Open consultation

Manchester Arena Inquiry: Monitored recommendations 7 and 8 consultation document

Published 18 December 2025

About this consultation

This consultation opened on 18 December 2025 and will close on 12 March 2026.

This consultation is open to the public, and is targeted at the following:

• in-house security employees and employers
• SIA licence holders
• private security firms
• private security buyers
• industry associations
• public bodies
• local authorities

This consultation seeks views on Manchester Arena Inquiry monitored recommendations 7 and 8 (MR7 and MR8):

• to review whether in-house CCTV operators should be licensed (MR7)
• to consider whether contractors who carry out security services should be licensed (MR8)

We would like to understand views on this, including different options for what this could consist of, and the impact licensing would have.

Publication of response

A paper summarising the responses to this consultation will be published on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of the consultation closing.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging with stakeholders and the public when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles.

How to respond

The survey will take around 20 minutes to complete, depending on how much detail you give. If you wish to take part, you will be required to complete the survey in one sitting. 

Please submit your response by 12 March 2026.

To help us analyse the responses please use the online system if possible.

If, for exceptional reasons, you are unable to use the online system, for example because you use specialist accessibility software that is not compatible with the system, you can complete the Word document version of the survey and return it to: PSIAMailbox@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Confidentiality

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Home Office.

The Home Office will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Foreword

Private security operatives play a crucial role in keeping the public safe. They hold positions of responsibility, interact with vulnerable individuals - especially in the night-time economy - and can be first responders to terrorist incidents. It is therefore essential that high standards of regulatory oversight of private security are delivered consistently.

The Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) 2001 created the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to provide such oversight. Through its statutory licensing role, the SIA seeks to maintain high standards of public safety by ensuring frontline security operatives and non-frontline partners, directors, managers and supervisors of security firms are “fit and proper” individuals who meet its criteria, as published in Get Licensed.

While the SIA has transformed the way in which the government oversees private security over the last 20 years, its licensing regime must continue to evolve and improve to respond to new challenges. The Manchester Arena Inquiry (MAI) into the terror attack at the Manchester Arena in 2017 found that the SIA’s licensing regime could be extended to improve preparedness in the future.

The safety and security of our citizens is the government’s top priority. We are committed to delivering the intended outcomes of the MAI: better uniformity of standards in the private security industry, enhanced provision of security services, and effective counter-terrorism measures. Having taken on ministerial oversight of the SIA, I am keen to ensure the SIA’s licensing regime remains effective and delivers high quality oversight of the private security industry. This includes reviewing the scope of the SIA’s licensing regime, as recommended by Monitored Recommendations 7 and 8 of the MAI.

In addition to the MAI, in my engagement with the industry, I have found that the security and sectors representatives groups, such as the Night-Time Industry Association, ^{[footnote 1]} are strongly in support of changes in line with these recommendations, as they would improve standards of security provision.

Having carefully reviewed both recommendations and considered a range of practical proposals for intervention, I am keen to seek a wide range of views through this public consultation to understand which of the options, if any, are best to implement. The aim is to ensure a genuine consultation that seeks views on the proposed changes, including regulatory and non-regulatory options. This is to ensure that any new costs and regulatory burdens are proportionate, consider impact on business and highly effective in improving public safety.  

Signature  

                                                                               

Dan Jarvis MBE MP

Security Minister

Executive summary

This consultation is open to the public, and is targeted at security businesses, in-house and SIA licensed security operatives, in-house employers of security operatives, buyers of security, local and public authorities and industry associations.

This consultation is focussed on the Manchester Arena Inquiry (MAI) Monitored Recommendations MR7 (in-house CCTV operatives should be licensed by the SIA) and MR8 (security businesses should be licensed by the SIA). Monitored recommendations are those that the inquiry intends to monitor and review, through seeking evidence from the relevant organisation.

MR7 - In-house CCTV operatives should be licensed by the SIA

The MAI noted that 2 CCTV operators working at Manchester Arena had differing levels of vetting and training: one operator was a contractor and required to hold an SIA licence, while the other was in-house and therefore exempt from SIA licensing. The chair noted that in-house CCTV operatives should be licensed by the SIA, to bring uniformity of training and vetting standards, regardless of type of employment (in-house or contracted). MR7 recommended that the requirement that only those monitoring CCTV under a contract for services need to hold an SIA licence should be reviewed.

While the MAI only suggested licensing of in-house CCTV operatives, the same logic applies to extending licensing to other in-house operatives (see table 1 below for detail on SIA licence categories). These operatives can also be in positions of responsibility, interacting with vulnerable individuals, as well as be first responders to major or terrorist incidents. Extending licensing to these categories of in-house security operatives would standardise vetting and training requirements for them too.

The SIA currently licenses individuals who perform certain security roles specified in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 for a contract for service (see table below). The exceptions to this are door supervisors and vehicle immobilisers, who are always licensed regardless of employment type.

Table 1: SIA licence categories

Licence	Activity undertaken
Close protection	guarding people against physical assault or injury
Door supervision	guarding licensed premises against damage, theft, unauthorised access, or disorderly behaviour
Security guarding	guarding premises or property against damage, theft, unauthorised access, or disorderly behaviour
Cash and valuables in transit	guarding property against damage or theft and transporting it in a vehicle designed for secure transportation
Public space surveillance (CCTV)	operating CCTV equipment and monitoring footage to prevent threats to people or property and reporting these
Key holding	keeping or controlling access to any key or device for operating a lock
Vehicle immobilisation (Northern Ireland only)	preventing or restricting the movement of a vehicle, or removing it, and then charging the owner to release it

Proposals prepared by the Home Office and the SIA to implement MR7 include extending SIA licensing to some or all of the categories listed above where these security operatives are employed in house, as opposed to being contracted for services, with views sought in the consultation on which categories to licence (see ‘The Proposals’ section below for detail on options).

This would impose requirements on in-house security operatives to obtain the relevant SIA security licence (as detailed in the table above). Licensing consists of the SIA conducting a series of background checks, including a standard DBS criminal record check, and ensuring the applicant has successfully obtained a licence-linked qualification.

Operatives are required to renew their licence every 3 years and some categories must undergo refresher training as part of the licence renewal process (door supervision, close protection and security guarding). Through this statutory licensing function, the SIA ensures security operatives are ‘fit and proper’ ^{[footnote 2]} individuals who can maintain public safety. All SIA licences currently cost £184 ^{[footnote 3]} with licence linked qualifications, private sector training providers, costing between £220 to £350 for all the licence categories except for close protection. Close protection training can cost up to £2,000.

The Home office is considering exemptions to this proposal. The current position in relation to SIA licensed security operatives is that certain activities are exempted or excluded from regulation in order to keep licensing proportionate. Those exemptions and exclusions that might be relevant for in-house security operatives, amongst other examples, include some security activities that are incidental to a non-security role, and security activity in situations where other regulatory requirements already apply, for example in prisons or aviation security.

The exclusion for incidental activities ensures that those employees who are not wholly or mainly security operatives but might complete a small amount “security activity” do not require SIA licences. The consultation seeks views on any further exemptions that should be considered.

MR8 - Security businesses should be licensed by the SIA

The MAI also noted that the current regulatory regime does not allow the SIA the oversight of security companies required to ensure that they are “fit and proper” businesses who comply with requirements under the PSIA 2001 (i.e. deploying appropriately licenced staff) and the SIA licensing regime (i.e. ensuring the SIA’s standards as set out in Get Licensed are met). The chair noted that “companies which carry out security work which may include a CT element [should be] required to be licensed”. The finalised MR8 recommended “contractors who carry out security services should be required to be licensed”.

Proposals developed by the Home Office and the SIA for delivering the intent of MR8 (i.e. improved oversight of security businesses by the SIA) are as follows (see ‘The Proposals’ section below for detail on options):

Option 0: ‘Do nothing’

Option 1: Improve SIA oversight of security firms through regulatory reform of the current licensing of directors, partners, supervisors and managers.

Option 2: Improve regulatory compliance and standards, and increase public confidence, through encouraging voluntary take-up of a redesigned Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), soon to be called the Business Approval Scheme (BAS).

Option 3: Business licensing with businesses having to undergo a ‘fit and proper’ test consisting of identity, criminality, integrity, financial probity, and competence checks.

Option 4: Business licensing with businesses having to undergo a ‘fit and proper’ test consisting of identity, criminality checks.

The Home Office have not in this consultation or consultation options assessment proposed any exemptions for Monitored Recommendation 8. Micro, small or medium sized business are used by larger and medium sized firms in supply chains and contracting, and are also sometimes phoenixed (the practice of companies dissolving and reappearing to hide fraud). Micro, small and medium businesses also makeup approximately 99 percent of the private security industry, leading to a risk that if they were exempt, business licensing, if chosen, would be an ineffective policy. The Home Office are seeking views on whether exemptions should be considered, and how they could be structured to reduce impact on micro, small or medium businesses while ensuring business licensing, if chosen, is effective.

We welcome responses from anyone with an interest in or experience of the areas being consulted on within this consultation. The consultation relates to the United Kingdom only.

For both MR7 and MR8, the Home Office does not have any preferred policy options, and all options including not taking any action, are open for consideration. We are keen to understand industry views on the different options, their costs, benefits and effectiveness, impact on different sectors and who should be exempted from any changes.

Introduction

This paper sets out for consultation proposals for the implementation of MR7 (recommendation to require in-house CCTV operatives to be licensed by the SIA) and MR8 (recommendation to introduce licensing of security businesses by the SIA). The consultation is aimed at security businesses, in-house and SIA licensed security operatives, in-house employers of security operatives, buyers of security, local and public authorities and security industry associations in the UK.

The online survey will not ask for any personal information. Please do not provide any personal information in open text boxes. If returning a Word document version of the survey by email, your personal data (email address and name if provided) will be collected by default. Those requesting to complete a Word document version of the survey will be provided with a privacy notice explaining this in more detail.

Responses provided in the consultation will be shared with a third party provider for the purpose of analysing the responses.

A Consultation Options Assessment estimating the costs of all options on MR7 and MR8 is attached included with this consultation.

The proposals

MR7 (in-house CCTV operatives should be licensed by the SIA)

SIA licensing

The existing licensing process for all contracted security operatives consists of the SIA conducting a series of background checks, including a standard DBS criminal record check, and ensuring the applicant has successfully obtained a licence-linked qualification (e.g SIA door supervisor licence qualification). Licences are ranked as set out in table 1 (see page 6), with the higher category licences allowing licence holders to perform functions of the lower categories. While the application process and checks completed are the same for all licence categories, the training varies by category, with close protection training being the most rigorous and expensive. All SIA licences currently cost £184 with licence linked qualifications costing between £220 to £350 for all of the licence categories except for close protection. Close protection training can cost up to £2,000.

Operatives are required to renew their licence every 3 years and some categories must undergo refresher training as part of the licence renewal process (door Supervision, close protection and security guarding). Through this statutory licensing function, the SIA ensures security operatives are ‘fit and proper’ ^{[footnote 4]} individuals who can maintain public safety.

The SIA’s statutory functions also include the inspections of security operatives. If the SIA identifies breaches of the licensing regime, it may take appropriate civil and criminal action. The SIA conducts criminal investigations and brings prosecutions for offences which undermine the regulatory regime.

Problem

Except for door supervisors and vehicle immobilisers, there are currently no mandatory minimum requirements for the licensing of in-house security operatives, unlike contracted out security which always require an SIA licence. This results in discrepancies in training and vetting provided by in-house employers. While some employers set high standards of training, others can provide poor or no training at all. In-house employers are only able to request basic DBS checks, which is lower than the Standard DBS check conducted as part of the SIA licence application.

A basic check does not show spent convictions, unlike the Standard DBS check. This means even those employers who seek high standards cannot vet their employees to the same level as those with an SIA licence. Meanwhile some employers do not conduct any background checks on their in-house security operatives, as there is no legal requirement to do so.

This means that employers may not be aware, or may wilfully ignore, that in-house operatives with a history of serious criminal offending are in positions of responsibility, interacting with vulnerable individuals. It is also possible that those without appropriate training could be first responders to major or terrorist incidents. This leads to inconsistent standards in the security industry and creates a risk to public safety.

Evidence

The MAI’s MR7 recommended that “(t)he requirement that only those monitoring CCTV under a contract for services need to hold an SIA licence should be reviewed”. The MAI noted that 2 CCTV operators at the Manchester Arena were not vetted or trained to the same level, because one was hired in-house, and was therefore exempt from SIA licensing, while the other was an external contractor and subject to SIA licensing requirements, even though both were performing the same role.

The consultation seeks views from respondents to build this evidential picture and understand the impact of licensing in-house operatives in terms of:

a. Improved training and vetting levels

b. Improved protective security

c. Reduced VAWG risk

d. Improving public safety

e. Cost to business

f. How costs can be mitigated

Necessity

Government action is necessary to raise levels of vetting and training of the in-house security sector by setting set minimum legal requirements.

Extending licensing would address the inconsistencies in training requirements by ensuring all operatives, whether in-house or contracted, receive the same base level of training. This would include ensuring that all such operatives receive an element of counter-terrorism training, which is included in the SIA licence-linked qualification.  Licensing would also ensure that operatives are subject to requirements for refresher training where relevant.

Extending licensing to in-house operatives would provide a base level of vetting, ensuring only ’fit and proper’ individuals who have been subject to an identity and criminal record check can be security operatives. It would also enable the SIA to revoke licences of in-house operatives where necessary, helping to remove unfit operatives from the industry, including ensuring that individuals whose licences are revoked in contracted roles do not move into in-house roles instead.

A lack of intervention could mean that some security businesses could continue to employ in-house operatives without appropriate training and or sufficient vetting. This could undermine public safety, especially in the night-time economy (NTE), given that security operatives can hold positions of responsibility and may frequently interact with vulnerable individuals. While this risk is mitigated by most operatives in the NTE being door supervisors, who are always licensed regardless of type of employment and so vetted and trained, there are still some other categories of operatives who do present some risk.

Proposed options for delivering on the intent of MR7

Option 0: ‘Do nothing’ - Continuation of current regulatory regime

Option 1: Encourage voluntary take up of better training and vetting practices (non-regulatory option)

• This would entail encouraging in-house employers to raise levels of training and take up improved vetting practices. This would be done through a comms campaign raising awareness of the risk of poor training and vetting.
• Home Office engagement with stakeholders suggests that voluntary encouragement will have limited impact as companies which currently have poor standards will have no incentive or requirement to improve.

Option 2: Extend SIA licensing to in-house CCTV operatives

• This would entail licensing all in-house CCTV operatives, as MR7 recommended. This would mean anyone wanting to work as an in-house security operative will be required to hold an SIA licence, which entails training and vetting.

Option 3: Extend SIA licensing to in-house CCTV operatives and security guards

• This would ensure that the 3 largest categories of in-house operatives – door supervisors (already licensed), security guards and CCTV operators – are subject to the same ‘fit and proper’ test as contracted out security.
• Extending licensing to these 2 categories would ensure mandatory minimum training and vetting standards are introduced for the 3 biggest categories of in-house operatives (door supervisors (already licensed), Security guards and CCTV operators).
• This would ensure that most of the in-house operatives who have contact with the public or impact large gatherings (in the case of CCTV operatives) are subject to the same ‘fit and proper’ test as contracted out security.
• This would ensure that operatives who do not have contact with the public (that is, key holders), or those who are highly trained with military or police backgrounds (that is, close protection officers (CPOs), are not subject to undue burden.

Option 4: Extend SIA licensing to in-house CCTV operatives, security guards and close protection officers

• While some are highly trained due to past military or police experience, close protection officers (CPOs) do have close contact with families and children when protecting them. CPOs being subject to the same ‘fit and proper’ test as contracted out security would be beneficial and mitigate risk to public safety. The Home Office is keen to understand more about whether licensing of CPOs would be beneficial and if there are any unintended consequences.

Option 5: Extend SIA licensing to in-house CCTV operatives, security guards, close protection officers, key holding operatives and cash valuables in transit operatives

• This option is suggested to test views on whether all categories of in-house operatives should be licenced for simplicity. Under the above proposal for MR7, SIA licensing would be extended as it is to in-house operatives.

Under the above proposals for MR7, SIA licensing would be extended as it is to in-house operatives.

A cost benefit analysis containing more information on each option is included in the Consultation Options Assessment (Annex A).

MR8 (security businesses should be licensed by the SIA)

Problem

The SIA currently oversees businesses through:

1. The mandatory licensing of all partners, directors, managers and supervisors of security companies through requiring them to hold a non-frontline licence. This includes running criminal record and other checks to ensure that they are ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence, and gives the SIA inspections and enforcement powers.  This includes being able to revoke someone’s licence if evidence comes to light that they no longer meet the standards set out by the SIA in its published criteria (e.g. if they receive a criminal conviction).

2. Administering the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), soon to be called the Business Approval Scheme (BAS), a voluntary quality scheme designed to raise professional standards and give customers confidence that the services they are buying are from well-managed businesses that have been subject to quality and integrity checks. The 85 largest ACS businesses account for around 65 percent of the total UK private security market.

Security businesses have identified concerns relating to business fraud, tax evasion, training fraud and illegal employment practices by rogue firms which undercut reputable firms and drive down standards, but the SIA does not have the appropriate tools under the PSIA 2001 to take enforcement action. This is due to the current legislation not giving the SIA the provisions to maintain necessary and appropriate oversight of security companies or individuals that lead them (that is, partners, directors supervisors and managers) and only being able to take enforcement action against individuals, rather than businesses, for company failings.

The intention of the PSIA 2001 when it was introduced was to eliminate criminality from the supply of private security, but increasingly the priority has become appropriate oversight of security businesses to prevent criminality by businesses, improve standards and ensure CT preparedness and public safety. These restrictions can lead to breaches of the PSIA 2001 by businesses. This leads to poor standards and risks public safety as security operatives can be in positions of responsibility interacting with vulnerable individuals, especially in the NTE, as well as be first responders to major or terrorist incidents. 

Evidence

The MAI found that 2 security companies at the Arena had been in breach of the PSIA 2001, with one deploying unlicensed individuals and the other not licensing any staff due to being mistakenly seen as an in-house employer. This the chair noted “demonstrates the lack of effective enforcement measures to ensure that the requirements of the 2001 Act are carried out, despite the fact that breaches of the 2001 Act are criminal offences which carry maximum sentences of imprisonment” ^{[footnote 5]}. The chair noted that while the ACS provides assurance that a security company is ‘fit and proper’ and the SIA uses this to promote good practice, there is no compulsion to be part of the ACS and anyone can set up a company to provide security services.

The chair recommended that “consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counterterrorism (CT) element are required to be licensed”.

It is the Home Office’s view that the current regulatory regime does not give the SIA the legislative framework, powers or tools needed to have oversight of security businesses, that is required to ensure companies are ‘fit and proper’, deliver high quality security, prioritise protective security and ensure compliance with the PSIA 2001. The original legislation was not drafted with this intention in mind, it was drafted to eliminate criminality from the supply of private security, and bring in professional standards to security provision.

The government has also heard significant concerns from industry about about tax fraud, ‘phoenixing’ (when the same business or directors trade successively through a series of companies which liquidate or dissolve leaving debts unpaid), labour exploitation and the resulting poor standards. A large amount of correspondence from MPs, security businesses, industry groups and government departments, and PQs, have asked for the implementation of mandatory business licensing to address these issues.

The consultation seeks views from respondents to build this evidential picture further and understand the benefits and impact of various measures proposed (see section 6) to improve SIA oversight of security companies and deliver improved public safety.  

Necessity

Government action is needed to strengthen SIA oversight of firms and provide it with tools to remove rogue actors.  

Enabling the SIA to take action against organisations as well as individuals would help deal with security businesses that continue to engage in fraudulent or other inappropriate activity, and ensure a consistent security standard that will provide assurance for the buyer and the public. This would improve employee welfare, professionalism in the industry, tax revenue and ultimately public safety. ​ 

Proposed options for delivering on the intent of MR8

Option 0: ‘Do nothing’ - Continuation of current regulatory regime

Option 1: Improve SIA oversight of security firms through regulatory reform of the current licensing of directors, partners, supervisors and managers

• There are 2 types of SIA licences: front line (for security operatives who personally perform licensable conduct), and non-front line (required by all directors, partners, managers and supervisors of firms). Currently, the PSIA 2001 allows frontline licence holders to be directors, partners, managers and supervisors, and they don’t have to inform the SIA of this (that is, when they become director of a company). This dilutes the SIA’s oversight of security companies.

• Reform could consist of:

  • removing the ability of frontline licence holders to become partners, directors, managers or supervisors without having to obtain a non-frontline licence
  • requiring partners, directors, managers or supervisors to provide company information (for example, company name and address) as a non-frontline licence condition
  • placing a duty on partners, directors, managers or supervisors to ensure the requirements of the PSIA 2001 and the SIA’s licensing criteria are complied with

Option 2: Improve regulatory compliance and standards, and increase public confidence, through encouraging voluntary take-up of a redesigned Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), soon to be called the Business Approval Scheme (BAS)

• The ACS is already being redesigned as the BAS with a focus on raising public protection standards. Measures to encourage participation on and the robustness of the scheme in line with the intent set out above could include:
  • a tiered scheme to recognise different levels of security provision quality
  • limiting sub-contracting to only other ACS companies
  • limiting ad-hoc labour supply to only through other ACS companies
  • effective enforcement through unannounced and more frequent checks by the SIA to ensure better compliance with the requirements of the BAS by firms participating in it

Option 3: Introducing business licensing with businesses having to undergo a comprehensive ‘fit and proper’ test consisting of identity, criminality, integrity, financial probity, and competence checks.

• This would consist of:
  • a register of licensed companies
  • businesses having to undergo a ‘fit and proper’ test consisting of identity, criminality, integrity, financial probity, and competence checks
  • continued inspections to check compliance and civil and criminal enforcement for breaches of the licencing regime
• A register of companies would give the SIA information about who is active in the industry and allow it to remove registration from companies that fail to meet the ‘fit and proper’ test standards.
• A ‘fit and proper’ test would ensure vetting of companies before they are granted licences.
• The SIA would continue to have the lever of revoking individual licences of partners, directors, managers or supervisors  in cases of individual wrongdoing.

Option 4: Introducing business licensing with businesses having to undergo a focused ‘fit and proper’ test limited to identity and criminality checks

• This would consist of:
  • a register of companies
  • businesses having to undergo a ‘fit and proper’ test consisting of only identity and criminality checks, similar to individual licensing
  • continued inspections to check compliance and civil and criminal enforcement for breaches of the licencing regime
• As in option 3 the register of companies would give the SIA information about who is active in the industry and allow it to remove registration from individuals that fail to meet the ‘fit and proper’ test standards as set out in Get Licensed ^{[footnote 5]}.
• A ‘fit and proper’ test focused on conducting checks on businesses in 2 areas (identity and criminality) rather than 5 (identity, criminality, integrity, financial probity and competence) would reduce cost and bureaucratic burdens for companies, make the process quicker. It would also ensure the assessment is focused on what would improve public safety.
• The SIA would continue to have the lever of revoking individual licences of partners, directors, managers or supervisors in cases of individual wrongdoing.
• Home Office also propose including some or all of the following aspects within Options 4 and 5:
  • individual licensing of directors, partners, supervisors and managers being replaced with business licensing: these would undergo checks on identity and criminality as part of business licensing
  • individual licensing of partners, directors, managers or supervisors to continue as it is, but reformed as set out in option 1
  • requiring companies to submit information on all partners, directors, managers or supervisors
  • requiring companies to submit information on all operatives deployed
  • prohibiting sub-contracting
  • prohibiting ad-hoc labour supply
  • prohibiting self-employment of operatives
  • improved regulatory and criminal enforcement by the SIA
  • increased unannounced inspections by the SIA
  • introducing a buyers’ offence, for anyone buying security from unlicensed businesses

A cost benefit analysis containing more information on each option is included in the Consultation Options Assessment (Annex A).

Enquiries

Please send enquiries, complaints or comments (including requests for the paper in an alternative format) to:

Manchester Arena Inquiry consultation 
Protect and Prepare
4th Floor Peel Building
Homeland Security Group 
Home Office  
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF 

Email: PSIAMailbox@homeoffice.gov.uk

Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Footnotes

1. Executives from over 70 leading security companies and associations urge government action in letter on business licensing reform ↩

2. SIA: Get Licensed ↩

3. The statutory fee is £204, but due to a rebate the applicant currently pays £184. This rebate is due to finish at the end of the 2025 to 2026 financial year. ↩

4. SIA: Get Licensed ↩

5. Manchester Arena Inquiry - Volume 1: Security for the Arena ↩ ↩²