Continuing a series about files at the National Archives at Kew in west London. File HO 528/7 is about security at Ministry of Defence (MoD) sites in the later 1980s, an era of ever greater use of contract guarding, while Irish republican terrorism was remorselessly seeking Army-related targets in England.
The file has a March 1990 paper on โfuture guarding arrangementsโ at Royal Ordnance factories. The MoD quoted the advice of the security service โ one example of many in the files of the MI5 influence behind the scenes on private security by and for government โ โthat an armed presence was required in the interest of national security at the RO factoriesโ. The then director of MoD security agreed for the need for MoD Police at the factories, although the ministryโs permanent secretary was submitting to the Defence Secretary, Tom King, that MoD Police should be withdrawn from the factories.
The file goes back to 1985, when a Home Office document noted that โa central record of private security firms used by the Home Office for any purposeโ was maintained by its security branch. Advisory notes dated 1985 on the use of commercial guard forces noted โbecause of the intense competition, companies frequently under-bid one another in their attempts to secure a contract and it is a known fact standards are liable to fall dramatically if costs are cut too far. If therefore a company quotes well below average price it is reasonable to assume that some sort of give has taken place in the systemโ, whether under-paid guards, or corners cut in taking up references, or in training or supervision of guards; โthose guards who are paid the lowest wages are unlikely to provide the highest standards of service and โcheapโ can ultimately turn out to be costlyโ.
As for turnover, the notes accepted that after recruiting guards, you might expect some to opt out for various reasons in the first three months; but then the turnover ought to stabilise; โand if it is above 50 per cent in SE England and 30pc in rural areas or the north you should make further inquiries before considering acceptanceโ. The advice went on to if a security company was owned by a cleaning company; was security simply an โadd onโ? Were cleaners or their inspectors ever stand-ins for guards? The notes asked that a contractor should visit on site at random intervals at least once per 24 hours, and once per shift at weekends. And during the โsilent hoursโ, duty telephone calls once an hour were essential. And the insurance of a firm should be checked; and workers should not work more than 60 hours a week, or 14 hours a day.
The Defence Committee of MPs had taken evidence in early 1990. The civil service made a note that in February 1990 after one evidence session that a committee member, the Labour MP Bruce George (who went on to chair the committee, besides campaign for regulation of private security) speaking to a MoD civil servant, โsaid he was opposed to the BSIA style of self-regulation which he felt worked to the advantage of larger companies. He was unable however to offer an alternative although he did suggest that it would be better if there was a licensing system as exists in other countries.โ The Daily Telegraph in its report on a Defence Committee evidence session quoted Mr George asking โwasnโt Deal [the deadly bomb] a disaster waiting to happen in the light of the fairly lax monitoring of private security firms?โ.
Meanwhile, on January 17, 1990, Sir John Wheeler reintroduced his Security Industry Bill, for regulation of UK private security, although Home Office officials advised ministers to block it (and the Bill, like all such efforts, came to nothing, until the Tony Blair Governmentโs Private Security Industry Act 2001, that led to the forming of the Security Industry Authority).
The file has, dated December 1989, guidelines for the use of commercial guard forces. As used by the MoD and armed services. A list was kept of โsuitableโ firms. If a new firm wanted to get on the list, the first step was to check if they were a member of the BSIA; although, if they were not, as the guidance put it, โthat does not necessarily mean that it would be unsuitable for a Government contract, providing its standards are no less than BSIAโ. The association IPSA was also named. Among things to consider (still) was the rate of staff turnover; financial stability of the firm โ the guidance being to take up at least three references from others who had used the guard firm; and the background of key personnel, such as the head of training. While the guidance re-used much of the guidelines already quoted, new was a suggestion that guards and supervisers should not be under 24 or older than 55. Also new: that shifts should be eight hours, and at most nine, for a maximum of 56 hours a week (a 48-hour week plus one shift of overtime). Contractors were to provide their guards a flashlight, whistle, personal attack alarm, a night stick and eye protection; and for searching under vehicles, mirrors. Also a โreliableโ man-portable VHF personal radio. Besides, guards ought not to carry or wear any โunauthorisedโ items. Every four or five guard posts ought to have a superviser, as the equivalent of a sergeant. For eight to ten guards there ought to be a senior superviser; as in the earlier guidelines, they ought to have a visit at least once every 24 hours or each weekend shift, and hourly telephone check calls in the โsilent hoursโ; besides a monthly liaison visit by a company manager. A superviser should brief everyone in the guard force before a tour of duty.
As for how the MoD or armed forces were to supervise the contract, the guidance described a โrecord of performanceโ that ought to include โdeficienciesโ. The buyer was to look for freshness and smartness of uniform, for example. As a sign that the outsourced guard force might feel estranged from those directly employed, the guidance said that โthe contractor and his staff should be made to feel part of the unit to whose security they are contributingโ.
For part one, visit https://professionalsecurity.co.uk/blogs/mark-rowe/security-in-history-guarding-of-defence-part-one/.
