Below, a digest of the 44-page Security Industry Authority: A Hampton Implementation Review Report, from the Better Regulation Executive.
The report points out: "The SIA’s responsibilities in relation to the regulated sector are unusual in comparison with other Hampton regulators. It has a role in improving the industry’s wider standards, as well as providing basic assurances against key risks.’ We found that expectations from the industry on the SIA itself were unrealistic in some areas, and that (notably in key areas like the Approved Contractor Scheme and the training requirements for licences) there is scope for the SIA to set a clearer lead for the industry itself in working towards an accreditation and development framework which meet their needs more fully. We believe that further work with the industry to establish a better understood and accepted division of responsibilities, including more of a shared ownership approach, would serve as an effective way of addressing some of their demands for improved standards." <br><br>One guarding director recently wondered aloud to Professional Security whether the SIA should become like the DVLA – that is, merely concern itself with the issuing of badges (to the right, qualified people) rather than seek to set driver standards. That said, the review did note one issue rather swept under the carpet by the security industry, no-one taking responsibility: "Unprompted, a large number of the businesses that we spoke to raised the issue of training fraud as a serious risk to the system." That is, the reviewers reported ‘ a strong feeling that SIA could be setting more of a lead given the implications for the integrity of their own licensing regime.’ In other words, some feel the SIA should do more on standards not less. The review repeatedly suggested that buyers could be more informed; the SIA licence for instance does not demonstrate competency in doing a job – only that they passed an exam (and training fraud is a worry at the grass roots as the report noted). <br><br>The SIA did get pats on the back; for its call centre staff ringing applicants if forms are incorrect, rather than rejecting them outright; and the ACS striking a balance between the ACS having rigour and not being too much of a burden to the smaller firm. <br><br>The review also queried if the SIA has got its approach right on enforcement. (Almost in passing, the review spoke of the authority’s ‘ limited capacity for direct enforcement and compliance’ and hence relying on partners, such as the police). Reviewers suggested that ‘the SIA has yet to find the right balance between partnership working, those cases where “direct action” might be appropriate, and other cases where indirect leverage through its partners might be used more effectively’.<br><br>A related query was whether the SIA was clear in its enforcement policy, ‘to businesses and individuals who might be involved in specific enforcement actions. More could be said about the way in which the sanctions available to it (including intermediate and informal steps that fall short of prosecution) will be used, and the factors that the SIA will take into account when choosing to take enforcement action.’ In other words, this calls into question whether the SIA can be accountable – one of the Hampton principles for any regulator. <br><br>The reviewers noted that the authority needs to communicate some things better. For example, on enforcement: ‘SIA gives extensive publicity to its work in city centres with door supervisors … In fact, the spread of the SIA’s compliance and enforcement work reflects the underlying scale of the different sectors quite closely.’ Another years-old grumble cropped up: security people ‘dissatisfied with the feedback they receive on information that they submit about suspected cases of non-compliance’. Previously the SIA has replied that it cannot disclose detail about cases that may well be resolved before the courts or the public domain. And here the reviewers admitted there were limits on what the SIA can do. Interestingly, the review cast doubt later on the point of badge checks on door staff, as word quickly gets around and – as the review delicately puts it, late at night public safety and street disorder are ‘an issue’, limiting what any inspectors can do. In short: "Spot checks of this sort have, on their own, limited value as a guide to compliance levels." And as the review said later, police who interact daily with door supervisors ‘can be hesitant to insist on strict compliance with PSIA 2001’, unless there is wider criminality. <br><br>Opinion in the industry, as the reviewers reported, on many topics varied. On the one hand – the SIA compliance staff, totalling 60, mainly in the regions, seek to work informally to put right non-compliance rather than impose sanctions – which to some smacks of lack of teeth. On the other hand, ‘businesses with a good compliance record did however say that the tone of some communications by letter from the SIA regarding areas of non-compliance felt heavy-handed’.<br><br>As for future possible snafus, the review said it was ‘not possible at this stage to tell how resilient the system will be to future challenges (notably the re-licensing of many individuals whose three year licences are coming up for renewal this year, and the increase in the demand for licensing which will arise in relation to security services for the 2012 games’. <br><br>While the review did not spell it out, it emerged that one question is – what sort of regulator does the security industry want, a large or small one? Given that agreement is unlikely, especially because of the element of cost if the SIA were to do more. As the report said, a ‘significant increase in the SIA’s own allocation of staff would bring with it a substantial increase in licence fees’.<br><br>And the review hinted at a ‘challenge for all regulators’; who’s the master? Is it the whole security industry; its customers, those that pay for licence applications; councils and police that the SIA relies on working with; the Home Office; the general public?
