Guarding Watch

The SIA Compliance Approach

Five months after licensing became compulsory for most operatives in the security guarding sector, industry practitioners (and their clients) are entitled to ask: “What is the Security Industry Authority (SIA) doing about those who didn’t step up to the mark?”

It’s a fair question given the financial and managerial investment made by companies and individuals that embraced regulation from the word ‘Go’ without hesitation. It’s also fair because part of the licence fee is spent on meeting the costs arising from the Regulator’s compliance activities.

I’m confident that many of Security Management Today’s (SMT) readers know exactly what the SIA is doing, and how effective we’ve been. The people who know are those leading or working for security suppliers and whom we’ve targeted with actions ranging from advice through improvement notices to evidence gathering that could support a criminal prosecution. Also ‘in the know’ are customers of security suppliers who have found that their service provider is being targeted by the SIA and can no longer meet their needs. As a result, they have chosen to re-tender at very short notice.

Last but not least are the compliant security suppliers who have won new business from customers that the non-compliant suppliers can no longer support. Market sources tell us that, since 20 March, millions of pounds worth of business has changed hands in this way.

For a variety of commercial or self-interest reasons – and, in some cases, embarrassment – the people who have been affected by the Regulator’s actions, and know what we’ve been doing, don’t necessarily talk about it.

The compliance approach

I have overall responsibility within the SIA for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. To help me achieve that goal, I have a Head Office Intelligence Team in place, as well as a network of investigators across England and Wales. Just like anyone else involved in law enforcement, I don’t have as much resource as I would like. That being the case, we have to work in a smart way and, as I often say, continually ‘punch well above our weight’.

We do that primarily through an intelligence-led approach, analysing the wide range of information we gather and by developing collated intelligence to guide and target our actions.

What does that mean in the real world? Well, if my Compliance Team is in touch with a supplier, it will most likely be for a reason (although of course we may not always show ‘all the cards we have’). The upside of this approach is that suppliers who are compliant – and, therefore, not the Regulator’s No1 priority – don’t receive unnecessary attention. That fits exactly with the principles of good (and better) regulation.

I’m realistic enough to recognise that there are still likely to be suppliers operating under our radar, but the space available for them to do so is becoming smaller by the day as our intelligence network expands.

To be perfectly honest, the private security industry itself is our best source of information, but customers too are increasingly becoming an important disseminating body for us.

SIA: joining forces with Crimestoppers on ‘whistle blowing’

In addition to our own investigators, over 1,000 local authority officers and non-sworn police staff have sought – and been granted – powers of inspection under the Terms and Conditions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001

We have just enhanced the opportunities for ‘whistle blowing’ by partnering with Crimestoppers. This is a 24/7 service operated by people expert in dealing with anonymous callers, and in assessing the source and value of information. Something of a reassurance, then, to those who feel the need for a buffer between their supply of information and the SIA. We are, of course, delighted to receive any relevant information directly by e-mail to: info@the-sia.org.uk

Partnering with Crimestoppers is also a useful reminder that failing to comply with the licensing requirements is a crime, not an administrative misdemeanour.

It has been a shock for some players in the industry who have been invited to police stations to be interviewed on tape, and to have their customers approached for witness statements. These are the basic features of a criminal investigation.

I recently had an odd conversation with a customer who was initially reluctant to provide a witness statement, and felt the need to check with the supplier we were investigating. I asked whether they would follow the same approach for someone committing a different crime, such as stealing from them!

However, most customers are supportive, partly because of their corporate social responsibility, but also through disappointment at having been thoroughly let down by their own supplier(s).

Another important strand of the Regulator’s compliance approach is our relationship building with partners such as the police, local authorities, the Department of Work & Pensions, Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the Home Office. We regularly share information to support our joint aims.

In addition to our own investigators, over 1,000 local authority officers and non-sworn police staff have sought – and been granted – powers of inspection under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (sworn police officers have sufficient powers of their own, of course). This also helps us to ‘punch above our weight’.

Proportionate and responsible

While I want industry practitioners to know that we can be tough and effective, I also want them to know that we aim to be proportionate and responsible. We want to be judged by the level of compliance with the law, not how many people we prosecute.

Prosecution is but one of the options available to us. It is the most resource intensive and expensive option for everybody, and so usually it will be the last resort when other options have failed (or are deemed likely to fail). Our first instinct with a non-compliant company is to help it become compliant.

We always make it abundantly clear that we expect people to comply with the law at all times. By the same token, the use of discretion in determining what action to take is well-established in all forms of law enforcement. When we make our enforcement decisions, we need to take account of the operating environment both of the regulated contractor and the Regulator. Our web site lists the kinds of mitigating factors that we will take into account. These are not excuses for law-breaking, but they might guide our action.

We cannot escape the fact that there are still too many licence applications in progress, and that each application is taking much longer than both ourselves and the industry would want. We know the reasons for this – too many applications being made too late, which then stretched the application process way beyond its design capacity – but we are where we are. The delays in the process must be part of that operating environment that we take into consideration.

So how are we doing?

There are several investigations and lines of enquiry that, over the coming weeks and months, could lead to – among other things – criminal prosecutions being initiated and the directors of security companies having their personal licences revoked

Having set out what I hope SMT’s readers will view as an intelligent and measured approach, that still leaves the ‘So what?’ question to be answered... Is it working? Remember... It’s the level of compliance that matters, not the actions we take.

In the middle of last month, five months after licensing became compulsory for most sectors, over 76% of those we estimate need a licence have a licence. We know how many acceptable applications are in the system, and so we can guess that within weeks that figure will stand at 95%. Of course, we have to make some allowance for licensed people leaving the industry and our 2006-2007 targets duly take account of that churn.

At least one commentator has suggested that we have under-estimated the licensable population. We cannot guarantee that we haven’t, but we are confident that we arrived at our estimate through the best industry sources available at the time. The figures are based on those in the industry that are licensable, which isn’t necessarily the same as the total number who work in the industry.

We haven’t yet seen any convincing arguments that our estimate is wrong, but it would have to be seriously wrong to undermine what is, overall, a positive picture.

Although the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is voluntary, it has attracted a sizeable proportion of the industry. While the number of Approved Contractors as a proportion of all is low (233 out of an estimated 2,500 companies as of mid-August), it is worth noting that 43% of the estimated licensable population work for Approved Contractors. There’s no room for complacency, however, and there is still much hard work to be done.

Five months in, though, that’s quite an achievement. One delivered by a largely supportive industry and the Regulator.

Time for some visible action

In SMT’s August edition, ISS Security Group owner and managing director Paul Cassie argued that the time has come for the SIA “to bare its teeth and make regulatory enforcement its top priority” (‘Time for you to act, SIA!’, Guarding Watch, ). Paul also pressed for highly visible enforcement actions. I fully appreciate his concerns, and hope I have gone some way towards reassuring him – and others in the industry – that we are taking these issues very seriously.

As I argued at the beginning of this article, our actions have been highly visible to those directly affected by them. Due to the rules and constraints under which we operate, visibility will not always be obvious or quick. There are several investigations and lines of enquiry that, over the coming weeks and months, could lead to – among other things – criminal prosecutions being initiated, the directors of security companies having their personal licences revoked and Approved Contractors having their ACS status withdrawn and/or their licensing dispensation suspended.

We will give such publicity to these actions as allowed within the rules, so the message is very much: ‘Watch this space’.

At present, we have two top operational priorities – processing the current high volumes of licence applications, and ensuring regulatory compliance. Both are receiving as much attention as we can afford. Shortly, once the licensing process is operating normally, we will only have one priority.

I cannot promise that the SIA will eliminate non-compliance with the law anymore than the police can say they’ll eliminate burglaries, or speeding on our roads. However, I am acutely aware that the SIA’s longer-term reputation rests on the industry having confidence in our ability to make the compliance regime not only credible but also effective.