A trainer writes on the introduction of PI (physical intervention) skills into SIA licensing qualifications. Ian Thomas is Managing Director of Enterprise Security and Safety Training Ltd.
I find it very interesting that after many years, we are finally seeing the introduction of physical intervention skills into the licensing requirements for door supervision. I recently heard an industry colleague comment, “At least now employers will now have to provide this training by law, we should have had this years ago.” A sentiment shared I am sure by those many operatives who actually have to do the job!
However, I think the reality is that there has always been a legal requirement to supply this training. The Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) clearly states that it is the responsibility of an employer to provide training to do the job. If a door supervisor is required or expected to physically evict customers, how legally can an employer fail to provide physical training, in how to do so safely? If an employee had to move a heavy box, manual handling training would be cited as required. To my knowledge, no one has ever been sued by a box or had the potential to earn a custodial sentence when mis-managing one! Pending a decision by the SIA on training pre-licensed door supervisors, I believe a two-tiered training standard is both morally and legally questionable. I would suggest employers should seek to train existing staff to the new standards in order to achieve operational consistency and mitigate commercial and legislative risk.
Historically, employers have attempted to cover physical issues with policies and assignment instructions that refer to “only making an arrest or using force as a last resort”, “Only use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances” or my personal favourite “If violence is offered withdraw”. Good advice I would suggest, but falling somewhat short of the legal requirement to provide adequate training to do the job. In any assignment instructions with these statements, I believe an employer is acknowledging the possibility of physical and conflict situations, and should considering as a minimum, disengagement techniques.
In addition, what of the other sectors of our industry? Forget the standard company spiel, regarding deterrence, how many retail security officers for example are expected to evict trespassers, physically detain offenders and get involved? What training have they received regarding the medical / legal implications of holding and restraint? I have trained hundreds of retail officers and the simple reality is the store would probably ask for another officer if they did not physically become involved. An opinion that many officers have experienced or stated. I have worked with a least four major retailers who have policies that reflect deterrence as opposed to affirmative action and yet arrests involving physical force are conducted on a daily basis.
Now I know some responsible employers have conducted this training for their high-risk sites for sometime. VSG and G4S spring to mind and I am sure others. However, the simple fact is the majority have not, and their still remains a vast percentage of security staff across our whole industry that have never been adequately trained to do their job role or manage situations they might reasonably find themselves in.
In fairness, our industry has come a long way in this field and I believe we are definitely moving in the right direction. It could be argued that there historically been a lack of accredited and credible training programmes in this area. However, this is no longer the case. I believe, there is a potential risk to both staff, employers and customers, of deploying staff with differing levels of training. Employers need to recognise that meeting the SIA’s regulatory requirements does not leave them ‘fireproof’ and need to ask serious questions regarding the expectation that a member of their staff would have to physically become involved in an escorting, disengagement or holding situation and provide training where required. I expect that some employers will respond, that with ever decreasing margins and increased regulatory costs, enhanced levels of training are unrealistic. I am not suggesting further regulation, although this does seem to be the only major driver for change, but that employers recognise their duty of care, and the potential exposure to their business and customers. I am quite happy to assist and offer advice to any organisation that has concerns in this area.
About the author
Ian Thomas former Security Officer, Supervisor, Contracts Manager and National Training Manager for VSG. Currently Managing Director of Enterprise and Security Training Ltd delivering physical skills to the industry. Former winner of the Maybo / ConflictPro Outstanding contribution to managing workplace violence.
