So much for good intentions

After three years of widespread consultation, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) – with the support of the industry – made a commitment to introduce licensing for security officers (other than door supervisors). The challenge of licensing 120,000 individuals before 20 March 2006 was never going to be an easy one. Nonetheless, we ensured that the necessary training was in place well in advance, that the licence application processing systems were ready and – at the request of the industry – that a bulk application process was available to help contractors licence large numbers of staff.

Key to ensuring a smooth implementation was the assurance from a responsible industry that it would play its part. In reality, this meant working with us over a 14-month period to phase-in private sector licensing and thus help minimise the impact on their ability to resource contractual commitments.

To this end, most of the industry’s contractors gave a commitment to submit an agreed number of applications every month from April 2005 onwards.

A few contractors have responded to the challenge and met their obligations. They are demonstrating their willingness to provide a fully-licensed workforce but, sadly, the majority of the industry has failed in its duty. The gap is now beginning to grow between those companies on track and those that are not. In which group does your company reside?

120,000 licence applications spread over a 14-month period would result in around 8,000 applications being processed each month. That represents a sensible, attainable and manageable figure. More importantly, perhaps, it is a figure the industry not only told us it could meet, but is also one that it committed to achieving. This commitment was designed to avoid the difficulties that we are now facing. Much of the industry has planned and managed the situation poorly. As a result, the troubles being experienced have been discovered far too late in the process.

So where are we now?

Nine months into the licence application procedure, the SIA has issued 81,000 application packs, while 48,063 individuals hold the qualifications necessary to make them eligible to apply. The deeply worrying reality is that, as of 12 October, the SIA had received and accepted a meagre 16,277 application forms. 9,093 licences have been granted, and 117 refused.

It’s not even necessary to do the sums in order to realise that there is a huge problem brewing. By now, the industry should have delivered on its commitment to provide us with well over 40,000 licence applications, and yet we are more than 23,000 applications short of that target figure. This massive shortfall leaves our licensing processing capabilities grossly under-utilised.

On more than one occasion, we have made it abundantly clear that our systems will not be able to handle a last-minute wave of 100,000 applications in the final months before the deadline. If a mass of applications arrive, the inevitable backlog we have spent two years in trying to avoid will be realised. It’s a backlog that could take months to resolve.

Errors cause extra delays

The problem is further compounded by the fact that too many applications are being incorrectly completed. Sometimes as many as 50% have to be rejected as being unsuitable for processing. This reduces the capacity of the licensing system, and could lead to longer processing times. Making sure that the application form is right first time benefits all.

There have been a number of common errors that can easily be avoided with a little more care and attention. For example, some forms haven’t been completed in black ink and so cannot be scanned, while illegible forms are common. Applicants should use capital lettering throughout. In addition, not striking out errors properly can invalidate the criminal records check, while also adding three-to-four weeks to the application process. Any failure to complete mandatory fields – including the criminal record section, mental health section and the applicant declaration itself – will result in an application being rejected.

Insufficient supporting documents and inadmissible documents have also caused us many a headache. Often, there is not the right combination of A/B types, and no document to show either date of birth or current address. Non-original birth certificates are Group B documents. Only an original certificate issued within 12 months of birth will be accepted as a Group A document.

Sending through documents that we have not included on our list as being acceptable is pointless. We have also received many out-of-date documents, and certain instances where an applicant has used other peoples’ documents as their own (for instance, some have sent in utility bills in their spouse’s name).

There have been many problems arising with photographs, too. Either they have not been suitable, or haven’t been countersigned and dated as required. That counter signatory also has to be on the approved list we have provided. Here, some security companies have been guilty of attempting to use poor photographs of officers they already have on file for staff ID cards as part of the bulk application process.

Payment problems have arisen. Often, no payment is included at all! Similarly, overseas criminality records have been missing. Some applicants who have lived abroad for more than six months (and this includes Northern Ireland) during the past five years have failed to provide evidence of a criminal record check from an official source that can cover that period.

The danger is very real

Nine months into the licence application procedure, the SIA has issued 81,000 application packs, while 48,063 individuals hold the qualifications necessary to make them eligible to apply. The deeply worrying reality is that, as of 12 October, the SIA had received and accepted a meagre 16,277 application forms. 9,093 licences have been granted, and 117 refused

There is now a very high risk that any applications submitted after 30 November 2005 may not be processed in time. Consequently, a potentially large percentage of the workforce could fail to obtain a licence by the due date.

The SIA cannot make matters any clearer. There is no intention to move our cut-off date of 20 March 2006. After that date, it will be a criminal offence for any security officer supplied on a contract for services to operate without a licence issued by the SIA. It will also be a criminal offence for the directors and managers of guarding companies to supply unlicensed operatives. An offence for which they may well be arrested.

The SIA works closely with the police, local authorities and other partners to ensure compliance. In other words, the risk of prosecution for those who break the law is very real. There have already been numerous successful prosecutions in sectors previously covered by the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

If you work in a licensable security role, or supply or employ unlicensed security staff, without a licence, then the penalties are severe. You could be facing a summary conviction at a Magistrates’ Court with a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000. Alternatively, you could be looking at a trial on indictment at the Crown Courts, an unlimited fine and/or anything up to five years in prison.

As stated, there is no intention to move the deadline regardless of whether or not the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is available. The previous undertaking not to introduce compulsory licensing if the ACS were delayed is now redundant, as licence application profiles have plainly not been met.

Potential risks to clients

As the private security industry’s Regulator, the SIA has a duty to ensure that guarding companies’ customers – the clients, the readers of Security Management Today – are aware of the potential risk to their supply line.

To this end, we are making great efforts to inform corporate Britain about the positive changes taking place within the private security industry. The SIA is encouraging the public sector and corporate Britain to place a greater importance and value on security provision as part of their overall risk management strategy.

We also have a major responsibility to inform end users of the licensing requirements, and encourage them to ensure that their security supplier in the private sector is fully compliant with the law. If you are planning to wait any longer to submit licence applications, you should begin to warn your clients now that, after 20 March 2006, you may not be in a position to meet their needs for security provision.

The Approved Contractor Scheme

The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is currently subject to Regulatory Impact Assessment, with the consultation period ending on 17 November. It has always been envisaged that companies seeking approval from us will have to demonstrate their commitment and ability to run their businesses within the requirements of a compulsory licensing regime. The proposal is that a given security company will need to have 85% of its licensable workforce duly licensed in order to qualify for Approved Contractor status.

Prior to compulsory licensing, a company needs to demonstrate that it will have 85% of its workforce licensed before the cut-off date. A rising threshold of accepted licence applications is proposed during the transition period to licensing (for example, a security company seeking ACS approval in December this year will need to have had licence applications accepted for 70% of its licensable operatives at that time, with 85% fully licensed by 20 March 2006).

If the licensing system is unable to keep up with the volume of licensing applications because too many of them have been submitted late on in the transition period, the SIA will be unable to verify up-to-date volumes of licence applications for individual guarding companies. We may therefore consider an alternative test for the commitment to licensing (for instance, those companies that have better managed their flow of licence applications will be well placed to show this in contrast to those contractors who have been less stringent). Where a commitment to licensing cannot be verified, an ACS application may be refused or deferred.

Companies that deploy unlicensed staff after 20 March 2006 risk not only criminalising individuals but also jeopardising their ACS application. We do not believe that a security company deliberately and systematically breaking the law should receive ACS status.

We may decide to ask those security companies whose staff are not all licensed on 20 March 2006 to show us how they have managed licensable operatives they could not have legally deployed to site.