The Coalition has brought out what it proposes for the Security Industry Authority.
The ‘consultation’ – although only one option is offered – by the Home Office on the long-awaited ‘new regulatory regime’ for the SIA runs until January 13. You can give your views at the Home Office website – http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/private-security-regulation/.
How much will the new regime cost – more or less than the current? The consultation document offers some statistics. The SIA licenses around 330,000 individuals who hold a licence to work within private security. A further 30,000 licences are held by people licensed in more than one sector. It costs £220 to apply for a licence for one sector, and £110 for an application for another sector. The document doesn’t commit to any new price, but speaks only of ‘a significant reduction in the associated regulatory cost and burden for licensing individuals’.
And as for the timetable, the document says the Government aims for legislation to establish business regulation and the new individual licensing process to be in place by the end of 2013. The regulator will be able to receive and process business applications ‘as soon as possible’ after the legislation.
In a foreword, the Home Office minister with charge of the SIA, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said there would be a phased transition to a business regulation regime and a significant change to how individuals are licensed to work within the industry. He said: “The changes proposed would achieve a reduction in the regulatory cost and burden on the private security industry as a whole.”
He said that reform of the regulation of the private security industry will come over two phases, ‘so that those reforms that can be achieved now are taken forward without delay, and those reforms that require primary legislation are implemented when there is an opportunity to do so. The timing of reform has been designed in this way so that the industry can be given the benefits of a business regulation regime straight away.’
While he admitted that the Scottish and Northern Irish devolved governments have not decided on what (if anything) to change in the SIA in their parts of the UK, according to Lord Taylor both ‘indicated that they are supportive of a consistent UK wide regulatory regime for the private security industry’. As the consultation document says, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland in August completed its own consultation titled ‘The future regulation of the private security industry in Northern Ireland’, which set out options for Northern Ireland.
To sum up, then, the Coalition proposes a ‘phased transition to a business regulation regime. Under this regime the focus of regulatory control would move to the regulation of private security businesses and businesses would be responsible for ensuring that required checks on individuals are carried out, although the regulator would continue to undertake individual criminality checks.’
The regulator would own and maintain a public register for regulated businesses and licensed individuals. The ‘quality business hallmark’, currently the SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), would be transferred, to an ‘industry-led organisation’. The consultation document describes this as ‘some deregulation of the private security industry’; and claims this would be ‘more efficient and cost effective’. In short, businesses would have to check that employees are appropriately licensed.
Going into more detail, the document is in fact narrow. It says that keeping the SIA as it is was not an option – and was rejected by the Home Office as the Coalition in the autumn of 2010 declared it would crack down on quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). Similarly, doing away with regulation altogether was rejected as ‘inappropriate’, meaning that some standards across the regulated sectors such as guarding were wanted.
As for individual badge-holders such as door staff, individual applications would be made through the regulated businesses, known as Trusted Service Providers (TSPs), or, through third parties, known as Mediated Access Partners (MAPs). The TSP or MAP would check your ID – that you are who you say you are – and that you have the qualifications. The regulator would check you pass the criminal record check.
As for the businesses, any business that employs or deploys individuals directly or indirectly under a contract to supply a designated security service would be regulated. In other words, that applies to a facilities management contractor that does security among its FM services, ‘as a part of their overall business offering’.
What does a business have to do or be to make the grade? How does it relate to the approved contractor scheme? If you are ACS-approved, that will be enough to get you into the new regime – but will be it watered down then? On this point the document says an ‘industry-led organisation’ would be left to decide how to set and apply such a scheme.
According to the consultation document a business will have to show it is ‘fit and proper’ and competent to trade. It may have to meet the relevant British Standard such as BS 7499 for security guarding. The document says that ‘certain key individuals’ (in other words, it’s not certain yet!?) in a business, for example directors, shadow directors, and partners, as well as directors and shadow directors of parent companies, and maybe majority shareholders, would be subject to identification and criminality checking as part of the business regulation.
That a security person lacks the right to work in the UK – although he has passed the exam to be a doorman or a guard and has the SIA badge – has been one of the SIA’s past scandals. On this point the document says the regulator would cease to also check an individual’s right to work ‘but would check the procedure a business has in place to undertake right to work checks’.
What if you are a one-man band or trying to start your own business? The document has this to say: ‘micro-businesses and start-ups would not need to be independently certified against the relevant British Standards: instead, they could meet competency criteria by undertaking an on-line assessment and demonstrating appropriate experience in private security activities.’ But the consultation document admits this might create loop-holes.
Other details – how long would a business be approved? – are not made definite. In-house security guards will not come under the regulation. And would the training of guards, doormen and CCTV operators be diluted? The document says not; it would be ‘equivalent to those standards currently in place’, but proposes that ‘core qualification or competency requirements, for each designated activity, would be set by an industry-led skills organisation, not the regulator’.
Will the SIA badge stay – will guards and doormen have to still wear it? The regulator would still issue individuals with a licence card as proof of their registration. ‘However, it is possible that the register alone could be considered to provide a sufficient mechanism for individuals to prove their compliance.’ In that case the business might have to give the guard or doorman a badge to wear.
How will the SIA enforce this new regime? Businesses would be required to supply a yearly return to show that they’re complying.
What the consultation document suggests is much the same as what the SIA itself has been airing this year. Prosecution would be a last resort, being long and costly. Compliance ‘would be carried out in a supportive way with the possibility of sanctions appropriate and proportionate to any regulatory breach. The regulator would reserve more severe sanctions for the most extreme cases of non- compliance, based on scale, frequency and particularly serious criminal offences’. The SIA will still issue informal written warnings, and informal improvement notices. If the SIA gets – as it has wished for – powers to impose fines (’financial sanctions’ or ‘civil sanctions’) on businesses that are not compliant, that will take primary legislation in parliament – which could take some time and trouble.
