leaflets, roadshows and local newspaper adverts.
What about the challenges of passing a criminal records check?
The check is in place because we are trying to clean up this industry. Most people will pass without problems and the statute of limitations allows others to have a fresh start. We do not want criminals in positions of responsibility. The public and licensees deserve to know that the people who are protecting them are law abiding.
Are people right to moan about the cost?
In regions like the South you will find that many were paying more to be qualified to work on doors than they are now. In London, for example, supervisors would have to qualify under criteria set by different boroughs. This one licence allows them to move anywhere in the country. It also qualifies them to work as security guards so they're getting much more for the money.
We are expected by the government to meet costs, and have to price licences accordingly. I acknowledge some are paying more than they were but this is a business opportunity for them.
Is it all working?
We're confident that we will get there. In Hampshire where the delays were publicised we now have 70 per cent of the predicted doorstaff population signed up.
In the first two months in the North West we had 200 applications, and in the third month we received 800. This is about making the night-time economy better and safer - doorstaff have a crucial role to play in that.
