The Security Industry Authority is looking to make its presence felt more, in terms of enforcement, for example against ‘cash in hand’ contract work, the SIA’s annual conference heard yesterday.

That was said by Paul Fullwood, the Authority’s recently-appointed director of inspections and enforcement, one of the senior figures at the regulator who answered questions at the end of the online event.

Like much of the SIA’s current policy work, as brought out over the conference, the Authority is working towards recommendations by the Manchester Arena Inquiry into the 2017 terror attack. On terrorism Fullwood, a former senior policeman, spoke of the online ACT counter-terror awareness training; and Operation Century live exercises, to better prepare security staff to deal with realistic scenarios. Such an exercise in London’s West End in October (pictured) was featured in the November print edition of Professional Security magazine.

Fullwood said: “The reality is, the private security industry will be there [at the scene of a terrorist incident] before the emergency services, so we need to be on the front foot.”

In reply to a question posed by a conference attender about ‘cash in hand’ services, Fullwood described that as a theme across the industry ‘that’s forever being flagged to us’. It’s often associated with false claims of self-employment, he went on. “What we can say to you is, there is a dedicated team of HMRC that the SIA continue to work with in relation to false employment. I would ask everybody to continue to report this via our website; if it comes into us, we will do something about it.”

He acknowledged that ‘cash in hand’ (and the associated lack of oversight by the regulator or anyone as to who are providing the security services) had the potential to affect public safety and can erode standards. “We know there’s sub-contractors and sub-contractors and the further it goes down the line it undermines and de-stabilises the standards we are looking to reach, by creating different tiers [of service]. All had a part to play in tackling this, he added; suppliers, buyers and the wider industry, besides SIA and HMRC. “We will look to robustly police this, when we can.”

On enforcement of SIA licensing and the approved contractor scheme, Fullwood spoke of a ‘refreshed strategy’ for compliance. He – like chair of the Authority Heather Baily in her first speech, to the Security Institute conference on October 28 – spoke of an increase in SIA visible presence, ‘for an extended programme of supervision and inspection work in high footfall [areas] and publically accessible locations (PALs)’. Fullwood added: “This is something we have started to do and continue to do.”

He admitted the SIA’s previous ‘low numbers of persons involved in regulatory activity; that is where we are looking to significantly improve our record’. The background there again was the Manchester Arena Inquiry and its chairman Sir John Saunders’ first report, published in June, on Arena security before the May 2017 suicide terror attack. In its October interim update to the Inquiry, the SIA admitted that its enforcement approach then was ‘weighted towards a mainly reactive response to intelligence being received and processed’.

Like others at the SIA when speaking of enforcement, he was careful to qualify the promise of more use of formal sanctions by adding that the SIA will ‘always be proportionate’ and ‘not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut’; that is, strike a balance between letting compliant firms and officers get on with their jobs, and seeking to act against the deliberately non-compliant and criminal.

The questions from the floor threw up some tricky issues that have dogged the SIA ever since the regulator began in the mid-2000s, besides more recent things not imagined then, such as ‘Facebook recruitment’ done via apps, and bypassing approved or indeed any security contractors; and how or indeed whether the SIA should be the one to publicise the ACS, for example with corporate buyers of security; raising the question of who or what the SIA is for.

To the question why are ACS-approved companies scrutinised, when non-ACS firms get away with rule-breaking, Fullwood admitted that it was ‘a good question’. He added: “We want to focus on those that are causing greater harm.”

“We don’t select our case work based on company status,” he went on, “purely on public safety. Each case on its own merit.”

Also there (remotely) to take questions were Heather Baily, the acting SIA chief Michelle Russell; Steve McCormick, director of licensing and standards; and Dianne Tranmer, director of corporate services. Michelle Russell fielded a question about – after the Arena Inquiry – any plans to update the Private Security Industry Act. The 2001 Act was created with a particular aim, she said, and against a particular threat. While from a regulatory perspective it was important to have the right tools and powers to ensure compliance, and there had been reviews over the years, ultimately legislation is for the Home Office; and Parliament.

The conference also heard of work towards an apprenticeship for four types of security officer – control room, mobile, operational and cash in transit; and of an SIA review of the approved contractor scheme, again in the light of the Manchester Arena Inquiry, that may call for licensing of security guarding businesses, which would be sure to affect the voluntary ACS scheme.

To a question querying the recent introduction of extra and top-up training for the SIA licence, such as first aid, Steve McCormick defended the cost, relative to (as he set out) a part-time door superviser working ten hours a week for £10 to £12 an hour, and earning potentially £15,000 a year. Another questioner spoke of having seen a huge issue in recruitment, ‘with many cases of internal wastage’, as the cost of SIA-required training far outweighs the income; as the questioner’s firm was finding from exit interviews with staff. To that Steve McCormick replied that the licence qualification was based on public safety concerns, and ‘key and critical skills’. “On balance we believe that the public safety content is very important …. we believe as an Authority that the public safety impact far outweighs the costs that were apparent to us.”

He added that the SIA had not seen an impact on licence renewal rates of the extra cost of top-up training; although any impact probably wouldn’t be seen until next year (‘it’s something we are tracking closely’).

Meanwhile the SIA has released an independent survey that has found high levels of customer satisfaction with the Authority’s licence application service.