As things stand the Private Security Industry Act 2001 doesn’t require security officers employed in-house to be licensed (unless their activities are in relation to licensed premises). Back in 2004, the Regulator commissioned a review to explore the benefits and implications of extending the legislation to cover in-house officers. Many of those practitioners consulted felt that in-house security officers should be subject to regulation for a number of reasons.
The main ones focused on the variation and absence of enforceable standards of competence and vetting. So too the potential migration of staff away from the licensed contract sector (if they cannot reach the required standards) to an unlicensed in-house sector, and the perceived increasing risk to public safety brought about by confusion as to who is and isn’t licensed (with a possible misplacing of trust by unknowing citizens).
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has always appreciated the strong philosophical arguments for regulating the in-house sector. Indeed, it has been hugely supportive of the Security Management Today/Infologue.com Campaign ‘Four Issues, One Voice’, one strand of which calls for in-house operatives to be subject to the same regulation as their cousins from the contract sector.
However, the Regulator is also adamant that there are a “considerable number” of political, legislative and commercial considerations that must be taken into account, not least of which is the difficulty of defining security functions across many diverse business sectors. Overcoming that will require resources and solid planning.
Work on this area will inevitably demand a partnership approach if the issue is to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The SIA needs to collaborate with the private security industry and, indeed, all interested Stakeholders. Of course, the Regulator’s Stakeholder Engagement Strategy includes a commitment to hold a Think Tank aimed at discussing this issue.
True to its word, the SIA hosted that Think Tank in December, and has just published the results for public consumption.
Wide-ranging review
Before we look at the Think Tank findings, it’s important to state that the Regulator is planning on conducting a wide-ranging review of the case for regulating in-house security during the 2008-2009 business year, with a view to making recommendations to ministers on the way forward (possibly before December).
Participants in the discussion at Holborn on 5 December were garnered from many strands of the industry, and from without. They included Mike McCormack (of the Association of University Chief Security Officers), the Confederation of British Industry’s Tony Bird, Doug Hewitson of G4S, Security Institute representative Stuart Lowden, Catherine Bowen (from the British Retail Consortium) and the NHS Security Management Service’s spokesperson John Rodriguez.
Security Management Today’s Editor Brian Sims was invited to participate but, alas, had to chair The Threat Within Conference at Earls Court on the same day.
The characteristics of in-house
It was acknowledged on the day that the characteristics of in-house security tend to vary from sector to sector, although the roles are the same as those undertaken by contract security operatives. In the retail sector, for example, it was explained that security officers undertake generic roles often encompassing Health and Safety and First Aid duties. It was noted that if in-house staff were to be licensed, the licensing of the chain of managers would have to be considered very carefully indeed.
Some participants suggested that the quality of security provision was lower with contract staff, although this opinion was by no means universally shared. In the central criminal Courts, in-house security officers are thought to be significantly better qualified. At universities, contract officers are used for events to undertake car parking and traffic duties as they aren’t trained in the Warden-style roles which in-house officers fulfil.
It was noted that the SIA training standard should always be seen as a minimum standard, and that companies must train above this benchmark. It’s fair to say that many of the differences in standards hark back to a training issue rather than an SIA issue.
What about the definition of in-house security? In terms of the NHS SMS, it has dedicated Security Departments as well as people who have a security element as part of their role. Whether they are considered security staff or not depends on what percentage of their day’s activity constitutes security.
The Think Tank participants agreed that the definition of an in-house security operative must be absolute, and include consideration of both primary and secondary roles (not to mention the size and the place of work, which is particularly relevant when the retail sector is that under the microscope).
