EHJ February 2005, pages 24-26

In April the licensing of door supervisors comes into force nationally in a bid to protect the public and staff from violence. Stuart Spear asks, who is expected to enforce the new regime and will it achieve all that is expected of it?

On a summer's evening four years ago off-duty fireman David Hawley was queuing with friends outside the Chicago Rock CafŽ in Southend when his life changed forever. CCTV film footage shows a row breaking out among students leaving the club and Mr Hawley moving backwards, away from the trouble, with his hands up. It was then that Jeffrey Warren, one of the club's doormen, punched the Southend fireman fracturing his nose, skull and jaw, forcing his head back onto a pavement causing him serious brain damage. He may never be able to return to fire fighting following this vicious attack.

To many, this tragic case illustrates why the government had to introduce a national licensing scheme for door supervisors. Mr Warren had previously been registered on Basildon DC's door supervisor registration scheme, but had been deemed unsuitable forcing him to find work in Southend. It is only after he was found guilty of grievous body harm, following the attack, that his career as a door supervisor came to an end.

A year after this incident the government published the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Central to the new legislation was the setting up of the Security Industry Authority (SIA), tasked to bring order to what many believe was an unregulated and sometimes criminal sector employing up to 500,000 nationwide. Part of the security industry is made up of door supervisors working in thousands of bars and clubs around the country, often with no training and no criminal vetting.

Under the new legislation door supervisors have to be licensed by the SIA, having undergone a criminal vetting process by the Criminal Registration Bureau and having attended four days training on their roles and responsibilities along with conflict resolution. Supporters of the scheme believe this will herald far greater protection for people like Mr Hawley and for door supervisors themselves, as the new regime is phased in across the country. So far most of England and Wales is now operating under the new regime with the exception of the south east, set to go live on the 28 February and London, probably the greatest challenge, due to go live on 11 April. Scotland may adopt the scheme next year depending on whether legislation can be passed in time.

But not everyone believes a national scheme is the way forward. Under the old regime 60 per cent of councils outside London and all London boroughs were operating their own door supervisor registration schemes with environmental health depart-ments running the majority of these. Stephen Savage, head of public and environ-mental protection at Newcastle MDC ran his scheme successfully for eight years, registering and training 800 door super-visors working in 500 pubs and clubs. This scheme has now been wrapped up and replaced with national licensing. "The fundamental problem is losing the local dimension," explains Mr Savage. "A local scheme run properly will always be better than a national scheme. Local authorities used to know door supervisors and club organisers because of all the in-house training we did. Now there will be a distinct lack of enforcement."

Many local authorities share Mr Savage's concern about enforcement. The SIA has 50 staff nationwide who are responsible for co-ordinating enforcement with local authorities, police and the trade as well as encouraging whistle blowing within the industry. With only 50 staff the SIA admits that enforcement is still going to have to be done by local authorities and police, working with the new authority.

Local government concerns rest on the lack of available funds to enforce this new legislation, especially as the bulk of the inspections will need to be done late at night and at weekends. Supporters of the regime believe that when the Licensing Act comes into force in November, door supervisor licensing will become a condition of the premises licence and have to be checked accordingly. But Mr Savage believes that, with Newcastle's concentration of bars and clubs, the resources will not be available for EHPs to enforce the Private Security Industry Act, or to check the conditions of the liquor licences properly.

"There are not sufficient funds available under the proposed licensing fees to allow local authorities to check the badges of door supervisors while doing liquor licensing," explains Mr Savage. "Even the Department for Culture Media and Sport specifically says we should not be going into all premises, but only on a risk assessed basis, which is why the licensing fees have been set so low."

It is also unclear how many EHPs and licensing officers will have powers under the Private Security Industry Act to check door supervisor badges. The SIA is currently canvassing local authorities on whether they would like powers. This may lead to a patchwork enforcement regime with some councils choosing to have the power to enforce the security act, with others electing not to do so.

Critics of the new regime are also not convinced that the police have the resources to check door supervisor licences, and so, like local authorities, will only check places where there is trouble. But Robert Buxton, spokesperson for the SIA, is upbeat about police involvement. He believes there is a will among senior police staff to work with this regime because the police need to have confidence in local door staff.

He cites Manchester as an example: "On a Friday and Saturday night you may have 100,000 people on the streets, and only 35 police officers along with about a 1,000 door supervisors. The police want to work more closely with them to identify trouble so they need to have confidence that door supervisors have been checked." He also believes that local authorities will not find checking door supervisor badges any more onerous than the work they have already been doing and will be expected to contact either the SIA or the police if they find a problem. "They still have a vested interest. Just because they are not registering any more does not mean they are giving up responsibility for the safety of people in licensed premises," said Mr Buxton.

David Britt, environmental health manager with Basildon DC and chair of the joint SIA and Lacors working party sums up the view being taken by the profession. He admits there may be teething problems with the scheme and that the south east and London may be hard pushed to meet their respective deadlines. But overall he believes that public safety will be better protected under the SIA and that local authorities are just going to have to get on with it. "The overriding message for me is that this has happened and there is nothing that can be done about it. People are critical of the national scheme, but it is irrelevant. It is up to local authorities in terms of partnership working and crime reduction to make the scheme as good as it can be."

So far the SIA has only received 800 applications for the south east region, out of the 4,600 forms sent out. With each form taking four-to-six weeks to process it looks as though there will be a significant shortfall in the number of available door supervisors by the deadline date of 28 February. This raises questions over whether clubs will have to close, or whether the police will adopt a lenient approach to licensing, as they have done in some other areas. The same fear exists for the London area and if the police choose to adopt a hard line we can expect a swathe of prosecutions, although this has not happened elsewhere. So far there have only been a handful of prosecutions nationwide with another 20 in the pipeline. Also, fears that there would be a haemorrhaging of door supervisors out of the profession also appear not to have materialised. Critics feared they would be put off by the £192 licensing fee, which covers them for three years, and the cost of training, which can be up to £100.

The industry has also raised concerns that the act does not just cover door supervisors but also all directors, supervisors and managers running security firms along with publicans or club owners who choose to employ staff directly rather than through a firm. The entertainment industry felt this was unnecessarily onerous as some publicans will require SIA licences, although they do not have to undergo training.

But according to Mr Buxton many of these problems are just to do with a cultural change. "There are a lot of people dragging their feet. It is because the industry is changing and some have their feet in the past because it is one of those industries no one took a lot of interest in. Now its being modernised and made professional. They need to take it seriously." A sentiment that the former Southend fireman, Mr Hawley, would probably wholeheartedly endorse.