A few weeks ago, we learned that the regulator decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify the licensing of in-house security personnel, writes The Security Institute Chairman, Mike Bluestone. The SIA’s mantra is that there is no risk to public safety from that decision. Public safety is of course a paramount objective, but so too is the raising of standards. How can it be right that in both theory and practice, in the UK in 2009, a fully trained and licensed and CRB checked contract guarding team could be managed and supervised by in-house security staff who may hold criminal convictions, and never been through a day’s security training? Now if that isn’t a public safety issue, then I don’t know what is!
Many readers will no doubt (like your correspondent) remember those heady days
back in 2004/5 when most British guarding contractors were in top gear and
fully engaged in the licensing process, and were trying to cope with the
requirements of the newly formed SIA, as well as getting their corporate heads
around the voluntary Approved Contractors Scheme. It was at that time that I
had begun working in the guarding sector as the training and development
director for one of the UK’s leading guarding contractors. We had formed a
training academy, and were busy training not just our own security officers,
but also in-house guarding teams employed by external clients. My time working
in the guarding sector was relatively short, but nevertheless, very
fulfilling.
I will never forget being so impressed by the visionary managers of those
in-house teams who told me that they had seen the ‘writing on the wall’, and
felt that it was only a matter of a time before the regulator would include
in-house guarding personnel within the licensing process. Those same managers
stated that for them, the absence at that time of a mandatory requirement for
licensing, and training of their personnel was not the issue, since they
believed, as I did, that the requirements for guarding contractors would
‘raise the bar’ for all security officers, and that essentially, the issue was
about best practice and the raising of standards.
At long last, we had a regulator, and as well as keeping out the criminals and
‘cowboys’, we could now focus on instilling real training standards, and
giving end users a private security sector to be proud of. How wrong we all
were! Perhaps the SIA has forgotten that the Private Security Industry Act
2001 makes specific reference to the regulator
making recommendations and proposals for the ‘…maintenance and improvement
of standards in the provision of security industry services and other services
involving the activities of security operatives…’
Mike Bluestone MA FSyI
MCMI is Director of Security Consulting at CIA Excel Group and the current Chairman of the Security
Institute
CIA EXCEL WEBSITE
|
