FOI release

Job adverts for below minimum wage and cash-in-hand security work

Published 3 June 2024

Request

With regards to reports of security jobs advertised for below minimum wage or paid cash-in-hand:

• 1.1. Does the SIA recognise that the public are put at risk by these illegal activities?
• 1.2. To date, what has the SIA done about these companies who offer work for below minimum wage?
• 1.3. How many of these companies are being investigated?
• 1.4. How many cases of modern slavery have been identified?
• 1.5. How many individuals are under investigation?
• 1.6. How many criminal charges have been made?
• 1.7. How is the SIA working in collaboration with partner agencies, such as the NCA, local Police Forces, GLAA, HMRC etc.?
• 1.8. How many individuals who are working for these illegal sums of money have been identified as working illegally due to immigration status?
• 1.9. How many of these individuals have been found to hold fake licences?

With regards to the BBC File on 4 investigation into training malpractice, from 3 October 2023 to present day:

• 2.1. How many training providers have been investigated?
• 2.2. How many prosecutions have been initiated?
• 2.3. How many door supervisor and security guard licences have been revoked as a result of licence holders being trained inappropriately or incorrectly by training providers such as those identified by the BBC?
• 2.4. More often than not individuals who attend these type of courses have poor levels of English. How many licences have been revoked due to inadequate English-language levels?

Response

I can confirm that the SIA does hold some of this information.

Question 1.1

Yes. The activities that have been highlighted in your request constitute labour exploitation. Such practices in the private security industry threaten public safety and the maintenance of high standards. We take all information that we receive about non-compliance with our regulation seriously and take action in line with our enforcement approach. You can read about our enforcement approach here, Learn how we enforce SIA regulation and here, Enforcement - What to expect from the SIA (PDF)

Question 1.2

The SIA exercises its regulatory powers in accordance with the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. You can view our legislation here: Private Security Industry Act 2001 (legislation.gov.uk).

The SIA works with agencies empowered by the UK Government to tackle labour exploitation. This includes HMRC, National Minimum Wage Taskforce, the Home Office, the Scottish and Northern Irish devolved administrations, and others. The SIA also takes a tactical approach that includes routinely conducting intelligence-led checks, visiting sites, and disclosing findings to the most appropriate partner agencies.

For further information on the performance of the SIA’s inspection and enforcement function, please see this FOI response: Performance of the SIA Inspections and Enforcement function

The information about the SIA’s work in addressing and tackling suspected instances of labour exploitation is exempt from disclosure under section 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act as it is intended for future publication.

Questions 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8 and 1.9

It is not within the SIA’s remit to investigate allegations of modern slavery. Where appropriate, the SIA works in partnership with police forces and other government departments such as the National Crime Agency and Gangmasters Labour Abuse Authority to ensure the safeguarding of individuals. This partnership work includes exchanging information and undertaking joint operational activity.

The information sought under questions 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 above is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is because the information is subject to live investigation(s) and disclosing it at this stage could prejudice the SIA’s ability to prevent or detect crime and apprehend offenders. When applying this exemption, the SIA must be satisfied that a prejudice would or would be likely to arise if the information requested were to be disclosed. To determine this, the prejudice test has been applied. Prejudice is otherwise known as harm.

The considerations of the prejudice test are laid out below.

Applicable interests

The SIA regulates the private security industry. As such, we have a direct interest in ensuring that those who operate within the industry are doing so legally. If we were to release information about live or pending investigations, without first having ascertained all relevant information we require to make a decision on such investigations, it would counteract our interest in regulating effectively and honestly.

Nature of prejudice

The SIA deems the prejudice to be real because if investigation information was released early, it would harm the SIA’s ability to prevent and detect crime and apprehend offenders. This is because it would give those who are subject to any investigations an insight into our intentions before any formal decisions have been made, potentially giving them an upper hand. It could also lead the subjects to destroy important information, dissipate assets, interfere with potential witnesses, flee jurisdictions, or change their practices so they appear to comply with legal requirements, therefore preventing the SIA from investigating an accurate representation of the alleged illegal activity. This would harm the SIA’s ability to regulate effectively and discharge statutory functions authentically.

How likely is it that prejudice would occur?

In light of the above factors, the SIA has decided that a prejudice would occur if the information was released.

Lastly, it could also cause harm to the SIA’s reputation as an effective and fair regulator. This is because releasing information that is subject to live investigation(s) would give an unfair advantage to those being investigated and prevent the SIA from undertaking thorough investigations, protecting the public, and ensuring the integrity of the private security industry.

Public interest test

After the prejudice test, the second test that must be applied is the public interest test. The SIA must ask itself if withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

The reasons for disclosing are:

• Disclosure would promote transparency about the UK government and public authorities.
• Disclosure would build public trust in the SIA’s investigations and enforcement approach.

The reasons for witholding are:

• The prejudice has been deemed as real because it could also cause harm to the SIA’s reputation as an effective and fair regulator.
• Sharing the information could prevent the SIA from being able to detect crime and apprehend offenders.
• The information is about an investigation that is not yet complete, so disclosing it could give an inaccurate picture.
• The information would not help public understanding of any live investigations because they are not yet completed.
• Due to the information being incomplete, it could cause confusion and may trigger questions that would naturally become answered upon conclusion of the investigation.
• Disclosing the information would give those who are subject to any investigations an insight into our intentions before any formal decisions have been made, potentially giving them an upper hand. It could also lead the subjects to destroy important information, dissipate assets, interfere with potential witnesses, flee jurisdictions, or change their practices so they appear to comply with legal requirements, thus frustrating the SIA’s investigation.
• Disclosing the information would not protect the public because it would prejudice any ongoing investigations into matters concerning public protection.

In light of the above factors, the SIA deems that withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Question 1.6

The SIA’s remit does not include the investigation of modern day slavery. The SIA’s legislative remit does not cover the Modern Slavery Act (2015), National Minimum Wage Act (1998), Immigrations Act (2016) or Income Tax Act (2003).

For further information on this query, you may wish to submit a Freedom of Information request to our partner agencies that you have listed in question 1.7.

Question 1.7

In tackling areas of suspected private security industry non-compliance and potential criminality, collaboration with a broad range of partner agencies, including those listed, is a key component of the SIA’s work, wherever there are grounds to do so. As provided in the response for question two, this collaboration includes the exchange of intelligence and information (in line with GDPR), joint visits to sites, premises, and companies, as well as joint operational activity.

The information on the SIA’s work addressing and tackling suspected instances of labour exploitation is exempt from disclosure under section 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act as it is intended for future publication.

Questions 2.1 and 2.2

This information is exempt from disclosure for the reasons set out in the answers to questions 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8 and 1.9.

We have published updates on the work we are doing on training malpractice. Please see these links: Training malpractice in the delivery of SIA licence-linked qualifications and Concerns about training malpractice in the delivery of SIA licence-linked qualifications.

The SIA has published many FOI responses to requests about the number of licences being revoked. You can see these responses here:

• SIA freedom of information responses, keyword = revoked
• SIA freedom of information responses, keyword = revocation.

Question 2.3

Prosecutions for training malpractice may be initiated by a number of bodies, such as the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, Procurator Fiscal in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.

A list of the SIA’s live and current prosecutions is available online. You can view that here: Active SIA prosecution cases.

For further information about how and to whom you can report training malpractice, please visit this page: Find out how you report training malpractice.

Question 2.4

From 3 October 2023 to the date of responding to this FOI request, 28 May 2024, the SIA has revoked zero licences due to an inadequate level of the English language.

[Ref. FOI 0504]