Enforcing the law

From Monday 20 March, it has been illegal to work as - or to supply - a contracted-in security officer in England and Wales without a licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA) or a Licence Dispensation Notice.

That applies equally to individuals working in the security guarding, Public Space Surveillance CCTV, close protection and Cash-in-Transit sectors. Those door supervisors operational at licensed premises and places of regulated entertainment needed a licence to be so from 11 April last year.

What, then, is the immediate situation post-deadline? Has there already been a massive shakedown of the industry's status quo? And what is being done to enforce the law of the land in the short term?

As of 22 March, approximately 79,000 security officers are now able to work lawfully - including 24,000 deployed under the Terms and Conditions of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). By mid-April, the SIA estimates that 55,000 security officers will have their licences, a figure that should rise to 76,000 come the end of May.

The estimated licensable population of security officers (covering security, CCTV, close protection and Cash-in-Transit) is 120,000. Pleasingly, 115,00 of those officers have now completed their training. The SIA has received 85,000 licence applications, and 42,500 officers who applied have taken possession of their ‘badge of operation'. The average number of applications currently being received by the Regulator is in the region of 4,000 per week.

The Regulator's licensing system - including linkages to the Criminal Records Bureau - has a robust processing capacity of around 12,000 applications per month. Capacity was doubled of late to handle up to 24,000 applications. The normal (average) six-week turnaround from application to licence is currently taking an average of 12 weeks due to that last-minute rush. That's a temporary situation, though, and the SIA fully expects the accumulation of applications to have been processed and dealt with inside eight-to-ten weeks of the deadline.

Tackling the law breakers

In the short term, the industry is wondering what the enforcement approach is going to be like in the real world. If those intent upon deliberately flouting the law are not punished for doing so, what was the point of instigating regulation and an ACS?

According to the SIA's web site, some (or all) of the following factors will be taken into account when the Regulator decides what action to take against a security company:

• the time elapsed since the activity became licensable;
• the progress an individual has made towards attaining a licence (ie training completed and licence applications submitted);
• whether an individual already holds a licence for another licensable sector;
• the progress a company has made towards attaining licensed status for members of its workforce (focusing on, for example, the proportion of staff licensed, trained and who have submitted an application);
• the current licensing processing time, and the size of any build-up of applications being held by the Regulator;
• the availability of training to achieve the qualification for licensing;l previous encounters with - or warnings given by - the SIA.

Security Management Today (SMT) has insisted - on several occasions - that the SIA licence and Approved Contractor Scheme membership are rendered meaningless without rigorous and regular enforcement. Within its ‘Enforcement Policy: Code of Practice', the SIA encompasses a range of sanctions for non-compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Prosecution is not the preferred option but, according to the Regulator, it will indeed "prosecute when [we think it is] justified".

It has been reported that some security companies are claiming to have agreed a ‘special arrangement' with the SIA allowing them to deploy unlicensed operatives. The Regulator has been quick to point out that no such agreement exists with any company. Andy Drane - the SIA's deputy chief executive - told SMT: "Not only would that be unethical and unprofessional, but the SIA has no authority or power to enter into any such agreement. Our approach applies equally to all."

While being forced into making allowances for some security companies that have blatantly sat on their hands and ignored their duties to the industry and the client base, the SIA simply must begin to show the teeth it partially exposes in the ‘Enforcement Policy: Code of Practice'. If a maximum penalty fine - fixed at Level 5 - of £5,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months is found to be warranted, then so be it. Examples must be made of those who would seek to discredit their own sector by deliberate non-compliance with the law.

Such opinion must be balanced, however, with the views of those contractors who feel the industry has been let down by the Regulator and the Home Office. Those same contractors are aggrieved that the SIA is seen to be blaming its processing backlog on them. As we have stated, far too many service providers have been slow off the mark, to say the very least, but there is a perception in some quarters that the Regulator has been bureaucratic, that there has been little support and a continual need to chase up not only SIA-approved trainers but also the certificate awarding body and the SIA itself.

A sense of realism

Former senior military police officer Frank Quigley, a director of medium-sized contractor Guarding (UK), is a dissenting voice. He told SMT: "What is needed here is a sense of realism. The SIA must understand the problems we are encountering as suppliers, particularly the smaller and medium-sized companies, and offer a superior support service.

"In the main, security officers are honest, reliable and above reproach. However, many of them are now in danger of losing their jobs, or have already lost them. The companies employing them need help, better guidance and encouragement, not threats from investigators through Operation Forewarn."

Quigley added: "We all agree that training and certification is desirable, but let's be realistic about the timescales. We need to manage and enhance the reputation of this industry, but at the moment we are in danger of losing public confidence."

At the other end of the spectrum, Douglas Greenwell - marketing director at major supplier G4S Security Services (UK) - has little sympathy with those who have not complied on or before the due date. "It was all about preparedness," he said. "The dates and profiles for licensing were set by the SIA a long time ago and have been communicated on many, many occasions. For that, the SIA cannot be faulted."

However, Greenwell is less praiseworthy in relation to the ACS. "In some ways, we are disappointed with the ACS," he sighed. "The whole process has been somewhat tortuous and long-winded. That wasn't the SIA's fault. Rather, the Regulator was caught out by Home Office procedures. There's no doubt that we must have the Approved Contractor Scheme in place. It's vital as a guide for clients."

Although Greenwell feels the SIA could have "been a bit smarter" with its contingency planning for February and March, he stated: "The Regulator is not there to manage the inefficiencies of others."

Insurers play their part

As SMT has often stated, the insurance sector also has an important role to play here. In what is a partially positive move, Darwin Clayton (UK) has advised its clients of the company's view of the world post-20 March.

The insurer's statement reads: "There is an immediate need to advise our clients regarding the effect licensing will have on their insurances. There have been difficulties and issues over licensing and the Approved Contractor Scheme of which we are all aware, and it seems likely that many, many officers will be operating on Licensing Day without licences. Ordinarily, we would anticipate that, at renewal, the insurance we arrange would include a condition demanding compliance with SIA licensing requirements."

The next part of the statement is either positive or negative, practical or weak. "That said, in view of the current situation your insurer, the NIG, has agreed not to impose any such condition for the time being."

The statement continues with a more robust line: "However, as insurances fall due, you will be asked the following questions regarding licensing: are you approved under the SIA's Approved Contractor Scheme? Have you applied to become an Approved Contractor? If the answers to these questions are in the negative, are your officers licensed or have they all applied for licences?

"Underwriters will require affirmative answers to one of these questions. The warranty requiring vetting to BS 7858 will continue to be a policy requirement."

Just in case any end users of contract guarding are still in the dark, businesses that allow unlicensed officers to work at their premises could risk invalidating critical insurance protection and incur significant financial liabilities. Insurers may choose to ignore claims in the event of fire, theft and/or criminal damage on site. If you still haven't addressed this situation, do so. Now.