It was interesting to see that James Kelly, the new leader at the BSIA, has now called on the Regulator to review the in-house licensing question.
For those of you that haven’t seen it, the full text of the article published by Bobby Logue on www.infologue.com reads as follows:
“The licensing of in-house security personnel is an issue that, while contentious, remains at the forefront of the private security industry’s agenda due to what some view to be the shortcomings of the Private Security Industry Act of 2001,” writes James Kelly, the British Security Industry Association’s chief executive.
“Through intensive lobbying activity a decade ago, the BSIA was instrumental in the introduction of regulation of the private security industry, resulting in licensing for contracted security personnel, along with the creation of the Security Industry Authority (SIA). While this has gone a long way towards improving the standards of training and professionalism within the industry, the BSIA now feels that this licensing must go further, and will call upon the next Government to review the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to include in-house security officers – those who are directly employed by a business or retailer to carry out security services on their premises.”
“It is the view of the BSIA that the public deserves to feel safe in the knowledge that the people protecting them while shopping or on business are operating to the high standards of quality set by the SIA and the rest of the industry, and we are certain that many people would be surprised – if not outraged – to discover that the officers protecting them in busy public places such as shopping centres are often unlicensed and have not been subjected to thorough background checks.”
More vulnerable and exposed to risk
“The failure of the original Act to include in-house personnel consequently leaves the public more vulnerable and exposed to risk.”
“It’s also our concern that individuals who have not met the criteria for an SIA license may automatically turn to an in-house role, resulting in the in-house sector potentially being populated by personnel that do not meet the strict criteria of the rest of the licensed industry. Negative consumer perceptions of security officers – demonstrated by the recent comments made by Jeremy Clarkson in The Sunday Times – will only be compounded by such a divisive situation, and the BSIA sees this as something that must be avoided at all costs for the good of the industry as a whole.”
“The BSIA is currently working on its strategy for engaging with the new Government post-Election, and plans to make contact with key political figures at the earliest opportunity to investigate the implications of an early review of the Private Security Industry Act as it applies to in-house licensing.”
A point of view
The licensing of in-house security staff is a discussion that has been around for as long as, well, licensing itself. I leave the arguments for and against to those better qualified than myself to make them, but I would like to turn back to the point I have raised on seven separate occasions with senior members of the Security Industry Authority (SIA).
My point is this… It’s common practice for large companies with surplus office space to rent that space to other companies. Those companies could be subsidiaries, associates or not connected in any way.
The office spaced is leased/rented in the form of a tenancy agreement. Much of the space used by the tenant is common to both the tenant and the landlord, and it’s common practice for the landlord to be responsible for that shared area. This is likely to be the initial reception area, lifts, staircases and the perimeter of the building.
The cost of all this is built into the lease agreement. Those common areas are patrolled, protected – whatever word you want to use – by the landlord. The landlord may subcontract that duty to an outside security company who would fall within the jurisdiction of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, or use his own in-house staff who don’t and, therefore, are not licensed.
This is a practice which I have seen in Docklands and the City of London on a regular basis while conducting site surveys.
Contract with four clauses
A tenancy agreement is a contract. In UK law, a contract is required to have four clauses.
Now this is the nub of my argument. If, as part of the tenancy agreement, the landlord provides security for the common areas and/or the perimeter of the premises then I submit that he or she is providing a security service for reward.
If that security service is a licensable activity then those individuals providing that service need to be licensed under the Private Security Industry Act. The directors of the company also need to be licensed because their company is providing a licensable activity.
It doesn’t matter if the tenant is part of the same group of companies as the landlord because they are separate legal entities and, if a contract is in place, then something of value will have changed hands (the consideration I talked about earlier).
Number of important concerns raised
If that argument is correct in law then it raises a number of important concerns.
First of all, the security officer performing the security function is committing a criminal offence. He or she might not know it so there will be the absence of the mens rea (guilty mind), but not having a licence when required to have one by law is a strict liability offence so mens rea doesn’t have to be established.
The directors of the company are committing a criminal offence because their company is providing a licensable activity for reward.
The SIA has a statutory duty to enforce the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and, in this instance – of which there are many – I contend that it’s failing in its duties.
Security companies and officers who do fall within the jurisdiction of the Private Security Industry Act are required to incur costs that put them at a great disadvantage to their in-house counterparts. In my view, that is not fair competition.
Skills for Security National Conference 2009
At the start of this submission I said that I had raised this argument with senior officials of the SIA on several occasions. The last one was at the National Conference organised by Skills for Security at the RAF Museum in Hendon.
In front of the entire audience at the end of the seminars, the SIA official in attendance said that he would look into this issue and come back to me.
My comment was that his colleagues had said the exact same thing to me on six previous occasions and they hadn’t come back to me.
His retort? “Well, I assure you that I will”.
The Skills for Security 2009 National Conference took place last October. That’s six months ago. I’m still patiently waiting for a response… Meanwhile, the licensed sectors of the security industry have still to compete on an uneven playing field.
Brian Sims writes: The in-house licensing issue was initially raised as one of the four key “unfair” regulatory issues by Security Management Today and Infologue.com in 2005, who joined forces in 2006 to launch the award-winning campaign Four Issues One Voice.
In May 2009, the Security Industry Authority announced that there was insufficient evidence found to support licensing of in-house security officers
