Over the last decade, the security industry has developed into one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors, employing no less than 300,000 people in a wide range of disciplines. Despite this, we have steadfastly remained one of only two European countries whose private security industry is without regulation (Northern Ireland excepted). Thankfully – and not before time – this sorry state of affairs looks set for change.
Finally caving in to 15 years of fanatical lobbying by the British Security Industry Association and a host of other concerned voices, Home Secretary Jack Straw has unveiled details of a new Bill. If passed, this would introduce regulation in the private sector, ridding the industry of its unwanted cowboys.
The Private Security Industry Bill was announced in last December’s Queen’s Speech, and follows on from the White Paper (entitled ‘The Government’s Proposals for Regulation of the Private Security Industry in England and Wales’) published in March 1999. Well over 180 responses were received during the White Paper’s consultation phase, raising several matters that have been built-in to – and which frame – the new Bill.
Under the Bill’s proposals, those working in the industry or setting up a private security firm would have to apply for a license – granted by the newly-established and totally independent Security Industry Authority (SIA) that will be set up as part of the Bill’s remit. These licenses should be up-and-running between 12 and 18 months after the passage of the Bill through Parliament (tentatively slated for next Spring, a likely date for the next General Election).
New powers to inspect and license
Inspectors appointed by the new SIA will be empowered to enter premises, demand relevant information and check operatives’ licenses. Working without a license would then be a criminal offence. There are around 300,000 licenses to issue, which should entail an initial three-year programme (this Home Office figure assumes little or no staff turnover, though – a highly unlikely scenario).
Under the terms of the Bill, security officers, managers and directors of security companies would all be subject to licensing. Initially, however, the Bill is concentrating its efforts on the manned guarding arena – including door supervisors and wheel clampers, security consultants and private investigators, all of whom will now be open to full and thorough criminal record checks (taking in both spent and pending convictions).
There will also be a voluntary ‘Inspected Companies Scheme’ whereby those firms who meet specified standards may be accredited and subsequently awarded a ‘quality mark’. A stamp of approval, if you like.
For those companies wishing to apply the annual cost will vary according to the number of employees. Explanatory notes to the Bill suggest the fee should be in the region of between GB pound 1,000 and GB pound 2,000 per annum (similar to the figures currently being paid by those companies under the aegis of existing inspection schemes).
In practice, the self-financing Inspected Companies Scheme will be phased in, beginning with the manned guarding sector. It will be an offence for any company to claim that it’s licensed if this is then proven not to be the case. Fines of up to GB pound 5,000 – or even imprisonment – may result.
Other sectors will follow on from manned guarding as the new SIA gets to grips with the task at hand. These will include alarm installers and locksmiths (neither of whom are covered under the current provisions).
The underlying aim of the Private Security Industry Bill is, of course, to raise standards in the industry. To this end, the Home Office stresses that monitoring of the licensing process is an ongoing element of the legislation, to be reviewed and amended (if necessary) after a given period in operation.
Does the Bill go far enough?
Speaking on the day of the Bill’s unveiling to the media at The Home Office, Home Secretary Jack Straw said: “The Government is committed to tackling crime and disorder through partnerships, but we cannot expect the police to solve all of our problems on their own. The private security industry plays an increasingly prominent and important role in society, but can now do even more.”
“By working in partnership with the police and local authorities under the terms of the new Bill,” added Straw, “the industry has a gilt-edged opportunity to make a significant and tangible contribution in the fight against crime.”
All well and good, but does the Private Security Industry Bill cover all bases? Opinions appear to be divided. Mike Welply, chief executive of the Joint Security Industry Council, is happy that it targets the industry’s “bad apples”. He is also broadly in favour of Home Office plans to exempt in-house guards from the licensing process. Businesses are hiring more and more contract security staff but, according to Welply, “would employ in-house security staff if there weren’t any additional on-costs. These regulations would seem to offer a more level playing field.”
David Fletcher of the British Security Industry Association posed a question for SMT’s readership. “Given the added costs for contract guarding, will we see a gradual move back towards in-house security staff? Either way, I feel that in-house staff should be subject to license.” Security installers are also exempt at present.
Many commentators will argue in favour of a compulsory scheme for licensing companies as opposed to the voluntary set-up being proposed. It’s likely the Home Office didn’t want to add another layer of bureaucracy, and feels that reputable companies will seek to obtain a license as a matter of course. The big question is whether smaller firms (and the less scrupulous) will have the funding and/or inclination to do the same. Only time will tell.
The security industry responds to the Bill
According to the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), the Government’s attempt at regulation constitutes a major landmark for the industry’s private sector. “We have been actively lobbying for this for the last 15 years,” said new BSIA chairman David Cowden.
Despite the absence of any regulation to date, the BSIA has always required that its members operate rigorous quality procedures so that those with criminal records can’t slip through the net.
Cowden added: “The real importance in this new regulation lies in isolating the less responsible elements, and making them accountable for any breaches of the law. If security officers are going to assist limited police resources by moving into areas with more public contact and greater responsibility, it’s important they have the trust and respect of the public. That’s why this regulation is so vital to us all.”
What the security firms say
The leading security companies are also very much in favour of the new Bill.
Securicor, one of the UK’s largest manned guarding concerns (employing over 10,500 security officers nationwide), has been a long-term supporter of regulation in the private sector. Commenting on the Private Security Industry Bill, chief executive Nick Buckles told SMT: “We view this regulation as a real opportunity to raise standards across the industry. That said, if the dictats laid down are to be enforced there will have to be a high degree of policing. Undoubtedly, the comprehensive vetting of staff will be a crucial factor in capturing the support of both the public and the police.”
Group 4 Falck, the world’s second largest private security company, has been at the forefront of the campaign to regulate the industry. Company director David Dickinson said: “We feel that this move will be well received by customers, employees and the public at large. The private security industry can now become a trained and trusted force for good. At last we can say goodbye to those whose doubtful activities over many years have tainted the majority.”
Dickinson, though, was quick to add a note of caution. “The industry must recognise its limitations just as it does the opportunities offered by the new Bill. In fostering further links with the police service, we must be clear that we can work with them and even for them. But we can never replace them.”
