Security Industry Authority

The activities defined as licensable by the Act are:

• Cash and Valuables in Transit (CVIT)
• Close Protection (CP)
• Door Supervision (DS)
• Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
• Security Guarding (SG)
• Vehicle Immobilisation (VI)
• Key Holding (KH)

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (as amended) allows for SIA licensing of private investigation activities, security consultants and precognition agents but the SIA does not license these activities. On 1 October 2012 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 made it an offence to undertake vehicle immobilisation in England and Wales without lawful authority. The SIA cancelled most of the vehicle immobiliser licences held by individuals in England and Wales. Exceptions were made for those individuals wishing to undertake vehicle immobilisation activities in Northern Ireland (where vehicle immobilisation is still legal) or key holding and non-front line security roles in the United Kingdom (which any SIA licence allows). On 31 July 2013 the Home Secretary announced that the SIA will be regulating private investigators. No deadline was given, although the announcement stated that "The regulation of private investigators will be introduced as quickly as possible and the new regime will begin next year [2014]".[2]

There are two types of SIA licence:

• A front line licence is required if undertaking licensable activity, other than key holding activities (this also covers undertaking non-front line activity). A front line licence is in the form of a credit card-sized plastic card that must be worn, subject to the licence conditions.
• A non-front line licence is required for those who manage, supervise and/or employ individuals who engage in licensable activity, as long as front line activity is not carried out – this includes directors or partners. A non-front line licence is issued in the form of a letter that also covers key holding activities.

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 does not require manned guards employed in-house to be licensed unless their activities are in relation to licensed premises. The SIA was charged by Parliament to investigate the implications of extending the legislation to cover in-house manned guards once licensing of the private security industry had been in force for three to four years. To meet this obligation the SIA consulted widely through a range of mechanisms. Its assessment of the evidence took into account that regulation should only be targeted where action was needed; that regulation should only intervene where there is a clear case for public protection, and any proposal for further regulation should be proportionate and follow a risk-based approach. Its conclusion is that there is no clearly defined or substantiated risk to public protection to be addressed and that it is unable to make a case which would justify extending its remit to include the licensing of in-house guards.

Individuals applying for a front line SIA licence must prove that they are properly qualified to do their job. If they don't hold one of the SIA-endorsed qualifications then their licence application will be refused. The licence-linked qualifications are intended for individuals entering the private security industry. Their purpose is to ensure that the individual is capable of performing their duties in a manner that will not cause harm to themselves or any member of the public. The qualifications are meant to address the core areas of the role; they are not intended to cover all of the training that an operative could possibly have.

The SIA does not run training courses or award qualifications and does not approve or vet training providers. The SIA specifies the knowledge and skills that a licence holder needs to know and be able to do and these specifications form the basis of the qualifications linked to SIA licensing. The SIA has endorsed certain awarding bodies to offer these qualifications and approve training providers.

In January 2008, Panorama carried out an undercover investigation into the training that candidates were undertaking to obtain their SIA licences. This revealed that mobile phone use and open talking in exams was common practice during the training course and examination that the reporter took.[3] Training malpractice such as this is a matter for the various UK Qualification Regulatory Authorities. Training malpractice can be defined as any deliberate activity, neglect, default or other practice that compromises the integrity of the assessment process and / or the validity of certificates.

Confirmed cases of training malpractice may result in:

• the relevant awarding body or bodies removing the training centre's approval
• the SIA revoking the licences of those licence holders who benefited from the malpractice.[4]

The ACS scoring system was not designed to be a differentiation tool. However, it can assist when gauging overall quality, provided that its limitations are understood.[6] It is important that the score is looked at alongside other differentiators (such as the contractor's reputation in the marketplace or the quality of its tender response) and not in isolation.

• Contractors with a score of 56 or higher would be in the top half of performance for approved contractors
• Contractors with a score of 130 or higher would be in the top 5%

Claiming to be an approved contractor when this is not the case is an offence under section 16 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. A section 16 offence includes use of the Approved Contractor Scheme accreditation mark or the use of language that may suggest approval or endorsement, such as "SIA registered" or "SIA member". The penalties for committing an offence under Section 16 are:

• Upon summary conviction at a Magistrate's Court, Sheriff Court or District Court, a fine of up to £5,000.
• Upon conviction on indictment at Crown Court, High Court of Justiciary or Sheriff and jury trial, an unlimited fine.