FOI release

SIA checks relating to Operation London Bridge

Updated 5 December 2022

© Crown copyright 2022

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

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

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sia-checks-relating-to-operation-london-bridge/sia-checks-relating-to-operation-london-bridge

1. Request

Regarding Operation London Bridge [Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second’s funeral]:

The principal contractor, [REDACTED], claim to have deployed 47,143 personnel. [REDACTED] do not have that many members of staff so it’s obvious they used sub-contractors.

  1. Were the SIA involved with ensuring sub-contractors were appropriately vetted?

  2. Did the SIA audit/check any of the sub-contracting companies to ensure inappropriate use of the ACS was captured?

  3. How many SIA licence holders were found to have fake/expired/false licences or a licence that did not belong to them?

  4. How many sub-contracting companies were found to be paying cash in hand or below minimum wage?

  5. How many of the 47,143 were found to be in breach of any other laws/regulations e.g. right to work?

2. Response

The SIA does hold the information you have requested. The answers to your questions are provided below.

  1. Contractual issues are a matter between buyers and suppliers of security; therefore, the SIA would not vet individual companies. It is a matter for a buyer of security to decide who they wish to engage. An SIA approved contractor can only sub-contract to another SIA approved contractor. However, they can source labour from non-approved companies or suppliers. It is not the SIA’s responsibility to vet security companies.

  2. The SIA were aware of companies that [REDACTED] were planning to use through engagement with the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport who were the buyer of services. All of whom would have been subject to regular ongoing ACS assessments by independent assessors, as this is a pre-requisite for ACS approval. SIA approved contractors can use labour from other companies, including non-approved companies to fulfil contractual obligations. We regularly reviewed companies that [REDACTED] were planning to use to ascertain whether there were any serious conformance or compliance issues.

  3. Compliance activity was undertaken during some of the days Operation London Bridge was in force. From the checks SIA investigators undertook on the selected days, no individuals were found to be unlicensed.

  4. Paying an individual cash in hand is not illegal. However, the payment of incorrect taxes is and this is a matter for HMRC. If any such activity was identified, it would be passed over to the relevant external agencies to follow up. However, from the checks SIA investigators undertook on the selected days, one individual was found to be being paid cash in hand.

  5. Right to work is not an SIA matter. If someone no longer had the right to work in the UK and the SIA was made aware by Home Office Immigration Enforcement, then the licence would be revoked. From the checks the SIA investigators undertook on the selected days, no unlicensed individuals were detected by SIA investigators.

[Reference: FOI 0368]

Back to top