Not so long ago, the SIA did not exist and the security industry in Britain suffered due to a high level of association with people of poor repute- an easy business to launder dirty money and use intimidating tactics to secure business.
When the SIA regulations came into force, most of these operators closed down and the security industry heaved a huge sigh of relief.
In May 2009 the practices of in-house security were reviewed, but due to the pressure of regulating the areas targeted by these rogue operators and the relative infancy of the SIA, it was decided that there was no need for action.
A review date of approximately three to four years time was set in place, a decision perhaps taken in haste for an industry that is constantly changing.
Whose word is it anyway?
The May 2009 review believed that there was no need for in-house personnel to have licences as “most companies will already have satisfied themselves about their employees”.
Why do we accept the word of businesses that do not conform to the rules and regulations of the SIA? Why do In House employees who fall under the titles of Security/Loss Prevention/Asset Protection not have to meet the standard set in place by the SIA?
Their job description is entirely the same as a contract security person, and after many years working “on the other side of the fence” I can assure you of this.
In my previous role I was Loss Prevention Manager of the UK and this was classed as in-house. Did I have to search? Yes. Did I have to refuse people entry? Yes. Did I have to detain? Yes. I did not need to pass any SIA standards, yet these are deemed as SIA licensable activities.
All company policies were written by myself and shaped using my experience which, in hindsight, was always focused on past times and events. SIA guidelines for this role would have undoubtedly helped and kept me up to date with current legislation and working practices.
Legal ramifications
A large supermarket chain has recently created in-house security teams who are front of house as well as patrolling the sales floor.
What training and time went into the creation of these teams? Was it vetted and approved by any authority or just given a thumbs up from a senior member of management, rubbing their hands with glee due to the small saving he has made a multi-billion pound company? Did they take into account the compensation they will need to pay to the poor staff member terrified by a violent thief?
We also have to ask ourselves where it would stop. In the retail world a store manager may not have a “security” person and they are left to refuse service to certain members of the public.
Would they need to hold a licence or should there be an approved course to keep them safe and within lawful boundary?
All too often people suffer abuse in their everyday work and inevitably this can affect their performance or even their health.
Held to account
More and more are there reports of companies who have had to pay a staff member compensation for being verbally abused by a potential shoplifter.
Retailers should be held to account more with regard to staff welfare. The UK is currently a hotbed for theft and many companies are still taking the easy way out, leaving staff with minimal training in potentially dangerous situations.
For the SIA and whoever replaces it to become a respected body that has a strong command of security in the United Kingdom then the review of in-house personnel has to happen now.
The answer may be guidelines, it may be full licensing, but the issue is here and now and should be addressed as a priority before it becomes a headline.
