SMT Online Editor's View: Accounting for SIA regulation

12 Jan 10

In his own Foreword to the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) Annual Report for 2008-2009, Alan Campbell – the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction and the Home Office minister responsible for the Regulator – describes the period under review as one of “solid achievement and consolidation.”

Campbell talks of the SIA finally being able to meet its targets for service delivery following the introduction of the new licence processing system, and also refers to co-operation with the UK Border Agency “working well” in terms of combating illegal working.

On that same theme, Campbell merely uses the word “regrettable” when mentioning the fact that some SIA agency staff had not been security cleared. “Inexcusable” would have been a more realistic assessment.

Rightly, the minister pays tribute to Bernard Herdan, who did a tremendous job as interim chief executive following the sudden departure of Mike Wilson.

Herdan steadied a ship that appeared to be listing a little, and introduced an effective and efficient style of management that – by all accounts – everyone at 90 High Holborn found most agreeable.

The Regulator: now on a firm footing

In a far more telling statement than that offered by Campbell, Kenny MacAskill – the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland, and the minister responsible for the SIA north of the border – focuses on the key issues.

He too talks of the SIA now realising “a firm footing” for its business and “a number of service improvements”, as well as “joint enforcement action with the police”. According to MacAskill, the latter is “something all law enforcement partners in Scotland are keen to build on in the coming year”.

In what is an astute and accurate assessment, MacAskill goes on to say: “It is the responsibility of us all, not just the police service and the SIA, to ensure that crime does not take hold in our communities, and I welcome the opportunity provided through the SIA’s website for people to report any concerns they have about particular companies and individuals.”

MacAskill also mentions wanting to “ensure those crooks who have given the industry such a bad name are driven out for good”. Well said, that man.

The final Foreword to this latest Annual Report is devoted to the views of Baroness Ruth Henig, the SIA’s chairman who has just been re-elected to continue serving as the organisation’s figurehead.

The Baroness describes the year under review as having been “a challenging one” which has brought significant change to her organisation. Upbeat, Henig talks of the Regulator emerging from these challenges “in better shape, and with renewed confidence for the future”.

Of course, there was the Delivery Review jointly commissioned by the Home Office and the Regulator’s own Board. This resulted in an operational plan and the National Audit Offices ‘Value for Money’ report that concluded the SIA had “effectively” introduced its regulatory regime.

Significant improvements to customer service

As far as The Baroness is concerned, achievements during the financial year included completion of the much-publicised feasibility study on security business licensing, the in-house review and the build-up to regulation roll-out in Northern Ireland.

There’s also mention of “significant improvements” to customer services and “valuable confirmation” of the Regulator’s ability to prosecute those who attempt to override the law.

The Baroness thanks applicants and employers for their patience during the licence processing system upgrade, and offers fulsome praise for members of the SIA’s staff “without whom the turnaround in performance would not have been possible”.

There is no danger of complacency, though, with Henig determined that the Regulator – under the charge of new chief executive Bill Butler – will “strive to continue to maximise service levels” for its customers.

Of the imminent challenges facing the organisation, the chairman lists service levels needing to remain high during the re-tendering process for its managed service provider, the licensing of new sectors – private investigators among them – and the build-up to both the Olympic and Commonwealth Games.

Improvements in process, effective enforcement

For its part, the managed service provision project was engendered with five clear objectives in mind: to improve levels of customer service, reduce the burden on customers, raise the rigour of identity checks and increase flexibility – all underpinned by the need to minimise costs and, therefore, avoid any increase to the licence fee itself.

Initially, the project didn’t go according to plan (as stated in the previous SIA Annual Report).

However, demonstrable improvements were made in the last quarter of this current report’s timeline: 85% of all those properly completed licence application forms were processed within 40 working days (89% of applications from UK and EEA nationals were processed within 33 days).

The 2008-2009 Annual Report states: “In terms of licensing, we have already responded to a 35% increase in applications, and continue to fine-tune the licensing process. Having met our target of dealing with 80% of applications for UK and EEA nationals within 33 working days, we have now increased this target to 85% going forward.”

It goes on to state: “We have been working closely with our Contact Centre to improve waiting times and quality of service, and will be increasing our telephone response time target to 95% of all calls being answered within 30 seconds.”

Apparently, the implementation of the online passport checking procedure between the Regulator and the Identity and Passport Service “has been a particular success”.

The Regulator, of course, now provides monthly online updates on the actions it has taken in relation to enforcement of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. In March 2009, for example, 970 pieces of intelligence were received from partners including members of the public, the industry, Crimestoppers, from the police and other law enforcement agencies.

That intelligence allowed the revocation of 26 licences, the suspension of 55 and risk assessments on 58 companies (29 of which were adjudged to be of either high or medium risk).

In triumphal language, the report states: “Last year, we issued 331 written warnings and 19 improvement notices, and revoked 3,618 licences.” The results of 11 separate prosecutions are outlined, and there’s an entire page devoted to the Securiplan case (and, more specifically, the comments made at the time by His Honour Judge Rivlin QC).

Reducing criminality, raising standards

Six overarching objectives for the SIA were set by the Board for 2008-2009, all of them with measurable performance indicators. The first of these was to reduce criminality across the industry, supported by the Regulator’s ability to be able to refuse licence applications and revoke those for individuals not deemed to be ‘fit and proper persons’.

102,495 licence applications were accepted in 2006-2007, with the figure for 2007-2008 being 77,268. In 2008-2009, no less than 141,412 applications were accepted. The target, respectively, for each year was 80,735, then 65,000 and 97,000. The 2008-2009 target was exceeded by 46%.

Revised criminality criteria were built into the criminal record checks on 6 October 2008, thus maintaining the Regulator’s ongoing commitments to protection of the public. This has proven to be a successful initiative.

The objective of raising standards is supported by the requirement for licence holders to have relevant basic core competency qualifications, while at the same time ensuring that training and qualifications meet the needs of the licensing regime.

“It is also supported by increasing the number of ACS companies and employees, and requiring Approved Contractors to meet quality standards.”

The target for 2008-2009 was to have 500 companies registered as Approved Contractors. That figure is now creeping up towards the 700 mark (as of yesterday there were 658 registered organisations on the list).

Is that a good thing? Is that a differentiator if so many companies are passing muster? Does that make the Approved Contractor Scheme what it should be (ie a benchmark for the elite of the guarding world)?

Continually improving and developing the Regulator

A direct online link has been established with the Identity and Passport Service that allows the SIA to verify identities without the need for seeing a passport. At least now security officers will be able to plan their holidays without fear of their passport possibly being lost before it’s time to travel.

Call waiting times for those trying to access the Contact Centre have also improved. Come March last year, 89% of calls were being answered within 30 seconds. That has enabled the Regulator to set a target for 2009-2010 whereby 95% of calls will be answered within the same time period.

The SIA undertakes a number of operations to test that the security industry is at least 80% compliant with the Private Security Industry Act 2001. A graph reproduced in the report suggests that the industry is, in fact, 90% compliant, which is a very satisfying result. In 83% of compliance testing undertaken, the level of compliance was found to be 90% or greater.

During the reporting period under scrutiny, the Regulator dealt with 300 businesses deemed to be ‘high risk’ in terms of compliance, including 160 guarding companies and 86 businesses involved with door supervision. A new Enforcement Section on the SIA’s website details what happened. This is a step in the right direction, making the whole process transparent.

2009 witnessed the largest-ever operation mounted by the SIA north of the border. Rogue security firms working at construction sites across the Strathclyde and Lothian & Borders regions were targeted by SIA officers with the support of Strathclyde Police, Lothian and Borders Police, the UK Border Agency and the Department of Work and Pensions.

120 licensable security operatives were checked. 97 were found to hold valid SIA licences. 23 operatives were reported for working without a licence. 15 individuals were reported for benefit irregularities, and a further ten for offences relating to the immigration rules. 202 construction sites serviced by 37 different security companies were subjected to thorough checks. This is what the industry wants to see.

The Regulator, of course, places great emphasis on Stakeholder engagement. This is touted as “one of the key pillars” of its approach to doing business with the industry which it serves. Five such networks – for door supervision, vehicle immobilisation, CCTV, small businesses and close protection – are now established.

Having addressed the audiences at two Network Forums just prior to Christmas, I would suggest that they’re extremely useful indeed.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I believe the decision not to licence in-house security personnel was a serious mistake. The industry didn’t help itself by the non-provision of evidence, but there are niceties to be observed above and beyond this whole question of whether or not neglecting in-house is ‘injurious to the public good’.

Until and unless there is a genuinely level playing field when it comes to the provision of security guarding there will always be a ‘window of opportunity’ there for the national media and others to point the finger of suspicion.

Until next time…

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine