Licensing requirements will not be extended to include in-house security guards, the Security Industry Authority announced.
An SIA review found insufficient substantiated evidence of risk or threat to the public to support in-house licensing.<br><br>The regulator added that assessment took into account that regulation should only be targeted where action is needed, and that regulation should only intervene where there is a clear case for public protection. After discussion with SIA Chairman Baroness Ruth Henig and SIA senior management the Home Office approved the recommendation, requesting that the subject be re-visited in three years time.<br><br>SIA Acting Chief Executive Andy Drane, pictured, said: "During the review, no evidence was provided by the industry that would justify extending licensing to in-house security guards. While stakeholders are welcome to comment and provide feedback, there are no plans to re-visit the issue until 2012 โ unless significant substantiated evidence is presented that clear risk to public protection across the in-house sector has developed."
Here is a digest of the 37-page report from the SIA. In a word, the SIA could not see enough of a case for badging in-house guards.
As it pointed out, there are two sides to the question of whether in-house guards should be SIA-badged, the same as contract officers. Indeed, while the 1999 White Paper on regulation of the security industry suggested that in-house would be licensed too, in the Commons debate before the Private Security Industry Act 2001 the then Home Office minister Charles Clarke said not. The consultation questions included whether there was a risk to the public from in-house not being badged; and whether guards who could not get a badge โ because of previous convictions โ were staying in private security by finding work in-house. Was there a two-tier, in-house and contract, guarding sector?
There was the potential cost. Strictly speaking people guarding property that could fall within the PSIA could number in the millions; or 100,000 uniformed in-house guards. On the SIAโs own figures, besides the £245 application fee, thereโs the training (put at £350) and back-fill cost (£750 โ arranging for someone to do the guardโs job while he takes the four day classroom course before he can apply for a SIA badge). Thatโs a total of £1350. For a major retailer, that could be a bill of £5m. As for the two sides, the SIA noted that โthe contract private security industry has long maintained that there should be a level playing fieldโ. While it claimed officers who could not get a badge were migrating to in-house, the document reckoned there was no evidence produced to support that claim. (Though as the document admitted, thatโs not to say some guards have not gone to in-house work, or tried to, for that reason.) As the report went on, in the Republic of Ireland and France in-house guards do need a licence. The SIA acknowledged that universities, the NHS and retailers โ many with mixed or otherwise large in-house guard forces โ check guards or store detectives for criminality (though maybe donโt refresh it?) and quite often do sector-specific training to a higher standard than the SIA badge requires. The likes of the NHS and unis could not see the point of putting their specialized guards through SIA training, let alone repeat training if someone needs more than one badge โ as a CCTV operator and a wheel clamper, for instance. โUniversities already license to a high degree and thought that introducing in-house licensing would compromise security at universities because they would not be able to afford to license all their staff and as a result people would be out of a job.โ The NHS has developed training, with Skills for Security, now being piloted, to be rolled out next year. Indeed, while some employers may have contract guarding and poach โ offer the best officers in-house work โ the document added: โIn the NHS, the number of in-house versus contact staff has fluctuated historically but now with the introduction of the โImplementation of Agenda for Changeโ contract staff are cheaper to hire.โ
The document pointed to some in-house set-ups choosing to put staff through the SIA badging. โSurrey police have asked a major retailer to employ an SIA licensed security guard in one of their stores which sell alcohol between the hours of 10.30pm and 8am. We have also been advised that some alcohol licensing authorities are beginning to request an SIA licensed security guard for small branches selling alcohol during all opening hours as part of the licence condition. This reduces the need for mandatory regulation by the SIA.โ As for risk to the public, the document spoke of two retailers that said they
had โmore reported problems with contract guards using excessive force than in-house security guardsโ. Similarly a retailer claimed contract guards make more false arrests of suspected shop thieves compared to in-house guards.
The document also spoke of an (unnamed) retailer that has opted to SIA-badge in-house guards: โThe business driver behind this move is to allow them to move into the contract private security industry and bid for contract work.โ The Co-operative Groupโs guarding arm has become an SIA-approved guarding contractor. The document spoke of SIA disappointment at a low response to a questionnaire from the security industry.
You can download the 37-page report here –
http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home/licensing/in-house.htm
