Bill Muskin (Click to View Personal Profile)  who is Chairman of the security company VSG Ltd (Click to View Company Profile) continues… A direct quote from the Security Industry Authority Acting Chief Executive Andy Drane (at the time of the quote) supports this comment: - “During the review, no evidence was provided by the industry that would justify extending the 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 – unless significant substantiated evidence is presented that clear risk to the public protection across the in-house sector has developed”

This clearly has some significant ramifications for the contract security industry who already feel that there are double standards in operation. It will also be seen as a victory for in-house operations as they will still be able to continue to service their customers without any compliance to the regulations for at least another three years. The irony is that, for example when out shopping a member of the public will have no idea whether the security officer in the store or shopping centre has been vetted and trained in accordance with the regulations. Look at a scenario when a terrorist who has never been vetted or licensed is allowed to join an in-house security team giving him or her access to sensitive areas that enable them to commit an atrocity. Will it only be in the aftermath of such an event that the SIA agree that there is now a need for the licensing of these staff to happen?

From my perspective and many of my peers at very senior levels within the industry we cannot understand why the SIA needed anecdotal evidence to licence in-house security staff when it is clearly obvious that this should have occurred in the first instance. Ask any person in the street how they feel and they will give you the obvious answer, if a security operative does the same job and is working in areas for the protection of the public, then of course they must all be vetted and licensed by the government to work. For over 50 years the industry has battled for regulation and it nearly fell over at the last hurdle when Bruce George MP who was championing the cause found out that in-house security staff had been removed from the original bill as it progressed through the House of Lords. The only reason he did not withdraw his support was that none of the industry would have become licensed if he had done so and we would have been back to square one.

When the Private Security Act was finally published there was shock and concern that in-house security staff had been omitted. Other leading experts in our industry have similar views; see the article from Brian Sims, Editor of SMT ONLINE OUT WITH THE IN-HOUSE CROWD and on Infologue.com – PAUL HOUSEGO - LAWYER SLATES IN HOUSE REVIEW  and MIKE BLUESTONE - THE SIA, IN HOUSE AND STANDARDS – A BROKEN PROMISE? if you think my comments are one perspective.

In conclusion, this debate will continue to rage until something serious occurs whereby an unlicensed individual is involved. Only then will have parity in our industry, but by that time will it be too late!