星空传媒

Secretary of state - The international Professional Security Association (IPSA) represents over 80 contract security guarding companies, mainly small and medium-sized enterprises, many of whom may be under threat of criminal liability due to the enforcement of the 20 March deadline date for compliance with the licensing of security operatives under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 - as orchestrated and directed by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

The implications of non-compliance by individuals, their employers and clients are potentially very serious, and not only relate to criminal liability but also impinge on the necessary insurance provisions applicable to such businesses and services. There is a very real prospect that insurers may repudiate their terms of cover in the event that unauthorised, unlicensed operatives are engaged on insured sites, thus placing whole enterprises at risk.

The cumulative effect of delays in implementing several of the individual elements of the scheme for licensing has meant that many small and medium-sized organisations have found it difficult to secure the required training (and funding support for that training) within the limited timescales allowed since the imposition of additional qualifications on trainers and required qualifications for licensing became available from Approved Awarding Bodies.

Companies that made great efforts to complete the processes in good time have been thwarted by lengthy delays in the delivery of application forms (one JobCentre told me of an applicant having to wait six weeks for an application pack), delayed acknowledgement of receipt of applications and in the final disposal of applications and the issuing of licences. These factors are well known.

The effect of all this is that many in the industry view the Regulator as not having listened to the representations made, and not having heeded the practical problems of implementing such major change in the industry within such tight timescales.

Moreover, the Home Office - in announcing details of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) - has paid only lip service to the inclusion of elements of Option 3 from the Regulatory Impact Assessment Report. The resultant scheme announced by the SIA on Thursday 16 February fails to include express recognition of any of the existing Inspectorates that examine companies against the relevant British Standards, and neither does it facilitate the endorsement of such inspected companies on those merits under the ACS.

It is considered that, in passing the Private Security Industry Act 2001, it cannot have been the intention of Parliament that large numbers of those involved in the security industry should find themselves inadvertently in breach of the law because of a flawed process of introducing regulation and licensing without regard to the implications for small and medium-sized businesses, their owners, employees and clients.

Home Office minister Paul Goggins adamantly refused to concede any need to vary the 20 March deadline, notwithstanding the robust representations made by various bodies giving early warning of the consequences for many otherwise innocent operatives in the industry. Can the minister really be satisfied that Government departments and outstations throughout the country, presently guarded by contract staff, will be protected by licensed operatives on (and subsequent to) 20 March? I suggest he cannot give such an undertaking, just as many industrial and commercial sites will be similarly affected.

Put simply, it is not possible to maintain the services and comply with the law given the present state of the licensing regime and the backlog of training and licensing which is apparent to all concerned.

The Secretary of State and the Attorney General share responsibility for this state of affairs - the former in relation to the direction of policies being pursued by the Home Office and its satellite the SIA, and the latter in his role as senior Government law officer responsible for the proper and timely implementation of new laws (and the direction of enforcement policy in relation to them).

This Association is greatly perturbed by the cavalier attitude of both the Home Office and the SIA in relation to the very real problems visited upon the industry, and aggravated by the inability of the Regulator to plan and implement a system of licensing which, while it enjoyed the support of the majority of the industry, has not been conducted with business concerns, efficiency and orderly transition as its core values.

The Right Honourable minister is urged to intervene immediately and take steps to remove the threat of criminal liability from the many security operatives, managers and clients caught in this dilemma, and to relieve the anxiety that these draconian policies - backed by the SIA's 鈥極peration Forewarn' - are having on a deeply-concerned industry.

A better understanding of the issues affecting those smaller and medium-sized enterprises who provide much of the quality security services around the country would go some way towards more informed policy decisions in this difficult period.

Patrick Somerville QPM International Chairman PSA