SIA enforcement and compliance: tangible insurance for end users

The Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) deputy chief executive, Andy Drane, is fully aware that a massive task lies before his organisation. After all, the SIA remains in the unenviable position of having to negate the detrimental effects of many years’ poor management and reputational damage that has beset the security industry like no other.

Arguably, that part of the industry which has suffered most in this regard is the door supervisor sector. Many door staff have been subjected to some form of regulation for several years, of course, primarily by way of local licensing schemes administered by Borough Councils. However, those schemes have differed in both quality and value from one region to another (one of the many reasons why SIA licensing has been introduced).

To this end, the SIA’s own standards draw on the key elements of the best of these Council schemes. Sadly, though, many door staff – and the owners of venues at which they work – have neither heeded the timescale warnings issued from the SIA’s headquarters, nor the sheer magnitude of the task before them.

As Security Management Today (SMT) disclosed in last month’s News Update ('Door staff granted SIA licence extension period', p7), experiences with licensing to date have been somewhat fraught. Six weeks prior to 11 April – the official ‘cut-off’ date by which all door staff in the Capital had to be licensed – the SIA had sent out 4,337 application forms, but only 957 of them had been returned. Of those, only just over 600 had been completed to a satisfactory standard. Hardly a positive message.

As of 11 April, 6,236 forms had been despatched in total, with 2,433 returned. 1,739 of those forms were properly completed. Come the end of April, 7,111 forms had been sent out by the SIA with 3,127 returned. 2,282 of those forms were filled in to the correct standards.

“Certain leisure and security companies in the Capital are claiming that the shortfall in licensed door staff is the result of delays in our own processes,” states Drane. “There have been many reports in the hospitality industry press accusing us of creating the backlogs, but this is simply not the case. It is clear that people were able to apply but, as you can see from our figures, most left it too late.”

With a nod towards the security guarding companies who now fall under the SIA’s gaze, Drane adds: “The SIA has invested a significant amount of time and money in ensuring that all those in the entertainment industry, the security sector and door supervisors themselves are fully aware of what is required of them in. The roll-out dates for door supervisor licensing were publicly announced as far back as July 2003. The required training has been available since November 2003.”

As of Wednesday 4 May, the SIA had received just over 31,500 applications for door staff licenses, and had granted 19,000 in total. In the manned security sector, 1,000 applications have been received to date, and 100 licenses have been issued. The frustratingly slow take-up in the door sector must not be replicated among the guarding firms.

On a somewhat more cheery note, the SIA’s deputy chief executive then recounts a major success story. “Our compliance activity has worked, and that’s a positive message for all,” he suggests. “In the earlier regions we’re up to target, with 80-90% compliance in many instances. The other regions will definitely attain that level, but there will be a time lag.”