黑洞社区

Richard is, of course, entitled to his opinion on the issues he raises but, to my mind, too many of his assertions are wrong either in whole or in part.

At the Security Industry Authority (SIA) we welcome challenge and debate, but it鈥檚 better to base any discussion on properly researched and well-argued points. I would hope that the many companies and individuals who, over the past few months, have given their time and thoughts on improvements to be made to the licensing system would give the Regulator credit for its commitment to consultation.

For reasons of brevity I shall not attempt to address all of the points Richard makes, but I feel I must challenge his factual inaccuracies with regard to enforcement. These are inaccuracies which could undermine the progress towards compliance that Richard himself demands.

First of all, Richard asserts that the 鈥淪IA cannot prosecute... despite recent claims to the contrary鈥�. Well he must have missed the News Update item in your January edition (p10) which describes but one occasion on which we have done so and, more importantly, secured convictions. That鈥檚 because the SIA 鈥� just like any other organisation or individual 鈥� can lay information before a given Magistrate in order to seek the issuance of a summons.

We have also launched proceedings in the Crown Court to restrain assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

When Richard refers to 鈥渄ire warnings鈥� and 鈥渢hreatening letters鈥�, I can only assume he鈥檚 referring to the Warning Notices the SIA issues to individuals whom it suspects of having committed a crime under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, or the Improvement Notices we give to companies to help them achieve compliance with the law. Just like some of the informal procedures used by the police and others, these are not provided for in law.

However, this rather misses the point as there is no legal bar to using such methods. In fact, they are recognised as Best Practice. Don鈥檛 take my word for it. Look at the report by Professor Richard Macrory entitled 鈥楻egulatory Justice: Sanctioning in a Post-Hampton World鈥�, published in May last year.

These methods have proven to be highly effective in a way which is both quick and satisfactory for both the Regulator and the regulated, avoiding the time and cost involved with formal action through the Courts. Our experience is that they have had a significant impact in improving levels of compliance in sectors and areas of concern.

Naturally, prosecution remains an option in appropriate cases. A number of investigations are continuing at present, and they may well lead to criminal prosecutions.

We don鈥檛 wholly rely on the police 鈥� as Richard asserts 鈥� but it must be said that our operational partnership with them is one of our greatest assets. This is illustrated by the 50 police service operations that the Regulator has now supported, the 3,000 written warnings issued by the police, the 1,100 witness statements we have given to assist in police investigations and the 1,200 occasions when useful police information has been given to us.

Information from the industry itself is also important. If anyone has specific details concerning alleged training malpractices, non-compliance with the law or non-conformance with ACS standards and Terms and Conditions, then please follow the guidance notes on our web site (www.the-sia.org.uk) for imparting that information to us.

I close by noting that, in the February edition of SMT, there were no less than three reports in the News Update section detailing SIA and/or police enforcement action (with one writer acknowledging that we are enforcing the legislation proportionately).

Andy Drane, Acting Chief Executive, Security Industry Authority