I don’t propose to repeat much of what I have already written in your journal (‘The SIA Compliance Approach’, Guarding Watch, SMT, September 2006, pp61-62) (‘SIA enforcement: too hard or too soft?’, SMT, May 2007, pp36-38) (‘An education in training’, SMT, July 2007, pp36-37), but the Security Industry Authority (SIA) has clearly set out on numerous occasions how it approaches compliance, enforcement and training malpractice.
It’s not appropriate to comment on individual cases. If there’s anything to report, that reporting will take place in the public domain in due course through Court reports or our Registers of revoked licences and Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)-listed security companies.
It is now three years since we completed the introduction of door supervisor licensing, and two years for the remaining security guarding sectors. All of the indicators – be they statistical analyses, ‘on the ground’ checks or independent research – show that the industry is 90%-plus compliant with the law on licensing. In what is certainly a minimal time span, that’s a tremendous achievement for us all.
Despite this success, is there still malpractice and the involvement of criminal elements at play? Well, of course there is – what did anyone realistically expect in such a short period of time?
Enforcement agencies don’t eradicate crime, but they do make it more difficult for criminals to operate. Intimidation, extortion and fraud were crimes long before private security sector regulation came along and they always have been. Indeed, they remain to be tackled by the police service and similar law enforcement agencies.
What regulation has done is progressively ‘clear the ground’, and help focus attention where it’s most needed. Operations like Seahog on Merseyside (‘Made in Liverpool’, SMT, February 2008, pp20-24) demand the leadership, expertise, powers, equipment and training of the police. Private sector security legislation provides additional tools and the SIA, alongside other regulators and agencies, supplies specialist knowledge and information to such police-led, multi-agency operations.
I firmly believe the Regulator has done well to engage so effectively with other agencies, amply reflected by the number of joint operations and the regular exchange of thousands of pieces of information.
Some of your correspondents asked for a bit of balance, and I think that’s fair. We all know there are corrupt police officers, incompetent doctors and weak journalists, but we don’t assume this weakness to apply to them all.
For the past three years, I’ve been privileged to act as a Judge for the British Security Industry Association’s Annual Security Officer Awards. Some of the stories and testimonials are inspirational. They highlight the value and importance of what private security does and the dedication, customer focus and (often) courage of the individuals involved.
There will always be more for us to do and problems to solve, but let’s not undervalue the good work carried out by many, nor underestimate what has been achieved to date.
Andy Drane
Director of Operations
Security Industry Authority
EBOOK: Lessons from IFSEC 2023 – Big Tech, Martyn’s Law and Drone Threats
Read IFSEC Insider’s exclusive IFSEC eBook and explore the key takeaways from the 2023 show!
Navigate the impact of Big Tech on access control, gain insights from Omdia’s analysts on video surveillance trends, and explore sessions covering topics like futureproofing CCTV networks, addressing the rising drone threat, and the crucial role of user proficiency in security technology.
There's also an exclusive interview with Figen Murray, the driver behind Martyn's Law legislation.
