Consultation outcome

Get Licensed consultation: outcome report

Updated 2 October 2025

Introduction

There were over 3,000 responses to the public consultation on these proposals, with most of the respondents being SIA licence holders.

In summary, the consultation found considerable support for the proposed additions to the list of relevant offences. Only a small proportion of respondents felt that we had missed offences from the proposal or suggested specific types of offences should be removed from the proposal.

Most of the licence holders who responded believed that the proposed changes to the list of relevant offences will make no difference to them being granted a licence in future. While a little over a third (35%) of the businesses who responded believed that the impact on them of the proposals on the list of relevant offences will be negligible. A little under two-thirds (62%) believed that the impact will be negligible or minor.

There was also strong support for our proposal for a more risk averse approach in how we assess applications where the applicant has a criminal record for sexual, child abuse or child neglect offences. In addition, there was strong support for the proposal to introduce an ‘absolute refusal’ approach.

There was very strong support for the proposal to adopt a more risk averse approach where anyone with criminality for sexual and child offences would be subject to a new ‘intention to refuse’ process. There was strong support among these respondents for this proposal to apply to all licence categories.

Most respondents agreed with the proposal that all existing licence holders that have historic criminality for sexual, child abuse or neglect offences who apply to renew their licence should be considered under the ‘intention to refuse’ process.

In addition, most respondents supported the proposal that any applications (including renewals) where the applicant has a criminal record that includes a sentence of more than 48 months for a relevant offence should be considered under the ‘intention to refuse’ process. Most respondents also thought that the SIA should consider applying the ‘intention to refuse’ process to convictions for other types of relevant offences. Furthermore, most respondents thought that the SIA should consider applying the ‘intention to refuse’ process to cases where there are substantial offences with prison sentences under 48 months.

Sentences of 48 months or more currently result in the application falling into either the ‘automatic refusal’ or ‘consider additional factors’ category, depending on how long ago sentence restrictions ended. Consultation feedback prompted us to conduct a more general review of our approach to custodial sentences. We found that such sentences can result from a wide range of offences, unlike those in the proposed ‘intention to refuse’ category. It would be disproportionate for us to consider all such applicants under the ‘intention to refuse’ process. We therefore decided that applications with custodial sentences over 12 months will fall into the ‘consider additional factors’ category. This threshold aligns with Crown Court sentencing powers and is also the level used to decide if an offence is serious enough to allow extradition in the UK.

Most respondents agreed that the SIA should take into account multiple offences when considering criminality, even if some are convictions for offences that are not in the list of relevant offences.

There was also strong support for the proposal to strengthen our requirement for overseas criminal record checks. We currently ask applicants to provide these if they have lived outside of the UK for a continuous period of 6 months or more within the last 5 years. We propose to extend this from 5 years to 10 years.

Respondents largely agreed with the proposal to add more examples to the non-conviction information section in Get Licensed.

In general, respondents agreed that the proposed changes will not have a disproportionate regulatory impact on businesses and the wider sector. Most respondents also agreed that the proposed changes will not have a disproportionate impact on applicants with protected characteristics.

A more detailed description of the findings of the consultation is presented below.

What we will do next

The public consultation showed robust support for our proposals among licence holders and private security businesses. These findings have been presented to the SIA Board and to the Minister for Security, who has responsibility for the SIA. The Minister has therefore given final, formal agreement to the licensing criteria in Get Licensed being changed to bring these proposals into effect.

The SIA is preparing to publish an updated version of Get Licensed. We will give licence holders advance notice of when this new version will be published and of any actions they might need to take in advance of then. The new version of Get Licensed will take effect from 1 December 2025, when these new criteria will apply.

Respondents

There were 3,392 responses to the consultation. Although it should be noted that some of these respondents did not answer all the questions.

The respondents to the consultation were predominantly SIA licence holders.

Do you hold an active SIA licence?
Yes	98%
No	2%

Most of the respondents with licences held door supervision licences.

Which licence(s) do you hold?
Cash and valuables in transit	34
Close protection	174
Door supervision	2,199
Key holding	28
Public space surveillance (CCTV)	692
Security guard	758
Vehicle immobiliser	3
Non-front line	64

Most of the respondents were answering on their own behalf rather than on behalf of an organisation.

Are you answering on behalf of -
I am answering on my own behalf	2,844
Another organisation	39
Other public body	20
Local authority	22
Police force	6
Buyer	16
Private security business	244

The number of responses from buyers of private security services, police forces, local authorities, other public bodies, and other types of organisations was too small to provide statistically valid results.

List of relevant offences consultation

There was considerable support for the proposed additions to the list of relevant offences, although the level of support varied across the new categories of offences. The inclusion of safeguarding offences, immigration offences, and smuggling and customs offences received the most support. Tax evasion offences, company law offences, and public order offences had the highest numbers of respondents disagreeing with their inclusion in the list of relevant offences, but most respondents still supported their inclusion.

Category	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total
Safeguarding	1,276	497	148	66	123	2,110
Public order	993	539	267	147	163	2,109
Breaches of court orders, etc.	996	567	266	133	145	2,107
Armed forces	967	528	314	136	160	2,105
Animal welfare	1,125	520	238	103	122	2,108
Prison	1,242	502	169	76	116	2,105
Criminal attempts, etc.	1,229	544	139	70	124	2,106
Immigration	1,312	456	129	90	121	2,108
Smuggling and customs	1,270	534	121	69	112	2,106
Company law	867	632	273	166	159	2,097
Tax evasion	875	583	273	190	196	2,117

A clear majority of respondents felt that the offences we are proposing to add to the list of relevant offences are appropriate. 88% of respondents felt that we had not missed any offences that should be in the list, and 86% believed that no offences need to be removed from the proposal.

Have we missed any offences that should be considered relevant?
Yes	12%
No	88%

Are any of the offences we propose to add ones that you believe should not be in the list of relevant offences?
Yes	14%
No	86%

Those respondents who felt an offence is missing from the proposals were asked what offence they felt has been omitted and why. 229 respondents answered this question, with most suggesting adding offences that are already in the list of relevant offences and/or in the proposal. The highest number of such suggestions were to include sex offences, domestic abuse offences, stalking offences, and child abuse (including child sexual abuse) offences in the list of relevant offences.

A small number of respondents suggested adding offences that are not in the proposal nor the current list. The most frequently occurring suggestion was to add offences relating to living and working illegally in the UK. However, the number of respondents making this suggestion (19) was tiny compared to the overall number of respondents to the consultation. The most frequent reasons given for this answer were that it is not possible or harder to perform effective background checks on individuals from overseas, and that poor English language skills among licence holders from overseas cause public safety risks.

Those respondents who felt that an offence or offences we are proposing should not be in the list of relevant offences were asked which offence(s) these are and why they believe this. 214 respondents gave an answer. The top five categories of offences stated by these respondents were the following.

1. Tax evasion (46 respondents): the most frequently given reason for this answer was that convictions for these offences are not pertinent to whether someone can perform a private security role and/or protect public safety. A smaller number of respondents were also concerned that these convictions could be the result of legitimate errors by the individuals or over-zealous enforcement by HM Revenue and Customs.

2. Armed Forces (31 respondents): these respondents stated that military offences are not comparable to civilian offences, and/or that the military justice system and civilian justice system are different.

3. Public order (30 respondents): these respondents felt that convictions for these offences can be the result of over-zealous policing and/or that these offences infringe the right to protest.

4. Company law (25 respondents): the most frequently given reason for this answer was that convictions for these offences are not pertinent to whether someone can perform a private security role and/or protect public safety.

5. Immigration (17 respondents): these respondents felt that convictions for immigration offences have no bearing on someone’s ability to work in private security, can be minor, and/or can be the result of legitimate errors.

The number of respondents suggesting these categories of offences be removed was relatively small compared to the overall response rate. For example, the respondents who felt that tax evasion offences should not be in the list of relevant offences was a little over 1% of all respondents.

In addition, 25 respondents stated that they believe that none of the proposed offences should be added to the list of relevant offences. These respondents felt that the proposed additions to the list were overreach by the SIA, or where unnecessary and/or disproportionate.

Respondents were also asked about their assessment of the potential impact of the proposed changes to the list of relevant offences. 78% of respondents who hold a licence believed that the proposed changes to the list of relevant offences will make no difference to them being granted a licence in future.

If you hold an active SIA licence, do you think that the proposed changes might make it more likely that you would not be granted an SIA licence in future?
I am very unlikely to be granted a licence	32
I am unlikely to be granted a licence	11
It may mean that I am less likely to be granted a licence	94
It will make no difference	1,540
Do not know	304

Two questions asked those who were responding on behalf of a private security business about their estimation of the potential impact on their business of the proposed changes to the list of relevant offences. 1,305 respondents answered the first question and 1,360 answered the second question. However, the number of respondents who had stated at the beginning of the consultation that they were answering on behalf of private security business was 244. It therefore seems likely that individual licence holders who were not acting as representatives of their employer chose to answer these two questions. We have therefore filtered the answers to find the responses given by these 244 people who were answering on behalf of a private security business. 130 of these respondents answered the first question and 133 answered the second question.

If you are answering on behalf of a private security business, do you believe that some of the licence holders you currently deploy will not be able to get an SIA licence in future because of these proposed changes?
Yes	32%
No	68%

Private security businesses - Do you expect the impact on your business to be -
Very significant	11%
Major	19%
Minor	36%
Negligible	46%
Do not know	21%

There are several observations that can be made about these results:

• Just under 50% of businesses who responded believe that the proposals will have a more than negligible impact on their businesses, but more than half of these believe the impact will be minor.

• A little over a third (35%) believe that the impact of the proposals will be negligible. A little under two-thirds (62%) believe that the impact will be negligible or minor.

• A notable proportion (about a sixth) felt unable to estimate the potential impact.

We also asked if respondents had any additional comments about the proposals on the list of relevant offences. 528 respondents provided additional comments. Although most of these comments could be categorised into broad themes, the total number of responses in each of these themes and on specific points were all relatively small.

A dedicated email inbox was available to enable people to ask questions about the consultation and to make requests for the consultation in other formats or languages. This inbox received 60 emails. Some of the comments sent to this inbox were on the same themes as the responses to the “additional comments” question. These comments have therefore been added to the tallies for the additional comments made in response to the online questionnaire.

Across both comments given in the online questionnaire and in emails, 65 people stated that they agree with the proposals. This was the highest number of responses on a specific point. A further 11 respondents stated that they agree with proposals but were shocked or surprised that these offences are not already relevant and/or how it has taken to consider making them relevant.

9 respondents felt that the current system is sufficient and that these changes are not required. 3 stated that they disagree with the proposals on the list of relevant offences without saying why.

There were a notable number of comments about the SIA and the current licensing system not relating to the proposals on the list of relevant offences.

Some respondents made suggestions in relation to how the SIA considers criminal records. For example, 14 respondents said that the SIA should consider the individual circumstances in such assessments, while others said that the time since conviction should be considered as a mitigating factor.

Some respondents repeated comments that they had given earlier in the consultation and so these comments are reported earlier in this document.

Criminality changes consultation

Do you agree that the SIA should introduce a more risk averse approach for applicants with a criminal record for sexual, child abuse or child neglect offences?

There were 1,594 responses to this question. These showed strong support for a change to the approach in how we assess applications where the applicant has a criminal record for sexual, child abuse or child neglect offences.

Yes	92%
No	8%

A small number of the respondents who disagreed with the proposed approach provided further comment (with several of the comments falling outside of the scope of the question). The most frequent comment (given by 12 respondents) was that licence holders with this type of criminality should never hold an SIA licence. A further 3 respondents believed that licence holders should not have any criminal convictions, even historic ones. Another 7 respondents felt that people can rehabilitate, and so it was important that they were given the opportunity to hold a licence. These responses make up a small proportion of the overall number of responses.

Why don’t you agree that the SIA should introduce a more risk averse approach for applicants with a criminal record for sexual, child abuse or neglect offences?
Always refuse for these offences	13
Grant if clean record for a period of time	2
People rehabilitate	7
Refuse if any criminal convictions	3
These offences can be from false allegations	2
Other	3

Do you agree with the proposed ‘absolute refusal’ approach for some new applications?

There were 1,572 responses to this question. The responses showed strong support for the proposed introduction of an ‘absolute refusal’ approach.

Yes	85%
No	15%

The respondents who disagreed with the proposed approached were asked why they did not agree. Unfortunately, the number of responses was too small to be statistically significant or otherwise informative.

Are there any other circumstances that you think should be covered by the ‘absolute refusal’ approach?

There were 1,541 responses to this question. Most respondents did not think that there are any other circumstances that should be included in the proposed ‘absolute refusal’ approach.

Yes	29%
No	71%

Of the 29% of respondents who believed that other circumstances should be considered, and who provided further comments, most took the view that no licence holder should have any criminal record for sexual offences. The second highest number of comments relate to concerns that many licence holders had a low level of English language skills, which impacted their ability to carry out their role as a licence holder.

37 of these respondents thought any history of domestic violence should lead to an automatic refusal. This was closely followed by any type of offence that could be classified as ‘offences against the person’ such as murder, grievous bodily harm (GBH), actual bodily harm (ABH).

The ‘Other’ category in the table below covers circumstances where there were less than 5 responses, for example, alcoholism (3), any custodial sentence (3), anti-social behaviour (2), any applicant who is not a British citizen (2), mental health issues (3), and lack of physical fitness (2).

Sexual offences	72
Poor English skills	65
Domestic violence	37
Offences against the person	36
Offences against children/vulnerable people	34
Drug offences	21
Violent offences	20
Any criminal conviction	15
Immigration/human trafficking	11
Fraud/Bribery/Corruption/Dis.	10
Terrorism	10
Drink/drug driving	9
Stalking	7
Cruelty to animals	7
No overseas info	7
Hate crimes	6
Theft	6
Racism	5
Breach of PSIA	5
Other	28

Do you agree with the proposed ‘intention to refuse’ approach for other applications and renewals involving sexual and child offences?

There were 1,517 responses to this question. There was very strong support for the proposal to adopt a more risk averse approach where anyone with criminality for sexual and child offences would be subject to a new ‘intention to refuse’ process.

Yes	93%
No	7%

The small proportion of respondents who answered “no” to this question were asked to give their reasons. The most given response was that any licence holders or applicants with this type of criminality should be subject to automatic refusal. The next most given reason was that they believed that was that individual circumstances should be considered.

Should be absolute refusal	22
Consider on case-by-case basis	11
Can rehabilitate	5
Could be false allegation	4
Grant if sentence served/conviction spent	3
Grant if clean record for specified period of time	2
Exclude child neglect	2
Other	4

Do you have any comments on the proposed ‘intention to refuse’ factors that the SIA will take into account when deciding whether an applicant still poses a public protection risk?

Very few respondents provided any comments. Some of those who responded thought that any offence committed a long time ago (e.g. 20 years) should not be considered.

Some respondents expressed concerns that an applicant can select who provides their character reference and so may only ask individuals who they know will provide a favourable reference. A few respondents did not agree the SIA would attach more credibility to character references where the referee is aware of the nature of the applicant’s past criminality. Some suggested that probation reports or a memorandum of conviction from a court would be good ‘credible evidence’ to prove that applicants are no longer a public safety risk.

Do you agree that these changes should apply to all licence categories?

1,495 respondents answered this question. There was strong support among these respondents for the proposals applying to all licence categories.

Yes	92%
No	8%

Only a small number of the respondents who did not agree provided further comment. Most of the comments were outside the scope of the question.

Nearly all respondents who commented felt that the different licence categories can cover different roles and responsibilities, and therefore may have different risk profiles. The general feeling among these respondents was that a more risk averse approach may not be necessary for licence holders who worked in roles where they did not come in direct contact with the public and therefore could not pose a risk to them.

Do you agree with the proposed approach that all existing licence holders that have historic criminality for sexual, child abuse or neglect offences, who apply to renew their licence should be considered under the ‘intention to refuse’ process?

There were 1,483 answers to this question. Most respondents agreed that all existing licence holders with a history of this type of criminality should be considered under the ‘intention to refuse’ process when they apply for renewal.

Yes	89%
No	11%

11% of respondents disagreed with this proposal and some provided comments for why they gave this answer. Most felt that no licence holder should have convictions for these offences, irrespective of how long ago they were committed. They also believed that any existing licence holders that fell within this category should not be allowed to continue to hold a licence and that their application for renewal should be automatically refused.

13 respondents believed that existing licence holders should have their licences renewed if the offending happened a long time ago and they had not reoffended. 8 respondents believed that licences should be renewed where the applicant had an unblemished record as a licence holder.

A further 8 respondents felt that it was unfair to apply this approach retrospectively to existing licence holders as the SIA had been content to issue a licence to them in the past. There were a variety of other comments that did not follow themes.

Should be automatic refusal	15
Not if conviction long time ago	13
Not if proven track record in industry	8
Should only apply to new applications	8
Not if clean record since licence held	4
Other	3

Do you agree that the SIA should apply the ‘intention to refuse’ approach to any new or renewal licence application where the applicant’s criminal record includes a sentence of more than 48 months for a relevant offence?

There were 1,476 answers to this question. Most respondents supported the proposal that any applications (including renewals) where the applicant has a criminal record that includes a sentence of more than 48 months for a relevant offence should be considered under the ‘intention to refuse’ process.

Yes	87%
No	13%

Most respondents who disagreed with the proposal felt that people change and should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate.

11 respondents felt that it should all depend on what offences the convictions were for and that the ‘intention to refuse’ process should only apply to serious offences that threaten public safety. Two respondents felt that the length of sentence is not relevant to risk of reoffending, and that the focus should be on protecting the public from key, specific risks.

Four respondents felt that applying the ‘intention to refuse’ category where there is a custodial sentence of more than 48 months goes too far with one commenting that it would be fairer to apply the CAF process.

Two respondents felt that it is not fair to apply the ‘intention to refuse’ process to existing licence holders who were renewing their licence and had past criminality that fell within this category. There were other comments that did not follow any themes.

Do you agree that, where there are multiple offences, the SIA should take that into account even if some of them are not relevant offences?

The SIA received 1,472 answers to this question. Most respondents agreed with the proposal that the SIA should take into account multiple offences when considering criminality, even if some are convictions for offences that are defined as not relevant in Get Licensed.

Yes	87%
No	13%

The table below identifies themes in the comments made by those respondents who explained why they disagreed with this proposal. Most disagreed simply because of the inclusion of non-relevant offences, which they felt was unfair. Some pointed out that non-relevant offences could include minor motoring offences or non-payment of fines.

13 respondents felt that this approach should not be applied to offences that had occurred a long time ago. 12 pointed out that people did have the capacity to rehabilitate and the SIA should recognise this. 7 respondents were of the view that it should depend on the types of offences.

The ‘Other’ category in the table below covers a variety of individual comments, including one respondent who felt that one size does not fit all, and another who felt the SIA should not consider juvenile offences that may have occurred because of peer pressure.

Not for non-relevant offences	38
Not if convictions long ago	13
People rehabilitate	12
Not for minor offences	9
Depends on offence(s)	7
No change needed	4
Other	4

Do you agree with this proposed change regarding overseas criminal record information?

1,455 respondents answered this question, with strong support for the proposal to extend the length of time an overseas criminal records check must cover if an applicant has lived or worked overseas for six continuous months or more from five years to ten.

Yes	91%
No	9%

The table below groups into themes some of the comments received in response to a question that asked why respondents agreed with our proposal to strengthen our requirement for overseas criminal record checks.

195 respondents answered that they believe it is important that SIA decision makers have access to as much information as possible when assessing an applicant’s past criminality.

47 respondents thought any time spent overseas should be checked for criminality to ensure “an even playing field” with UK-based applicants.

43 respondents were concerned that some applicants may deliberately not disclose overseas convictions to hide criminality that might prevent them from obtaining a licence, and the proposed change would make that more difficult.

22 respondents were of the view that overseas jurisdictions may apply sentences differently or record convictions in a different manner to the UK. This could work for or against the applicant. They were also concerned that there may be some countries that apply much harsher sentences for certain offences or convictions are politically motivated.

There was also concern (22 respondents) that the proposal would create more barriers for applicants who had spent time overseas. More than one respondent stated that many Close Protection licence holders have spent time in war zones and/or countries where it is virtually impossible to obtain any criminal record information. Some were concerned about the additional time it may take to obtain the information and the associated cost.

14 respondents agreed that extending the overseas residence requirement would bring the security sector in line with others who already had that requirement. 13 respondents were of the view that any overseas criminal conviction should automatically bar the applicant from holding an SIA licence in the UK.

9 respondents felt that extending the requirement would give businesses more confidence in the licence holders that they were recruiting, while public confidence in the industry would increase.

There were 9 respondents who thought that any convictions received overseas should not be taken into consideration at all by the SIA.

A further 9 respondents expressed concerns around the reliability of information provided by overseas jurisdictions considering the possibility of corruption enabling applicants to submit fake documents to hide previous criminality.

9 respondents felt that if an applicant could not obtain this information from overseas then they should not be granted a licence.

8 respondents welcomed the proposal, noting that a real increase in licence holders from overseas meant that it was more important than ever to have good overseas criminal records checks.

Only 7 respondents felt that the current requirements for overseas criminal record information are sufficient, and so no further change is required.

The ‘Other’ category captures individual comments that do not otherwise fit into themes, for example, that all applicants should be UK citizens for at least 5 years prior to their application and they should speak fluent English.

Need as much overseas info as possible	195
Overseas should be same as UK	47
Prevents people hiding past offences	43
Other countries may record/sentence differently	22
Creates more barriers for some applicants	22
Will bring in line with other sectors	14
Any overseas criminality should lead to refusal	13
Will strengthen industry	9
Overseas convictions should not count	9
Agree 5 years not long enough	9
Overseas documents not reliable/open to fraud	9
If cannot provide certificate should be refused	9
Important with increase of overseas applicants	8
Current system fine/no change needed	7
Other	4

Do you think that the SIA should also consider applying the ‘intention to refuse’ process to convictions for other types of relevant offences?

The SIA received 1,440 answers to this question. Most respondents thought that the SIA should consider applying the ‘intention to refuse’ process to convictions for other types of relevant offences.

Yes	76%
No	24%

The table below groups into categories the responses that were received to the follow-up question on which other types of additional offences respondents think the ‘intention to refuse’ process should cover. The largest number of comments (154) supported extending the ‘intention to refuse’ process to all applicants with any past criminality. This was followed by 69 respondents who thought it should be applied to any offences against the person (murder, ABH, GBH, etc.). This was closely followed by any offences that contained elements of dishonesty.

53 respondents questioned whether applicants with a history of drug offences were suitable to be licence holders and felt that these cases warranted closer scrutiny. 48 respondents did not name any specific offences but thought that any that could be considered violent or serious should be included.

Further respondents thought the following offences should be included: domestic violence (25), serious driving offences (22), harassment/stalking (22), immigration/human trafficking (21), terrorism/extremist views (17), any offence that threatens public safety (16), weapons/firearms offences (15), racism (13), online offences (10), offences against animals (10), anti-social behaviour (9), offences against vulnerable adults (7), hate crimes (7), public order offences (6), and money laundering (6).

14 respondents believed that any type of custodial sentence should be considered. The ‘Other’ category in the table below covers respondents that wanted to include: any financial crime (4); any offences committed overseas (2); PSIA offences (2); perjury (1); and absconding from justice (1).

Any conviction	154
Offences against the person	69
Fraud/bribery/dishonesty	62
Burglary/theft/robbery	62
Drugs	53
Serious/violent	48
Domestic violence	25
Serious driving offences	22
Harassment/stalking	22
Immigration/human trafficking	21
Terrorism/extremism	17
Any offence that threatens public safety	16
Weapons/firearms	15
Any custodial sentence	14
Racism	13
Online offences	10
Animal offences	10
Anti-social behaviour	9
Offences against vulnerable persons	7
Hate crimes	7
Public order	6
Money-laundering	6
Other	10

Do you think that the SIA should also consider applying the ‘intention to refuse’ process to cases where there are substantial offences with prison sentences under 48 months?

The SIA received 1,416 answers to this question. Most respondents thought that the SIA should consider applying the ‘intention to refuse’ process to these types of cases.

Yes	81%
No	19%

The consultation asked respondents who answered “yes” to this question to state what they think the minimum prison sentence should be. The table below sets out the results.

The top five responses were:

1. 140 respondents would like to see any custodial sentence subject to the ‘intention to refuse’ process.

2. 51 respondents would like the minimum set at 6 months.

3. 43 respondents felt that we should apply the approach on a case-by-case basis.

4. 42 respondents would like the minimum set at 12 months.

5. 28 respondents would like the minimum set at 24 months.

It was clear that several respondents felt that the SIA should look at the types of offences and the circumstances surrounding them rather than focus on the length of the custodial sentence. They noted that non-custodial sentences are handed down for serious offending that they believed raised questions about whether someone was fit to hold a licence.

A small number of respondents went further, believing that any applicant who had served any time in prison should automatically be refused an SIA licence or that any past criminality for any type of offence should prevent someone from becoming a licence holder.

Any convictions	16
Any prison sentence	140
It depends/case by case basis	43
48 hours	1
1 week	2
21 days	1
1 month	9
2 months	1
30 days	1
5 weeks	1
3 months	9
4 months	2
6 months	51
9 months	2
12 months	42
14 months	1
18 months	10
24 months	28
36 months	10
42 months	1
48 months	12
5 years	7
8 years	1
10 years	4

Do you agree with the proposal to add to the examples of non-conviction information in Get Licensed?

The SIA received 1,402 answers to this question. Most respondents agreed with our proposal.

Yes	76%
No	24%

Of those who did not agree with the proposal, 100 respondents did not think that non-conviction information should be considered. The reasons given were that non-conviction information could result from hearsay evidence or malicious allegations made against an individual without much, if any, foundation. Conviction information was seen as more reliable as any evidence had been tested in court. In addition, they felt that people should be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

10 respondents felt that proposed changes went too far, and another 10 respondents thought that there was no need to add any further examples of non-conviction information to Get Licensed. 3 respondents believed it all depended on the circumstances of the case.

A further 3 respondents were concerned that the inclusion of non-conviction information can lead to bias in the decision-making process.

Should not include non-conviction information	100
Go too far	10
No change needed - current system fine	10
Depends on circumstances	3
Can be subject to bias	3

Is there any other information that you think the SIA should take into account when it decides whether or not an applicant or licence holder is considered to be ‘fit and proper’?

There were 1,391 answers to this question. Only 61% of respondents thought that the SIA should not consider any further information when it decides whether an applicant or licence holder is ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence.

Yes	39%
No	61%

The table below sets out the broad themes in the comments made by those who answered an additional question with suggestions for the type of information that should be considered when applying the ‘fit and proper’ test. The most frequent comment, given by 123 respondents, was that to be able to carry out their role safely and effectively, a licence holder must be able to communicate effectively in the English Language. This was followed by 42 respondents suggesting that physical fitness levels should be assessed.

30 respondents felt that it was important for the SIA to assess whether an applicant had any mental health issues that could impact on their ability to carry out a role in the security industry safely and effectively.

11 respondents thought that all applicants should be required to submit character references to support their application. Another 11 respondents thought that the SIA should consider any history of drug or alcohol abuse. 6 respondents felt that it was important to consider references from employers and employment history. Another 6 respondents thought that the SIA should consider the track record of existing licence holders.

5 of the comments did not fit into the themes identified and have been recorded in the table as ‘Other’, for example, the suggestions that the SIA require applicants to be born in the UK and raise the minimum age for a licence. 5 respondents thought that the SIA should consider whether an applicant held any extremist views.

Able to clearly communicate in English	123
Physical fitness	42
Mental health issues	30
Medical	29
Character references for all	11
Use of drugs/alcohol	11
Employment history/references	6
SIA track record	6
Extremist views	5
Previous disciplinary action/dismissal	3
Phoenixing	3
Other	5

Do you agree with the SIA’s initial assessment that the proposed changes will not have a disproportionate regulatory impact on businesses or the wider sector?

The SIA received 1,358 answers to this question. Most respondents agreed that the proposed changes will not have a disproportionate regulatory impact on businesses and the wider sector.

Yes	72%
No	28%

Respondents felt that the security sector needs a big change. Many felt that, in the long term, any impact on staffing levels might be positive as a smaller number of licence holders might force businesses to raise pay and improve conditions as the labour market became more competitive.

The table below groups respondents’ comments into themes. 72 respondents believed that the changes would drive up standards in the industry, with a positive impact for business, individual licence holders and the public. 41 respondents agreed with the SIA’s view that any impact on the sector should not be significant given the small number of licence holders who have any past criminality on their record.

33 respondents thought that the proposed changes could make the recruitment of licence holders more difficult at a time when recruitment is challenging. However, a small number of respondents commented that there are significant numbers of appropriate candidates currently.

24 respondents were pleased that the SIA was proposing these changes and felt that they were a move in the right direction.

21 respondents were concerned that if the proposed changes are applied to existing licence holders, then the industry would lose skilled personnel.

20 respondents were not concerned about any impact on business as they felt that reputable businesses will experience little or no impact because of their approach to vetting staff. 19 respondents felt that these changes would be very positive for businesses and the wider security sector.

15 respondents thought that the proposed changes would mean that a number of applicants and existing licence holders would no longer be eligible for a licence. However, they thought that this would only affect individuals who were not ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence. 14 respondents believed these changes would introduce further safeguards that would increase public safety.

The category in the table described as ‘Other’ includes: concerns that a number of existing licence holders may lose their jobs as a result of these changes (3); that industry is more than able to adapt to any changes (3); that the changes might have a negative impact and lead to an increase in prices within the industry (1).

8 respondents thought it was too early to accurately predict the impact would be if these changes were introduced by the SIA.

7 respondents believed the SIA’s current approach to criminality was effective, and no changes are necessary. 6 respondents were concerned that the changes could negatively impact on recruitment and might encourage less scrupulous businesses to employ unlicensed staff or would lead to increase in use of in-house security operatives. 5 respondents were pleased that these changes would remove unsuitable persons from the industry.

4 respondents felt that the proposed changes were a move in the right direction, but the SIA could go a lot further to support businesses.

Will drive up standards	72
Only small number have criminality	41
Make recruitment difficult	33
Pleased - move in right direction	24
Will remove good people	21
Reputable companies will not be affected	20
Will support business/industry	19
Good will remove people who should be	15
Good for public safety	14
Too early to predict impact	8
Current system fine - no change needed	7
Might increase number of unlicensed staff	6
Will prevent unsuitable persons getting licensed	5
Move in right direction but could go further	4
Other	8

Do you agree with the SIA’s initial assessment that the proposed changes will not have a disproportionate impact on applicants with protected characteristics?

The SIA received 1,359 answers to this question. Most respondents agreed that the proposed changes will not have a disproportionate impact on applicants with protected characteristics.

The table below groups responses into broad categories. 9 respondents felt that it was too early to tell what impact these proposed changes might have. 8 believed that there would be a significant impact.

7 respondents felt that there could be a disproportionate impact on applicants who have lived overseas, for example, because of the difficulty of obtaining overseas criminal record checks from some countries.

7 respondents thought that there could be a disproportionate impact on people from BAME backgrounds. One respondent, for example, thought that the proposed changes could disproportionately affect individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds or certain ethnic groups, who may be more likely to have a criminal history due to “systemic inequalities.”

3 respondents thought the changes may have a disproportionate impact on applicants with a history of mental health issues. 1 respondent thought there may be a disproportionate impact on applicants because of their age.

Difficult to tell	9
Will have significant impact	8
Resident overseas	7
BAME	7
Will have impact	7
Mental health	3
Age	1