The Private Security Industry Act 2001 stipulates that if a person provides a licensable activity in connection with any contract then he or she requires a licence to do so [Section 3(2)]. In-house security staff are not required to have a licence, of course. One assumes because they are not providing this service under contract. Surely this concept needs to be challenged?
Let’s look at a typical scenario. ABC plc has spare office space in a number of its buildings. The company has rented-out some of this space to other companies. The tenancy agreement includes full servicing of the rented property, with access control, CCTV and security guarding provided within the package.
These functions are serviced by the in-house security operatives from ABC plc. ABC plc also provides office space for a number of its subsidiaries, all of them separate legal entities. The company has also entered into a similar contract because each of the subsidiaries is a profit centre in its own right.
The legal definition of the term ‘contract’ in the UK is: “An offer; acceptance; consideration” (this does not have to be money, just something of value, and be legally binding). I’m suggesting, therefore, that ABC plc is providing a security service – as part of the letting contract – for some kind of reward.
You would not reasonably expect the security officer or CCTV operator to be aware of this contract. All he or she knows is that they’re employed by ABC plc to protect ABC’s building and the staff that go in there, yet these operatives are possibly in a position whereby they are committing a criminal offence.
This is a strict liability offence. All that’s required is the Actus Reus (the legal term for ‘guilty act’). There is no requirement for the Mens Rea (the ‘guilty mind’).
Providing a licensable activity
Section 23 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 states: “Where an offence under any provision of this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proven to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate… he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
On that basis, I’m suggesting that the Board of Directors of ABC plc may also be committing a criminal offence because their company is providing a licensable activity. It would be interesting to see whether the plea of ignorance would be accepted by the Courts in this instance should the Security Industry Authority (SIA) ever prosecute ABC plc or a similar firm.
On five separate occasions now I have put this scenario to officials of the SIA and the best response I’ve received so far is: “I’m sure someone has already looked into that”. The kind of situation I’ve sketched out does happen, and I would imagine that a large percentage of Security Management Today’s (SMT) readers know of such examples.
Does it really matter?
Yes, I think it does matter if a security company loses a contract as a result of the likes of ABC plc deciding to take all of its security in-house because the organisation isn’t prepared to pay the increased costs of the contract security company. In an industry where profit margins are small, to say the least, is it fair that there are some who are not participating on the level playing field?
The readers of SMT obviously include both in-house and contracted security managers, so let me take this opportunity to provide a possible solution for both parties.
In-house security managers
Check with whichever department in your company deals with tenancy contracts that they don’t include in that contract your in-house security services. That should also apply to your associate and subsidiary companies. It doesn’t matter whether they are within the group. If there is a legal contract in place then consideration has occurred, and I submit to SMT‘s readers that this is providing licensable security services for reward.
My dealings with a number of in-house security managers lead me to believe that many of them would like to criminally record check their security staff but are not able to because of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974). If they are already employed you would have a problem even completing a Basic Disclosure check through Disclosure Scotland.
However, if my submission is correct, then you are providing a licensable activity and, as such, each member of your security staff should have a licence under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which would mean that they would be criminally record checked to Enhanced level. If that licensable activity is being provided then they require that SIA licence whether they wish to have it or not.
Contracted security managers
You might wish to use this argument to level the playing field. Ensure that you keep raising it with the SIA until such time as you find that the Regulator is taking the matter seriously. Use it in your arguments to that client who is considering no longer using your services because of the cost, preferring to take security in-house instead.
I recall reading in an article some time ago that MI5 was thinking about providing an information-gathering service to corporate entities. I did pen a comment at the time that notification with the Information Commissioner may not allow the organisation to provide information about individuals because it would be contravening the Terms and Conditions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I would now suggest that if MI5 were indeed providing this service for reward – and one assumes that there would be some cost factor in there – its staff would need to be licensed.
For my part, I’m a professional investigator. I provide information services to my clients and, in 2008, I will have to be licensed.
I put MI5 on notice now that if it provides such a service and doesn’t have a licence to do so, I will ‘shop’ them (The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 – The Whistle Blowing Act). I hope they take note.
I am a Premises Manager currently assisting with the set up of a large public retail, food & leisure building in the North of England. I am trying to get to the bottom of the need for in-house staff to have SIA licenses; and finding the correct information is proving really challenging! Your article seems to be leading in the right direction, but I appreciate that it is 10 years old. Is anyone still available to guide and assist?
I hold a SIA badge, and worked in both contract and in house security, my view is even if you are employed within say a hotel as an in house security officer / manager, you are employed by and representing a company / hotel chain that supplies licensable services, you are also protecting property and personnel within the hotel, for many reasons and different ways.
To be honest two words>>> Offshore outsourcing,if you employ a security operative on contract the company requires identification,say for example Peterson holdings a freight company requires security at their gate that company forfeits its identity as would a private individual.For those who are security minded giving your ID to anyone id a NO GO if you can help it because it defeats the object of security.The SIA is part of the state whereas REAL security is not!!! thats it theres no common ground the SIA is simply another ring of poseis
Its a fine line…oh so fine The SIA are obviously needed or more to the exact required,on the other side though how far should this issue travel.In a sense real security is a private not a public affair,after all a person or companies personal stash,property what ever belong to them…its the old concept whats yours is yours….thats the problem right there though the SIA in our opinion ought to keep themselves to themselves in certain areas…its a like the SIA have empowerment over your personal affairs and weve been through all this they dont and never will.This is a great… Read more »