What has happened since the Consultation Exercise?
4.1 A significant amount of work has been undertaken since
the publication of the earlier consultation document. This has
covered three main areas:
- Analysing the responses to the consultation
document
- Considering the results of a feasibility study
undertaken by the Home Office into local licensing of door
supervisors
- Further analysis of the cost of regulation
Responses to the consultation document
4.2 Seventy-two responses were received to the consultation
document. There was clear support for the introduction of
statutory regulation but concerns were raised about how we had
initially proposed to achieve this. A small majority of
respondents favoured the Executive's then preferred approach
but a significant number supported option 2 - to extend the
remit of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to include
Scotland. There was also substantial support for the need to
minimise bureaucracy, particularly from those companies which
operate both north and south of the Border and to ensure that
licence conditions and fees were set a similar level to those
in England and Wales so as not to disadvantage legitimate
Scottish business.
Regulation of door supervisors
4.3 The Private Security Act 2001 included provisions to
allow local authorities in England and Wales to licence door
supervisors. During 2002, the Home Office commissioned a study
into the feasibility of local licensing for door supervisors.
This found that there were a number of difficulties with this
approach and that the arguments in favour of centralised
licensing by the SIA were overwhelming. The issues for Scotland
are then as follows.
- Would it make sense to adopt a different approach in
Scotland to that adopted for England?
- Local regulation only works if all local authorities
participate or are willing to provide a service for other
authorities locally. As only around half of the 23 local
authorities that responded to the Executive's earlier
consultation exercise supported the idea of local
licensing, such support does not appear widespread.
- There would be a need to ensure national standards
within local licensing schemes. This would require time to
develop and implement including a complex migration
strategy away from existing local schemes. Standards might
still vary between local authorities thereby increasing the
risk of appeals against licensing decisions. Under a
centralised system the SIA would retain all the risks of
appeals arising from licensing decisions as well as
responsibility for assessing the continued suitability of
licence holders to retain their licences during the period
of validity.
- In the longer term, agreeing and implementing further
licensing criteria to drive up standards - particularly
relating to professional competencies - could be delayed
and made over-complex if local authorities issued
licences.
- Devolving door supervisor licensing to local
authorities would probably result in higher licence fees
for this sector. Local authorities would need to upgrade
their systems to ensure the licences were tamper proof. As
the SIA is providing a licensing scheme for the industry as
a whole, economies of scale would ensure their costs were
lower if licences were issued centrally.
- Splitting responsibility for the regulation of door
supervisors would be confusing where an applicant could
legitimately apply for a licence in more than one sector,
for example a door supervisor and manned guard licence or
where he worked both sides of the Border.
4.4 Taken together, along with responses to the Executive's
consultation document from the licensed trade sector which
supported central licensing, the arguments against local
licensing of door supervisors are strong.
Cost of regulation
4.5 The earlier consultation document estimated that there
would be around 4,000 cases per year to be processed. The
responses to the consultation exercise and further work in the
Executive suggests that is a significant under estimate and
that the annual Scottish caseload could be 16,000. That would
boost estimated annual running costs for a Scottish SIA to over
£1m a year, with a start up cost of probably double that.
4.6 This has caused us to think again about our earlier
cost estimates. On the basis of the figures in the previous
consultation paper, we had estimated a fee for each licence of
around £70 to £80 for break even. That would now rise to around
£300, significantly higher than what is envisaged in England
and Wales (although the actual fee level has not yet been
determined) which would disadvantage legitimate Scottish
industry. This might result in a black-market springing up,
which would defeat the whole aim of regulation. These figures
also indicate that a Scottish SIA would be unlikely to ever be
self-funding. It would always need subsidy and, if the licence
fee were to be kept below £100, that subsidy would be
significant.