FOI release

SIA response to reports of training malpractice

Published 25 November 2024

Request

Question 1

Between September 2021 and October 2024, how many training providers who are, or have been, under investigation by the SIA for training malpractice received government funding to pay for those seeking employment to complete an SIA training course?

Question 2

Within the same time period, how many training providers, who are in receipt of government funding to provide SIA training for door supervision, close protection, security guarding, and public space surveillance (CCTV) licences have been found to be committing fraud and/or to be under investigation by HMRC and/or to be under investigations by the police?

Question 3

Between September 2021 and October 2024, how many individuals who have received inappropriate or inconsistent or incomplete or incorrect training have had their close protection, door supervision, security guarding or public space surveillance (CCTV) licences suspended as a result of attending either a government-funded course or a privately funded course run by a training provider prosecuted or under investigation for training malpractice and/or criminal activities?

Question 4

In addition to these three questions, please can the SIA provide an update on their work concerning training malpractice and the measures being implemented to prevent unscrupulous training providers from using the loophole whereby they can swap from one awarding body to the next in order to evade detection and thereby carry on with offering fraudulent practices at the expense of the tax payer?

Question 5

On Wednesday 18 September 2024, compliance and criminal investigation officers from the SIA led an extensive enforcement and intelligence-gathering operation at 35 separate locations across the UK. The SIA orchestrated the operation to address concerns regarding tax evasion, fraudulent employment status, breaches of National Minimum Wage legislation, immigration offences and also breaches of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 within the private security industry.

Please tell me:

1. From the 35 locations, how many individuals have been placed under investigation for the concerns mentioned above?
2. How many individuals have been arrested and have been charged with any of the concerns above and how many in what category?
3. How many individuals were found to be committing immigration offences?
4. How many SIA licences have been suspended?
5. How many companies were found to be offering below minimum wage or cash in hand to security operatives?
6. What other offences were identified during the operation?
7. What measures are the SIA putting in place to prevent unscrupulous companies from continuing to exploit individuals?
8. What plans does the SIA have to conduct further operations such as that on 18 September?

Response

Question 1

The SIA does not hold this information. You may wish to submit a freedom of information request to the government department that provides funding to pay for those seeking employment to complete licence-linked training in order to obtain an SIA licence.

Question 2

The SIA does not hold this information. For further information on this query, you may wish to submit a freedom of information request to the Police and HMRC.

Question 3

We notify the relevant awarding organisation of any report of wrongdoing in the first instance so they can undertake their own investigation with SIA oversight. We know from these investigations that this has involved hundreds of learners across the various awarding organisations where licences are never granted (prior to suspension or revocation).

However, we can confirm that the SIA has suspended a total of 8 licences between September 2021 and October 2024 as a result of individuals receiving inappropriate or inconsistent or incomplete or incorrect training.

The SIA does not hold information about whether those individuals were government-funded or privately funded.

Question 4

This information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is because the information is reasonably accessible to you by other means, namely it is available on the SIA’s webpages:

• Concerns about training malpractice in the delivery of SIA licence-linked qualifications
• Training malpractice in the delivery of SIA licence-linked qualifications

Question 5, points 1-6

I can confirm that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a) and (b). This is because the information is subject to live investigation(s) and if it were disclosed at this stage, it could prejudice the SIA’s ability to prevent or detect crime and apprehend offenders.

Prejudice test

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. A prejudice is otherwise known as harm.

1. Applicable interests – the SIA is the organisation that 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 harm the SIA’s interests in regulating effectively and honestly.
2. Nature of prejudice – the SIA deems the prejudice to be real because if investigation information were 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 and an upper hand into our intentions before any formal decisions have been made. It could also lead the subjects to destroy important information, dissipate assets, interfere with potential witnesses, flee jurisdictions, or change their practices to ensure legality, therefore affecting the SIA’s ability to investigate a representative picture of allegations. This would harm the SIA’s ability to be an effective regulator and discharge statutory functions authentically.
3. How likely is it that the 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 in being 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

The second test that must be applied after determining that a prejudice would or would be likely to arise if the information was disclosed, is the public interest test. The question the SIA must ask itself is: does withholding the information outweigh the public interest in disclosure? The factors for and against disclosure are below.

Factors for disclosure:

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

Factors against disclosure:

• The prejudice has been deemed as real and to have a reputational damage to the SIA in respect of the way we conduct investigations. This would have repercussions on the industry and the faith it has in us to regulate effectively. This is a reason to withhold the information
• The information is at a new stage and is not ready to be shared as it could prevent the SIA from being able to detect crime and apprehend offenders
• Disclosure would provide an inaccurate picture of the SIA’s investigations as they are incomplete
• The information would not help public understanding of any live investigations due to the fact that it is incomplete
• Due to the information being incomplete, it could cause confusion and may trigger questions that would naturally become answered upon conclusion of the investigation
• Disclosure would give those who are subject to any investigations an insight and upper hand into our intentions before any formal decisions have been made. It could also lead to the subjects destroying important information, dissipating assets, interfering with potential witnesses, fleeing jurisdictions, or changing their practices to ensure legality, therefore frustrating the SIA’s investigations
• Disclosure would not protect the public because disclosure would prejudice the continuation of any investigations which may or may not be ongoing to protect the public and the industry

In light of the above factors for and against, the SIA deems that withholding the information requested outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

Question 5, point 7

Operation Empower, led by the SIA, is a multi-agency response to illegal practices in the private security industry relating to tax evasion, breaches of the National Minimum Wage Act, failure to pay due revenues to HMRC, money laundering, immigration offences and breaches of the Private Security Industry Act 2000. All reports of possible illegal practices are analysed and, if actionable, are progressed on a single-agency or multi-agency basis.

Question 5, point 8

The SIA and partners will consider any incoming intelligence and reports of concerns and assess the level of response appropriate to the threat, risk, and harm we have identified.

[Ref FOI 0530]