Security Industry Authority - Varying Degrees of Success

Varying Degrees of Success

Before the SIA was created it was widely accepted that the private security industry suffered from deep-rooted problems that it could not resolve on its own. The tendency for clients to treat security as a 'grudge spend' and award contracts to the lowest tender had forced down profit margins, which meant that private security companies had little money available for training and staff development. This, coupled with the often temporary nature of security work, had resulted in a high rate of staff turnover - which in turn, made it less likely that companies would train their staff any more than was absolutely necessary. The industry therefore found itself locked in a spiral of diminishing returns and deteriorating skills that it could not break out of.

The primary objective of SIA regulation was to improve public safety by ensuring that individuals placed in certain positions of trust had been checked and vetted, and were properly qualified to do their job. However, the SIA was also seen as the external force that could fix the industry's problems. Expectations were high - and, in the early days of regulation, the SIA believed that it could satisfy all of those expectations. As an example, the Authority claimed that regulation would help to increase wages: it believed that the introduction of licensing would create a shortage of manpower, which would stimulate demand and enable security companies to charge more for their services. This did not happen, and at the SIA's 2010 stakeholder conference its Chief Executive Bill Butler accepted this and took back the SIA's promise to create a 'golden age'.

However, reports published in August 2010 on the impact of SIA regulation indicate that licensing has had a positive impact on the private security industry. Private security companies noted improvements in staff recruitment and retention; increased trust and improved relationships between guards and police; new money or investment from third parties. Private security operatives said that licensing had improved their range of skills, ability to do their job and future career options.

In 2007 it was widely reported that the SIA had granted licences to over 7,000 workers who were not legally entitled to work in the UK. Such reports damaged the credibility of SIA licensing despite the fact that the SIA had not, in fact, failed in its duties. The Authority has no statutory duty to carry out right to work checks - that is the responsibility of the employer. Matters were made worse because many people confused "not having the right to work" with "being an illegal immigrant". The two are completely different, and it is entirely possible for someone to have the legal right to remain in the UK - and therefore not be an "illegal immigrant" - but not have the legal right to work in the UK.

The SIA now works with the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to check the right to work of all SIA licence applicants who are non-EEA nationals (EEA nationals automatically have a right to work in the UK). It also checks the right to work of SIA licence holders from outside the EEA (i.e. individuals who have met its licensing criteria and have been granted a licence). Where the recorded right to work of a licence holder expires before their SIA licence, a further check is undertaken with the UKBA and, if the results of that check suggest that the individual's right to work has expired, the SIA will revoke their licence. These checks do not in any way replace the legal responsibility of an employer to check the right to work of its employees.

2007 also saw the re-tendering of the SIA's Managed Service Provider (MSP) contract and the subsequent re-location of the Authority's document handling centre from Newcastle to Liverpool. Problems arising from this re-location and the late delivery of supporting IT systems resulted in a significant drop in service levels. This was exacerbated by the industrial action taken by members of the Communication Workers Union in October 2007. The SIA's licensing process relies heavily on the passing of documentation between the applicant and the SIA, and between the SIA and other bodies such as the Criminal Records Bureau. The CWU strike disrupted this and caused further delays.

All of this damaged the SIA's credibility yet again, because it developed a reputation for taking a long time to process applications - a reputation that persisted long after service levels had returned to normal.