report on the sia public consultation on physical intervention and … · 2019-12-13 · who can...

Public consultation report

Report on the SIA public consultation on physical intervention and door supervision

14 June 2017


Contents

Summary 4

Introduction 7

Results, findings and analysis 9

Q1: How might a disability or disabilities affect the ability of someone to fulfil the role of a door supervisor?

9

Q2: Should physical capability be part of the requirement to decide whether someone is fit and proper to be a door supervisor?

13

Q3: Which of the options (on pages 17-20) would be the best way to assess whether someone is able to fulfil the role of a door supervisor?

14

Q4: Please give your reasons for your answer to question 3. 14

Q5: Please provide any other comments and suggestions on how we can balance our responsibilities to protect public safety and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

20

Q6: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal (on pages 22-23) to require new and existing close protection licence holders to successfully complete physical intervention training if they work in door supervisor? Please give your reasons for your answer to this question.

22

Q7: Are there any ways that the proposal to require close protection licence holders to do further physical intervention training might impact on people with protected characteristics (e.g. disability, race, gender) that you feel we should consider?

23

Q8: Are you answering on behalf of a business that employs people with close protection licences or door supervisors? If you answer yes to this question, please answer questions 9 to 11.

25


Q9: Would a change that required close protection licence holders to undertake further physical intervention in order to operate as a door supervisor increase your costs?

26

Q10: Please estimate how much (in £) the increase in costs might be.

26

Q11: Please explain how you have calculated the estimate of increased costs.

26

Q12: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal (on pages 23-24) to enable us to make changes to training requirements between a licence being granted and it being renewed – if the change is in the public interest and proportionate?

27

Q13: Please provide any other comments or suggestions that you have.

27

Q14: Do you hold a current SIA licence? 28

Q15: If you hold a licence issued by the SIA, please indicate which licence/s you hold

29

Q16: Do you represent any of the following organisations? 31

Q17: Do you have a disability? 32

Q18: Are you answering on behalf of an individual who has a disability?

33

Conclusions 33

Next steps 35


Summary 1. We conducted a public consultation on how our licensing regime should

manage situations in which someone who wants to work as a door supervisor has a disability that means that they may be unable to physically intervene to protect themselves and others. This consultation also asked for views on a proposal to require close protection licence holders to have successfully completed physical intervention training in order to work as a door supervisor.

2. The consultation was conducted in two ways. A consultation document was

made available in standard and Easy Read formats. It was publicised to our contacts, via our bulletins and through social media. In addition, the consultancy firm Mott MacDonald undertook targeted engagement with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations via a workshop, interviews and a focus group.

3. The small number of responses we received, and the small number of people that participated in the engagement run by Mott MacDonald, means that it is hard for us to draw definitive conclusions. However, the information and views obtained do indicate what licence holders, private security businesses and disabled people think about the issues. The information and views obtained also provided us with ideas and posed questions for us to consider. Unfortunately, the response rate was so low in relation to particular groups that little that is meaningful could be concluded about their views.

4. A common comment was that individual circumstances shape whether and/or how a disabled person can fulfil the role of a door supervisor. These circumstances included the nature of their disability or disabilities, the job being undertaken and whether the employer was able to take steps to support a disabled door supervisor. A lot of those who responded directly to the consultation felt that, depending on the circumstances, the use of a disabled door supervisor might create risks for the public, their team and/or the door supervisor.

5. There was agreement among those who expressed these views that disabilities affecting mobility, physical strength and vision/hearing can put limitations on an individual’s ability to physically intervene to protect themselves and/or others. However, participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement noted that there are many situations in which a door supervisor will not be required to physically intervene and that others skills (e.g. good communication) could enable a disabled person to be a good door supervisor.

6. Engagement participants felt that individuals should be able to decide whether their disability will affect their ability to be a door supervisor.


7. Slightly more than three-quarters of people who responded directly to us believed that physical capability should be part of the requirement to decide whether someone is fit and proper to be a door supervisor.

8. The current approach to assessing physical intervention skills for people trying

to obtain a door supervisor qualification was generally seen as balancing the need to protect public safety (by ensuring these skills were assessed effectively) with the requirement to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. Concerns were raised (particularly by disabled people) that this approach prevents some disabled people from obtaining a door supervisor qualification because they will be unable to do a physical demonstration of skills. However, notable concerns about practical and equality issues were also raised about the other options. It seems that some people saw the current approach as the best option while others saw it as the least bad option.

9. We have therefore decided to keep our current approach of testing physical intervention skills and knowledge through a physical demonstration. It is the best means of assessment and of balancing our responsibilities to protect public safety and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

10. Participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement offered a variety of suggestions for how any negative impacts on disabled people could be minimised. These included adapting the training to meet individuals’ needs, giving everyone the opportunity to try to pass the training and informing people more about the role of a door supervisor before they begin the process of trying to become one. It was also suggested that there should be different categories of door supervisor licence, with the grading based on the physical requirements for each category. A further suggestion was for venues to be given different categories based on an assessment of how likely it is that the door supervisors working there would need to physically intervene.

11. There were few suggestions about how the licensing scheme might take account of the complex circumstances and differences that were highlighted during the consultation exercise without licensing becoming overly complex, over-reaching itself or insufficiently minimising risks.

12. We will take forward suggestions that make it more likely that disabled people who can physically demonstrate physical intervention skills (with or without reasonable adjustments) are able to obtain a door supervisor qualification and (subject to obtaining a licence) get a door supervisor job. These are the suggestions that are also within our remit, practical and promote equality of opportunity without risking public safety.

13. We will issue guidance on the function of door supervisor training, the nature of licensing, our role, what we expect will happen when a disabled person


requests to take door supervisor training and how disabled people can be helped to do this training. It will also reiterate the responsibilities of employers and explain the benefits of deploying disabled door supervisors in some circumstances.

14. We will also issue specific information on the nature of all regulated roles in the private security industry. This will encourage disabled people to seek employment in the private security industry and give them the information they need to seek employment that is suitable to their skills and abilities.

15. A clear majority of respondents agreed with the proposal to require new and

existing close protection licence holders to successfully complete physical intervention training if they work in door supervision. Respondents felt that the current situation is an anomaly and that close protection licence holders and door supervisors should do the same training if they are doing the same work. Others noted that close protection and door supervision require different skills and knowledge. We are now working to implement this new requirement.


Introduction 16. Between September 2016 and February 2017 we held a consultation which

asked for views on two issues relating to door supervision and the requirement that holders of door supervision licences must have successfully completed training that involves demonstrating physical intervention skills.

17. The first issue was how our licensing regime should manage situations in

which someone who wants to work as a door supervisor has a disability that means that they may be unable to physically intervene to protect themselves and/or members of the public. A crucial question in this is how we can balance the requirement on us as a regulator to protect public safety with the requirement on us as a public body to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

18. The second issue we asked for views on was a proposal on how to require

close protection licence holders and applicants for close protection licences to have successfully completed physical intervention training in order to work as a door supervisor under licence integration.

19. The consultation document was available on our website in both standard and

Easy Read formats. Email bulletins promoting the consultation were sent to our approximately 22,000 contacts inviting them to respond. Emails were also sent to qualification awarding organisations inviting them to respond to the consultation and asking them to inform the training providers they work with of the consultation. In addition, the consultation was promoted through social media. People could respond to the consultation by either emailing us directly or completing a SurveyMonkey questionnaire.

20. We also hired the consultancy firm Mott MacDonald to undertake targeted

engagement with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Using a specialist firm to conduct additional, targeted engagement was an attempt to increase the number and quality of views from disabled people.

21. Mott MacDonald identified over 60 relevant organisations representing disabled people and organisations involved in supporting employment for disabled people. These organisations were invited to attend a workshop in mid-October 2016. Invitees were sent an email invite and a reminder email as well as receiving a follow-up phone call. The workshop was also advertised in the consultation document. The workshop had six participants (excluding representatives from Mott MacDonald and ourselves).

22. Mott MacDonald offered interviews to any interested parties unable to attend

the workshop, including all of the original workshop invitees. Three individuals took up this offer.


23. To supplement the workshop and interviews, Mott MacDonald commissioned a

market research recruitment company to find ten representatives with disabilities and/or who were able to speak on behalf of a disabled people. These representatives attended a focus group in December 2016.

24. There were a total of 35 responses to the consultation and 19 participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement work. It is hard to know for certain why there was such a low number of responses despite considerable effort to encourage people and organisations to participate in the consultation and the use of three different engagement methods by Mott MacDonald. Possible reasons are:

a) limited public awareness of the SIA and its work: b) the niche subject area of the consultation; c) a feeling among those invited to respond that the issues examined in

the consultation are of low priority for them; and d) that those invited to respond have limited time and resources.

25. The results of the formal consultation exercise and a summary of the findings

of the Mott MacDonald engagement work are below. This information is structured according to the questions that appeared in the consultation document. Although the Mott MacDonald engagement work did not follow the exact structure of these questions, the summary of the findings from this engagement are presented within these questions for ease of understanding.


Results, findings and analysis Q1: How might a disability or disabilities affect the ability of someone to fulfil the role of a door supervisor? 26. The chart below shows the most common comments among the 26

respondents to the consultation paper who answered this question.

27. The single most common comment among these respondents was that it is the

nature of a disability or disabilities that determines how it affects the ability of someone to fulfil the role of a door supervisor. This was also a comment made by all 19 of the participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement. They agreed that certain disabilities (i.e. those affecting mobility, physical strength and vision/hearing) could place limitations on an individual’s ability to fulfil the role of a door supervisor and so pose a barrier to their employment in this area. These participants also all stated that the severity of someone’s disability varies by person and how possible it is for someone to fulfil the role of a door supervisor will vary accordingly.

28. Related to these comments was a comment made by a lot of the consultation

respondents that the use of a disabled door supervisor might create risks for the public, their team and/or the door supervisor in some circumstances. When respondents did say that people with disabilities could safely work as door supervisors, they limited this comment to working in particular situations. For example, one respondent stated that disability does not affect someone’s

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

It depends on thenature of thedisability &

circumstances

Someone with aphysical disabilitycannot properly

physically intervene

It's dangerous tohave a disabled door

supervisor

The safety of adisabled door

supervisor would beat risk


ability to be a door supervisor provided they are part of a team and a risk assessment has been completed.

29. The effect of a physical disability on the ability to fulfil the role of a door supervisor was particularly commented on. 10 out of the 26 consultation respondents stated that a door supervisor with a physical disability would not be able to properly physically intervene. An additional comment by two consultation respondents was that someone with a physical disability would have difficulty responding in a timely manner to an incident.

30. Engagement participants had some similar views on physical disabilities, stating that a physical disability could limit someone’s ability to physically restrain an inebriated or violent person in a nightclub. However, they qualified these comments by noting that there are many situations in which fulfilling the role of a door supervisor does not require physical intervention and that only some door supervisors work in contexts in which physical intervention might be necessary. Four out of the ten focus group participants suggested stewarding as an example of such a role. Focus group and workshop participants felt that a disability might restrict some people from fulfilling every possible aspect of a door supervisor role. However, they felt it is often possible for the individual and their employer to work around this so that the individual can work while still meeting the overall door supervision requirements of the employer or client.

31. Related to this was a feeling among participants that, in many cases, a physical disability would not prevent someone from being an effective door supervisor as other strengths (e.g. effective communication and knowing how to diffuse a situation) could be used so that physical intervention would not be needed. They also suggested that disabled people who can communicate calmly and clearly to the public, but cannot demonstrate physical intervention skills, might be better suited to a licence associated with a lower-risk.

32. Participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement noted that individuals with

hearing and visual impairment often live very independent and active lives. However, they recognised that communication with the public is key to the role of a door supervisor, particularly with inebriated or aggressive customers. The participants in the workshop felt that whether a hearing or visual impairment limited someone’s ability to communicate with the public was partly dependent on the environment they work in and their other abilities. The example given was of a person with a hearing impairment who is good at lip reading and reading visual cues. They felt that this person would be able to effectively communicate in some door supervision contexts, but not in others. One of the respondents to the consultation made a similar point about lip reading and added that a door supervisor with a serious hearing impairment would be unable to hear a radio message or a fire alarm.


33. Two respondents to the consultation commented on visual impairments. One

stated that many venues are dark, full of smoke and have strobe lighting. They felt that this makes it hard for someone with a visual impairment to monitor events closely and respond appropriately, so potentially putting people at risk. The other respondent stated that a person with restricted sight could work as a door supervisor, but a blind person could not.

34. The six workshop participants felt that how a behavioural disability (e.g. Autism) will affect the ability of someone to fulfil the role of a door supervisor will depend on the situation and the person. However, they believed that some requirements of the role could potentially be more difficult for someone with a behavioural disability, including the ability to read body language and manage conflict calmly.

35. Several of the workshop participants related how people with cognitive

impairments (e.g. learning disabilities) had worked as door supervisors. Workshop participants felt that whether a cognitive impairment would impact on the ability of someone to work as a door supervisor would depend on the severity of the symptoms and whether reasonable adjustments could be made. The example was given of a person with learning disabilities who was training to become a door supervisor, but found it difficult to understand and learn the relevant codes. They were given additional time to learn the codes.

36. Workshop participants felt that a mental health issue would not impact on

someone’s ability to be a door supervisor if it was controlled and stable. Low mood and eating disorders were given as examples of mental health issues that were unlikely to have an impact. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was given as an example of something that could impact on the ability to fulfil the role because it could make it more difficult for someone to cope with, and respond appropriately to, a violent situation. They felt that the most important factor for other mental health issues (e.g. schizophrenia) is whether it is controlled by the individual, the venue, the employer and the team they work in. Workshop participants from the security industry stated that they had employed people with various mental health issues who could fulfil their role because they managed their conditions.

37. The workshop participants felt that a speech impairment was likely to affect the

ability to fulfil the role of a door supervisor in much the same way as a hearing impairment in terms of negatively affecting someone’s ability to communicate.

38. In addition, there was general agreement among all of the participants in the

Mott MacDonald engagement that a disability would be likely to affect someone’s confidence around their physical strength and that this might impact their ability to undertake this role.


39. A theme among the answers from consultation respondents was that

employing a disabled door supervisor would have wider (negative) impacts. For example, two respondents stated that the use of a disabled door supervisor would weaken the team they were a part of (presumably because the respondents believed that they would be unable to fully fulfil the door supervisor role). Another example was the comment from two respondents that a disabled door supervisor would not be able to give first aid or help vulnerable customers.

40. Participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement agreed that it is down to

individuals to decide whether their disability would affect their ability to complete this role. A viewpoint expressed in the focus group was that a disabled person should be able to recognise their own physical ability and, therefore, whether they would be appropriate for a door supervisor role. An example was given of a hidden impairment (sciatica) where the individual would know that this would limit their mobility and a door supervisor role would likely exacerbate the condition. As such, the individual would not consider a door supervision role appropriate for them. The feeling of the focus group participants was that individuals should be trusted to make these judgements themselves.

41. Some engagement participants noted the benefits of having disabled door

supervisors. They felt that a disabled door supervisor would be better at communicating with disabled people and this would make the venue they are guarding more accessible. It was also felt that the public might be less confrontational with a disabled door supervisor.


Q2: Should physical capability be part of the requirement to decide whether someone is fit and proper to be a door supervisor?

Answer Number of responses Percentage of total responses

Yes 26 76%

No 6 18%

Don’t know 2 6%

42. Slightly more than three-quarters of respondents believed that physical

capability should be part of the requirement to decide whether someone is fit and proper to be a door supervisor. This rises to 84.2% among respondents with a door supervisor licence (16 out of the 19 respondents with a door supervisor licence who answered this question). However, only two of the five respondents with a disability felt that physical capability should be part of the requirement.

76%

18%

6%

Yes No Don't know


Q3: Which of the options (on pages 17-20) would be the best way to assess whether someone is able to fulfil the role of a door supervisor? Q4: Please give your reasons for your answer to question 3.

Answer Number of responses

Percentage of total responses

Option 1 – demonstration of physical intervention skills

11 34%

Option 2 – demonstration of physical intervention skills and an additional test

12 38%

Option 3 – written test of physical intervention knowledge

2 6%

Option 4 – written test and a test of physical capability

6 19%

Don’t know 1 3%

Other 0 0

43. 32 of the respondents to the consultation document answered this question.

They overwhelmingly supported keeping the current approach of demonstrating physical intervention skills, with 72% of respondents supporting either Option 1 or 2. There was a fairly even split between those in favour of keeping the current approach unchanged (34% supporting Option 1) and those in favour of making the requirements harder by adding an additional test (38% supporting Option 2).

34%

38%

6%

19%

3%

0%

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Don't know Other


44. Support for the current approach was slightly higher among respondents to the consultation paper who have a door supervisor licence. A total of 14 (74%) out of the 19 respondents with a door supervisor licence who answered this question supported either Option 1 or Option 2. No respondents with door supervisor licences supported just doing a written test (Option 3).

45. 27 respondents gave reasons for their answers to question 3. Most of those in favour of Option 1 stated in one way or another that the current approach is the best means to ensure people know how to appropriately physically intervene and can do so safely (see chart).

37%

37%

0%

21%

5% 0%

RESPONDENTS WITH DOOR SUPERVISOR LICENCES

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Don't know Other


46. A couple of respondents explained that they felt that Option 1 is appropriate

because a disabled person is capable of doing this assessment. One respondent stated that a disabled person may be able to adapt how they physically intervene and so be able to demonstrate their capability during this test. Another respondent stated that a training provider can teach physical intervention techniques that are appropriate for a disabled person to use.

47. Several of the respondents who chose Option 2 felt that people taking a test

for a door supervision qualification should be assessed to a higher standard than they are currently in order to ensure public safety.

48. This clear support for the current approach notably contrasts with the concerns

raised by participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement. They felt that the current requirements negatively impact disabled people with a mobility impairment (amongst others) because they are less likely to be able to do a physical demonstration of skills. Participants felt that this is a barrier to employment because where the training cannot be completed, someone cannot get a door supervisor licence and so cannot legally work as a door supervisor. Participants felt that a consequence of this barrier is a loss of earnings because a disabled person who had a door supervisor licence prior to the introduction of the physical intervention training requirement would not be able to renew their licence after this requirement came in. The other reason suggested for a loss of earnings is that disabled people would have to take other roles in the private security industry and these could pay less than door supervision.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Only way to ensureunderstanding ofhow to physicallyintervene & canintervene safely

This ensures that thedoor supervisor can

protect themselves &others

Current approachworks

Knowing how tophysically interveneis not the same as

being able to put thisknowledge into

practice


49. Over half of these participants felt that this training could be too binary, i.e. it is either pass or fail. They felt that it should not be the case that someone who cannot complete one module in the training (e.g. Physical Intervention Skills) is not able to take part in any aspect of door supervision.

50. Engagement participants also felt that failing to demonstrate physical

intervention has the potential to knock someone’s confidence. Similar comments were made in relation to all of the options.

51. A couple of the engagement participants felt that a benefit of Option 2 is that it

clarifies the risks to door supervisors at the start of the process and so enables disabled people to make their own risk assessment about whether they are suitable for a door supervisor role.

52. Engagement participants raised issues about the idea of requiring people to do

a medical assessment (an aspect of Options 2 and 4). They felt that the medical professional doing this assessment would be likely to consider the worst scenario and be overly cautious in assessing whether someone is fit to be a door supervisor. Participants felt that these assessments were open to the biases of the medical professionals. They also felt that the cost of a medical assessment would be a barrier and that this would disproportionately impact disabled people as they tend to earn less than the general population. In addition, they felt that this financial barrier would be made higher by the need for some disabled people to get repeated medical certificates because their condition varies regularly.

53. Only one participant expressed support for the idea of self-declaration of a disability. They felt that this involved minimal cost and involved trusting individuals to correctly identify their own capabilities. However, another participant noted that this approach puts significant emphasis on individuals being honest and it would be difficult to verify the honesty of their declarations.

54. A quarter of respondents to the consultation were in favour either of just doing

a written test or the harder requirement of a written test as well as a test of physical capability. Only two respondents (6%) were in favour of the option that would involve no physical assessment of any sort (Option 3). Only one of these two gave their reasons for this answer - that whether someone is suitable should be decided by the employer.

55. Participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement felt that Option 3 had the fewest negative impacts on disabled people. They felt that in some cases the need for strong communication skills is a greater part of being a Door Supervisor than physical skills and that Option 3 tests those communication skills. However, workshop participants felt that people with dyslexia or a learning disability would find a written test more difficult and this could be a


barrier to these groups working as a door supervisor. They noted that reasonable adjustments could be made to mitigate this impact.

56. These engagement participants felt that their comments on the impacts of

Options 2 and 3 apply to Option 4 (a written test and a test of physical capability).

57. A couple of the respondents who selected Option 4 stated that they had chosen this option because it equates to what is currently done. This misunderstanding means that Option 1 has slightly more support than indicated by a simple reading of the answers.

58. Five of the six respondents to the consultation paper who have a disability

(see question 17) answered question 3. Their answers were fairly evenly split. Two were in favour of doing a written test (Option 3), two were in favour of keeping the current approach in some form (Options 1 and 2 both had one respondent in favour) and one did not know which option they were in favour of.

59. Mott MacDonald produced two charts summarising participants’ views of the

options. Both charts summarise views on the impacts of the options and set out the equality and public safety considerations for each option. The second chart also looks at how public safety and equality of opportunities can be balanced in the training requirements.

Option Equality considerations Safety considerations

Exclu

de

s t

hose w

ith

a

mo

bili

ty im

pairm

ent

from

em

plo

ym

ent

Loss o

f e

arn

ings f

or

those

w

ith

a m

ob

ility

imp

airm

ent

Loss o

f co

nfid

en

ce fo

r

those

with a

n

imp

airm

ent

Ba

rrie

rs t

o t

hose w

ith

ce

rta

in im

pairm

ent

beca

use

of th

e w

ritt

en

test

Co

st

imp

lica

tion

s

pla

ced

on

app

lica

nts

Impro

ved

cla

rity

of th

e

risks fo

r D

oor

Su

pe

rvis

ors

for

those

lookin

g t

o a

pp

ly

Po

ten

tia

l in

cre

ase in

risks to

pu

blic

safe

ty

and

Doo

r S

uperv

iso

r

sa

fety

1

2

3

4

Source: Mott MacDonald


Option Balancing public safety and equal opportunities

1 Demonstration of physical intervention skills (current approach)

It was acknowledged across engagement activities that disabled people will be excluded by this option, which could link to discrimination. One individual in the focus group commented that physical intervention skills are essential for the job of a door supervisor. Therefore, this individual felt that such a requirement was reasonable to maintain public safety. It was agreed by most of the stakeholders engaged with that this option is the most appropriate of the options put forward to meet the condition of maintaining public safety and equal opportunities, however there were still serious reservations about potential negative equality outcomes of this requirement for all licence applicants to have to demonstrate physical intervention skills. As such, if implemented it is recommended that measures are put in place to minimise the realisation of these impacts.

2 Demonstration of physical intervention skills and an additional test

Some stakeholders felt that this option was problematic, as the physical intervention requirement (option one) already presents a barrier to certain groups, and this option simply adds to the barriers for this area of employment. It was mentioned in the follow up interviews that additional tests focussed on the medical model of disability and did not pay enough attention to the fact that people might have other skills.

3 Written test of physical intervention knowledge

Despite the conclusions that this is the option with the fewest potential negative impacts for disabled people, there was also unanimous agreement across all engagement activities that this option wouldn’t be appropriate given the roles and responsibilities of a door supervisor as it wouldn’t test the skills required. Therefore, this option could increase the risks to public safety.

4 Written test and a test of physical capability

Similar to option three, attendees across all engagement activities agreed that this option does not provide the right level of assessment to ensure that those who gain a licence can protect the public.

Source: Mott MacDonald 60. The responses to the consultation paper and the findings of the Mott

MacDonald engagement exercise suggest that the current approach to assessing physical intervention skills manages to balance the need to protect public safety (by effectively assessing these skills) with the requirement to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. There are also indications that this approach is supported by those working in the private security industry and others. Although concerns were raised (particularly by disabled people) that this approach prevents some disabled people from completing the training, notable concerns about practical and equality issues were also raised about the other options. The implication seems to be that some people saw the current approach as the best option while others saw it as the least bad


option. Those who were concerned about the current approach set us a challenge of trying to mitigate any negative impacts it may have on disabled people.

Q5: Please provide any other comments and suggestions on how we can balance our responsibilities to protect public safety and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. 61. Although there was a wide variety in the exact nature of comments made by

respondents, there were a few commonalities in the answers. 62. Seven respondents commented that people wanting to work as a door

supervisor have to be physically able to protect the public, themselves and their colleagues. They stated that ensuring this should be the focus of regulation.

63. Several respondents suggested that the nature of individuals’ disabilities, their

abilities and the role they wanted to work in should be considered. 64. Eight respondents suggested that disabled people could work in the security

industry, but either not in door supervision roles or by undertaking only part of the full range of activities that a door supervisor might do.

65. Two respondents stated that it is the responsibility of training providers to

make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

66. Participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement work made suggestions for reducing negative impacts on disabled people. Mott MacDonald’s report acknowledged that we are not in direct control of implementing all of these suggestions. The report stated that responsibility instead sits with training providers, employers and other partners. It also stated that the engagement had highlighted that the responsibility for ensuring that door supervisors have the capabilities required to undertake their role should fall under the remit of the individual employer, rather than us. Participants felt that employers are best placed to undertake risk assessments of venues/events and to understand whether their door supervisors are likely to be working in situations which require physical intervention skills. However, it was suggested that we could include within the training specification requirements or advice that address the suggestions made by participants in order to promote equality of opportunity and improve outcomes.

67. These participants suggested that training materials should be in Easy Read

for people with learning disabilities. They also suggested that training be provided at the speed that a person needs to learn at. In addition, participants


suggested that a person might need one-to-one training rather than learning as part of a group. Participants also felt that training should be delivered in an inclusive way.

68. Participants suggested that, if there continues to be a physical demonstration requirement to the training, the opportunity to try to pass this should be given to everyone. They were concerned that under the current approach people with mobility and other disabilities would not be allowed to take the test as it would be assumed that they would not pass it.

69. Mott MacDonald reported that participants in the engagement stated that “it is

not discriminatory to say that an individual with an impairment can’t do a certain role and explain why.” A common comment from the workshop participants was that disabled people are keen not to apply for jobs where they would not feel confident about being able to meet the requirements. Therefore, individuals should be informed about the role of door supervisors before starting the process of trying to become a door supervisor so that they can make informed decisions about whether the role is for them. Mott MacDonald reported that this would help to reduce any employment barriers for disabled people.

70. Mott MacDonald also reported that the two most popular suggestions from

participants were aimed at mitigating the impact of a physical intervention requirement on disabled people. One was for different categories of door supervisor licence, with a grading for the licences based on the physical requirements for that category. The other suggestion was for different categories of venues, with the grading of venues based on a risk assessment on how likely physical intervention would be required. The idea behind these suggestions is that disabled person could obtain a door supervisor qualification without demonstrating physical intervention skills, but this would mean that they would either (a) only be able to apply for a licence that would have a condition on it requiring them to not physically intervene or (b) only work at venues or events at which there was a low chance of physical intervention being required.

71. A further, related suggestion related to the idea of a medical test of physical capability (Options 2 and 4). Participants suggested that disabled people could opt out of doing this medical test and then apply for a licence that would require them not to engage in physical intervention.


Q6: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal (on pages 22-23) to require new and existing close protection licence holders to successfully complete physical intervention training if they work in door supervision?

Please give your reasons for your answer to this question.


Agree 26 81%

Disagree 4 13%

Don’t know 2 6%

72. A clear majority of respondents agreed with the proposal. This majority was

even higher among respondents with a door supervisor licence, with 18 (94.73%) out of these 19 respondents in favour.

73. Four out of the six respondents with close protection licences were in favour of

the proposal. Unfortunately, it is not really possible to draw any conclusion on the basis of these responses due to the small number of close protection licence holders who responded.

74. The most common reason given for agreeing with this proposal was that

respondents felt that the current situation is an anomaly and that close protection operatives and door supervisors should do the same training if they are doing the same work.

81%

13%

6%

Agree Disagree Don't know


75. A related comment was that close protection and door supervision require

different skills and knowledge. Therefore, close protection operatives need to do door supervisor training in order to work as a door supervisor.

76. Some respondents explicitly stated that the training requirements need to

change in order to ensure public safety. 77. One of the people who disagreed with the proposal stated that close protection

operatives are already highly trained and that adopting this proposal would add to the costs in time and money they have to pay. Another seemed to be coming from the same perspective when they suggested that there “should be only one cost for both.”

78. Two people raised concerns about the fairness of requiring experienced close

protection operatives to do additional training. Q7: Are there any ways that the proposal to require close protection licence holders to do further physical intervention training might impact on people with protected characteristics (e.g. disability, race, gender) that you feel we should consider? 79. 25 consultation respondents answered this question. Ten of these stated that

this proposal will not impact people with protected characteristics. Six respondents stated that it would have an impact on disabled people.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CP and DS requiredifferent skills and

knowledge

It's needed to ensurepublic safety

They should both have thesame training to do the

same work

Other


80. Three respondents stated that the standards should be applied equally to

everyone, regardless of their protected characteristics. Two respondents stated that protected characteristics should not count against someone and a further two stated that someone’s race and gender have no bearing on their ability to be a door supervisor.

81. All of the participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement agreed that close

protection licence holders need physical intervention skills. They felt that, in many cases, it is more important for them to have these skills than door supervisors.

82. The workshop participants explained that most employers already expect

close protection licence holders to have physical intervention skills, despite this not being a requirement of a close protection licence. They therefore felt that there are unlikely to be many close protection licence holders who are not already able to demonstrate physical intervention skills. For these reasons, these participants felt that there will be no additional impacts on disabled people from this proposal (over and above the impacts that had been identified by the rest of the Mott MacDonald engagement work).

62%

38%

No impact on disabled people It will impact disabled people


Q8: Are you answering on behalf of a business that employs people with close protection licences or door supervisors? If you answer yes to this question, please answer questions 9 to 11.


Yes 7 23%

No 25 77%

83. The low number of private security businesses responding to this consultation

means that it is not possible to draw conclusions about their views.

23%

77%

Yes No


Q9: Would a change that required close protection licence holders to undertake further physical intervention training in order to operate as a door supervisor increase your costs?


Yes 1 12%

No 7 88%

84. The low number of responses to this question means that it is not possible to

draw conclusions on the impact on businesses of this proposal. Q10: Please estimate how much (in £) the increase in costs might be. Q11: Please explain how you have calculated the estimate of increased costs. 85. The respondent who stated that this change would increase their costs

estimated that this increase would be £800 due to the need to run in-house training courses. It is not possible to draw conclusions from a single response.

12%

88%

Yes No


Q12: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal (on pages 23-24) to enable us to make changes to training requirements between a licence being granted and it being renewed - if the change is in the public interest and proportionate?


Agree 23 74%

Disagree 6 19%

Don’t know 2 7%

86. Nearly three-quarters of respondents agreed with this proposal, with less than

a quarter disagreeing. Q13: Please provide any other comments or suggestions that you have. 87. 14 respondents answered this question. Several offered suggestions for how

to improve SIA accredited training. For example, one suggested that the safety awareness module of the door supervision qualification should become a standard part of the close protection course. Another suggested refresher training on physical intervention every 12 months should be required. A further respondent suggested that a close protection operative who has previously held a door supervisor licence should not be required to do physical intervention training if they do door supervision. This is because they would already have done this training.

74%

19%

7%

Agree Disagree Don't know


88. One respondent commented that it seems to be one training specification to fit

all people and that it is not recognised that different people have different abilities and that different jobs require different abilities. They suggested that the ability of people to do a job should be measured by employers against the requirements for that job.

89. One respondent stated that disabled door supervisors would reassure the

public that door supervision is not all about physical intervention, but is about keeping everyone safe. They also stated that it would make door supervisors more approachable. The respondent accepted that having a disabled door supervisor might cause a problem in situations such as a fire. However, they suggested this could be addressed by door supervisors without a disability helping and employers putting disabled door supervisors in positions where they could assist in these situations (e.g. working on the ground floor only).

Q14: Do you hold a current SIA licence?


Yes 25 81%

No 6 19%

90. A clear majority of respondents hold a current SIA licence.

81%

19%

Yes No


91. Three of the five respondents who stated that they have a disability and answered this question said that they hold a current SIA licence. Unfortunately, that there were so few of these respondents makes it impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from these responses.

Q15: If you hold a licence issued by the SIA, please indicate which licence/s you hold –



Cash and Valuables in Transit 0 0

Close Protection 7 18%

Door Supervision 20 53%

Key Holding 0 0

Public Space Surveillance (CCTV) 8 21%

Security Guarding 2 5%

Vehicle Immobilisation 0 0

Non-front line 1 3%

92. The focus of this consultation on door supervision would suggest that people

with a door supervisor licence would be the single biggest group of

0%

18%

53%

0%

21%

5% 0%

3%

CVIT Close Protection Door Supervision

Key Holding CCTV Security Guarding

Vehicle Immobilisation Non-front line


respondents and this was borne out by the fact that half of the licence holders who responded to this question had a door supervisor licence.

93. The percentage of respondents with a door supervisor licence was 53% and this roughly corresponds to the percentage of active door supervisor licences in existence (approximately 57% of all active licences were door supervisor licences as of April 2017).

94. There is no obvious reason why the next largest group of licence holders would be those holding a public space surveillance (CCTV) licence, just ahead of those with close protection licences. The level of responses from people with public space surveillance (CCTV) licences (21%) was also notably higher than the proportion of these licences that are active (approximately 13% of all active licences as of April 2017). This implies a disproportionately high response rate from public space surveillance (CCTV) licence holders.

95. The response rate from close protection licence holders was also disproportionately high. Only approximately 4% of active licences (as of April 2017) are close protection licences, yet the proportion of respondents with one of these licences was 18%.

96. While it is useful that the consultation has caught the views of door supervisor and close protection licence holders, the small number of licence holders means that it is not possible to draw robust, general conclusions about the views of particular types of licence holders.

97. One observation that can be made (by comparing the answers to this question

with the answers to question 17) is that there are disabled people with door supervisor licences. Three respondents who stated that they have a disability also stated that they have a current door supervisor licence. An implication of this may be that the current system is not a bar to disabled people obtaining a door supervisor licence.

98. None of the disabled respondents stated that they have a close protection

licence, but three said that they have a public space surveillance (CCTV) licence and one said that they have a security guarding licence.

99. Another observation is that it is possible that some close protection licence

holders will not be affected by the proposed changes because they also hold door supervisor licences and so will already have done physical intervention training. Of the seven respondents who said that they had a close protection licence, four said that they also have a door supervision licence.


Q16: Do you represent any of the following organisations?



Security Industry Business 12 31%

Training Provider 4 10%

Awarding Body 3 8%

Advocacy Group 1 3%

Non-Governmental Organisation 2 5%

None 13 33%

Other 4 10%

100. Roughly a third of respondents stated that they represented a security

industry business. It is interesting to note that more respondents stated that they represent a private security business in answer to this question (12 respondents) than stated that they represent a private security business in answer to question 8 (7 respondents). This may be because question 8 asked the more specific question of whether they represented a business employing people with close protection and/or door supervisor licences.

101. About another third stated that they represented none of the organisations

listed. It is likely that these respondents were individual licence holders and other interested individuals responding on their own behalf.

31%

10%

8%3%5%

33%

10%

SI Business Training Provider Awarding Body Advocacy Group

NGO None Other


102. Only five respondents (18% of the total) represented organisations working

in the training field, either as training providers or awarding bodies. This is disappointing considering the focus of this consultation and makes it hard to draw conclusions on the views of those involved in training.

103. Only one trade body responded to the consultation. Q17: Do you have a disability?


Yes 6 19%

No 25 81%

104. The small number of respondents with a disability makes it hard to draw

conclusions on the views of disabled people about the issues in the consultation. Some observations and indications from the answers of respondents with a disability have been noted above.

19%

81%

Yes No


Q18: Are you answering on behalf of an individual who has a disability?


Yes 1 3%

No 30 97%

105. Only one respondent was answering on behalf of someone with a disability.

This is too small a number to be able to draw any conclusions.

Conclusions 106. It is hard to draw definitive conclusions from the small number of responses

to the consultation and the small number of people that participated in the engagement run by Mott MacDonald. At best, the information and views obtained through this public consultation indicate what licence holders, private security businesses and disabled people think about the issues. They also provide ideas and pose questions that we need to consider. At worst, the response rate was so low in relation to particular groups that little that is meaningful can be concluded from the information obtained. It is the more meaningful indications, ideas and suggestions that we can draw some limited conclusions from, particularly those drawn from general trends and themes in the answers.

3%

97%

Yes No


107. In particular, there was a strong recognition throughout that circumstances shape whether and/or how a disabled person can fulfil the role of a door supervisor. These circumstances included the nature of the disability or disabilities, the job being undertaken and whether the employer was able to take steps to support a disabled door supervisor. Unfortunately, there were few suggestions about how our licensing regime could be changed to take account of the complex circumstances and differences that were highlighted without licensing becoming overly complex, over-reaching itself (e.g. by prescribing how employers manage the licence holders they employ) or insufficiently minimising risks.

108. This conundrum is shown by considering the comments made around physical disabilities. A notable number of respondents and the participants in the Mott MacDonald engagement felt a physical disability would limit or stop someone from physically intervening to protect themselves and/or others. However, there were other respondents who felt that someone with a physical disability could protect the public in particular situations. In addition, the engagement participants felt that there are some situations in which door supervisors do not need to use physical intervention skills and so an inability to physically intervene would not be an issue. They noted that someone with a physical disability could be an effective door supervisor by using communication and de-escalation skills. What was clear from these comments, and comments on other disabilities, is that there are some scenarios in which a disabled door supervisor would not be able to protect the public, themselves and their colleagues. However, there will be other scenarios in which a disabled door supervisor could do their job effectively and ensure public safety. The challenge for a regulator such as ourselves is how our regulation can enable scenarios in which disabled door supervisors can protect the public while preventing scenarios in which disabled door supervisors are unable to protect the public. The more multiple factors are considered (e.g. type of physical disability, severity of this disability, risks of a particular venue), the more our regulation might give more consideration to each person’s circumstances, but the more complex and costly the regulation is likely to become.

109. A key point made by the engagement participants was that disabled people

best know their own abilities and should be able to decide whether and/or how their disability will affect their ability to work as a door supervisor. Taking this approach would empower individuals and would involve us as a regulator placing a lot of trust in those we regulate. The challenge for us is how this approach might be used without opening up opportunities for individuals to risk public safety either by exercising poor judgment in deciding whether they are capable or by abusing the system.


110. In some ways, this approach of letting individuals decide is the antithesis of the approach of making some test of physical capability a requirement in deciding whether someone is fit and proper. The idea of letting individuals decide was predominantly supported by the disabled people who participated through the Mott MacDonald engagement. Support for a test of physical capability was predominantly supported by consultation respondents. They had a notably higher proportion of people working in the private security industry than those who participated in the Mott MacDonald engagement.

111. This division was largely reflected in views on the options for assessing whether someone is able to fulfil the role of a door supervisor. Consultation respondents mostly preferred the current approach while engagement participants raised concerns that this approach could be discriminatory. However, when practical and public safety considerations were considered, most people felt that the current approach was the most appropriate option because it achieves the best balance between equality and safety. The consultation also indicated a lack of a suitable alternative to the current approach. Notable issues were identified with the other options, with people feeling that they either failed to sufficiently test people (and so risked public safety) and/or contained too much scope for limiting the opportunities of disabled people. This suggests that the current approach is predominantly seen as either the best option or as the least bad option.

112. We have therefore decided to keep our current approach of testing physical intervention skills and knowledge through a physical demonstration. Our current approach is the best way of assessing whether someone is able to protect themselves and others when working as a door supervisor. It also the most effective and viable means of balancing our responsibilities to protect public safety and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. This means that there will be no changes to the training specification for the door supervisor qualification.

113. The other issue considered by the consultation was our proposal for how to require new and existing close protection licence holders to successfully complete physical intervention training if they work in door supervision. The results indicate support for this proposal and few concerns were raised about it.

Next steps

114. The challenges we now face are how to:

a) mitigate any potential negative impacts on disabled people that arise through the current approach; and


b) ensure that those disabled people who are potentially capable of passing the assessment for the door supervisor qualification are enabled to try to obtain this qualification.

115. The Mott MacDonald report summarises participants’ suggestions on how to

do this and how we can meet our obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Summary Recommendation Considering circumstances for training

Everyone’s circumstances should be considered when setting training. If an option with a physical requirement aspect is implemented (either option one or two), this should be offered to everyone to give everyone the opportunity of passing. Assumptions should not necessarily be made in advance about the physical ability of individuals.

Clear explanation of the role

Individuals should be clearly informed about the full spectrum of roles of a door supervisor at the start of the application to inform their decision making about whether it is an occupation that they would like to pursue, and allow a more informed opinion to be made.

Licence grading / two-tier system

If the SIA chooses to implement a blanket physical intervention requirement for all door supervisor licences (option one or option two), then some disabled people will be clearly excluded, which could link to discrimination. The two most popular comments suggested were: 1) Different categories of licence (grading based on the physical requirement for that category), and 2) Different categories of venues (again, graded by risk assessment of physical intervention requirement).

Phased licensing It was suggested that the negative impacts of the proposal for an additional health test could be mitigated through a phased approach to licensing; thereby those with an impairment could apply for a licence where the requirement for passing the module is removed. This could apply to options two and four.

Accessible materials Any written information would need to be accessible for those with different impairments. This is particularly applicable to options three and four.

Source: Mott MacDonald 116. We have carefully considered these suggestions. We will take forward the

suggestions that make it more likely that disabled people who can physically demonstrate physical intervention skills (with or without a training provider making reasonable adjustments) are able to obtain a door supervisor qualification and (subject to obtaining a door supervisor licence) obtain a door supervisor job. These are the suggestions that are also within our remit, the


most practical and that promote equality of opportunity without risking public safety.

117. To help the current approach work efficiently and effectively, we will issue guidance that explains the function of the door supervisor training, the nature of licensing and our role as a regulator. It will also set out the what we expect should happen when a disabled person requests to take door supervisor training and how disabled people can be helped to do this training. This will include setting out our expectation that training providers will meet their legal obligations by providing accessible training materials. In addition, this guidance will summarise employers’ legal responsibilities in relation to employees with disabilities. It will make clear that it is their role to determine whether reasonable adjustments can be made to enable someone to do a particular job or work activity. This guidance will also explain to employers the benefits of deploying disabled door supervisors in some circumstances.

118. This guidance will pull into one place existing guidance and good practice as well as addressing any gaps that may exist in that guidance. We will work with relevant stakeholders to develop this guidance.

119. We are going to take forward and expand the suggestion that we issue information on the role of a door supervisor at the start of the process of becoming one so that disabled people can make informed decisions. We will issue information on the nature of all of the regulated roles in the private security industry so that disabled people are aware of the opportunities available to them. In this way, we will encourage disabled people to seek employment in the private security industry and give them the information they need to seek employment that is suitable to their skills and abilities.

120. The suggestions to create a different type/category of door supervisor licence or to categorise venues will not be taken forward as they would create risks to public safety. Implementing either of these suggestions would result in the deployment of door supervisors who had not successfully completed the physical intervention module. They would therefore be unable to physically intervene to protect themselves, colleagues and/or members of the public. Although it is possible that these door supervisors might only be deployed in lower risk situations, there are no door supervisor situations that involve absolutely no possibility that physical intervention will not be required. There is also a risk that these door supervisors might be deployed in higher risk situations for reasons of their employer’s expediency or because of poor risk assessment.

121. To try to minimise the risks to public safety if these suggestions were implemented, we could put conditions on these licences requiring holders of these licences not to physically intervene. However, this might create difficult


conundrums and undesirable outcomes. This can be demonstrated by considering the scenario of a member of the public being assaulted when the only person in a position to intervene was one of these door supervisors. In this scenario, this licence holder would have to decide whether the right thing to do is to intervene, and risk losing their licence, or not intervene and risk someone coming to harm. If a licence holder did physically intervene in such a situation, we would be compelled to consider regulatory action against them for breaching their licence conditions. A licence holder losing their licence because of actions intended to save someone from serious harm could be seen as a morally questionable regulatory outcome. Alternatively, if this licence holder did not intervene, then it could be argued that the licence holder and the SIA are morally culpable for the harm the member of the public suffered. Questions around the legal liability of the licence holder and their employer might also arise.

122. A further issue is that there would be a risk that people without disabilities would use this approach to obtain a door supervisor licence in order to avoid demonstrating physically intervention skills. They might do this to save time or because they lack the competence to otherwise get the qualification.

123. We are now working to implement the requirement for close protection licence holders to successfully complete physical intervention training if they work in door supervision.

124. We would like to thank everyone who participated in this consultation process.

report on the sia public consultation on physical intervention and … · 2019-12-13 · who can...

Documents