How successful has security licensing been so far?

Published on 16 Nov 2006

The largest survey of its kind following the March deadline for the licensing of private security personnel in England and Wales has suggested that regulation of the security industry has for the most part been successful. However, the survey also highlights that some firms are considering bringing their security back in-house, to avoid the need to be licensed and so save on costs.

More than 80% of respondents to the survey by Reliance Security Group perceived there had been improvement in the overall calibre of security personnel in terms of education and training. Other main benefits were considered to be an increase in service provision (74%), improvement in the image of the security industry and a more professional status for security officers (72%). Over half also cited an improvement in wages, terms and conditions for officers as benefit.

From 20 March 2006, it became illegal to work as, or supply, a contracted-in security guard without an SIA licence in England and Wales. There has been debate over whether in-house security staff should also be licensed but so far nothing has been decided or laid down in law. Some businesses are considering exploiting this and circumvent the new regulations by moving their security team in-house. The main reason for considering this is cost because some 44% surveyed believed that licensing has increased the cost of their security provision.

Seventy per cent of respondents using contracted services believe that the in-house sector should also be regulated. More interestingly, the figure is almost identical in the in-house sector where 69% believe their teams should be regulated.

There has also been a knock-on effect in this area: half of the respondents in the in-house sector stated that they have started vetting their security staff more closely since the introduction of licensing and a small proportion (12%) said that they would consider outsourcing as a result of this increase in vetting.

A significant proportion (69%) of respondents in the in-house sector also added that they believed that staff who are unable to obtain a licence are likely to seek employment within in-house teams.

The scope and scale of the regulatory changes has also been the subject of debate. The majority of respondents (84%) felt that they had been kept fully informed of their security provider's progress in the run up to the licensing deadline. A similar majority (88%) also felt that their security provider had fully supported the training and application process for its staff.

However, only 83% of respondents could confirm that their supplier and its staff had met the requirements of licensing. Some 13% believed that they had not met requirements, while a further 4% declined to answer to the question. More than one in ten respondents (13%) also said that they had either changed or intended to change supplier as a result of the changes.

There was a more positive response to the Approved Contractor Scheme, the SIA's voluntary code that it hopes will become a benchmark of quality within the security industry. The scheme also has the advantage of giving accredited organisations the ability to employ a small proportion of non-licensed personnel who are trained and have submitted an application, but who are not working with children or vulnerable adults.

Most respondents (88%) stated that they are aware of the benefits of using a supplier with Approved Contractor status. However, just over two-thirds (70%) could confirm that their supplier had achieved ACS accreditation, a further 19% did not know whether their supplier had accreditation and 8% said that their supplier did not have ACS.

When questioned about the potential disadvantages of regulation, a third of respondents (29%) viewed the voluntary nature of the ACS as a negative factor, believing that it would make it impossible to ensure standards across suppliers.

Another disadvantage of regulation, perceived by 51% of respondents, was a likely shortage of qualified security personnel due to the new rules. In addition, almost half of those questioned expressed concern that the new law may not be enforced properly. Just under a third of respondents (29%) felt that there might be a potential loss of good personnel as a result of the stringent vetting and training criteria. Only a quarter (24%) believed that licensing was an administrative burden that was likely to result in no improvement in standards.