Sir – I noticed the Four Issues, One Voice Campaign (SMT, April 2006) and would like to offer my opinions on the licensing of in-house security operatives.

In order for any legislation to be effective, consistency of standards is of the utmost importance. Ultimately, is there any difference between my company employing someone to perform a security role and another firm using in-house staff to do the same with differing standards? It is the job function or role that should be licensed as much – if not more – than the employee.

This also introduces difficulties for contract companies taking over in-house duties of a larger scale. In the middle of last year, we took on over 60 staff from the in-house sector with just two months’ notice. Those employees hadn’t received any Basic Job Training , nor any vetting and there were few Contracts of Employment or Terms and Conditions in place. TUPE information was thus essentially redundant.

Unnecessarily, stress and pressure was being added to the workforce, none of whom really knew if their own job was safe.

Had this scenario arisen post-20 March 2006, we would have ventured outside of our 15% Security Industry Authority Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) non-licensed staff requirement. At present, there is no scope for allowing ACS-listed companies time to put people to work while catching up with the backlog of training and planning the logistics involved.

With common standards in place, this would have been a straightforward TUPE situation. Not only is it compromising the staff employed, but it also restricts the customer’s choice of preference between in-house or contracted security provision.

In addition, with a lack of investment in training and vetting, unequal commercial parameters will preclude the precursor to legislation – namely that the security industry simply cannot continue to operate at either low or loss-making margins – from being allowed to change.

Paul Harvey, Managing Director, The Regent Group

Source

SMT