Remove Red Tape

Private Security

This theme is now closed for comment. An announcement on Red Tape Challenge plans will be made in due course.

You can read comments made on this sub-category below.

These regulations set out the details of how individuals working in the private security industry are regulated. They also include aspects of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) which is a voluntary standards scheme for private security businesses. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) was established under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to oversee the regulation by licensing individual private security operatives. In 2010 the Government announced that the SIA should be replaced by a new independent regulator whose primary focus would be to regulate private security businesses rather than individuals. We are already considering options to improve the law and will be publishing a public consultation document in the next few months which will ask the public and the industry for their opinions on the details of this new regulatory regime. We are keen to use the Red Tape Challenge as an additional process for seeking views on how regulations covering private security can be improved.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (e.g. through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

You can view the regulations relating to this part of the theme from the scroll box below the menu on the left hand side of this page.

If you want to share your experience privately, then you can comment through our private inbox here. Visit the Business Services landing page here.

3 comments on “Private Security”

1. Stephen Arundell on November 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm said:

   While the concept that the government is pushing is on the right track of reducing the general levels of administration and related bureaucracy for business. I believe that the Security Industry is a clear example of how regulation has driven out poor and unacceptable practices and lead to a rise in the standards of service delivery. Back in the old days any one whom had big muscles worked on the door and had no awareness of emergency procedures, first aid, communications skills ect a return to this would have a wide impact on the night time economy for the licensed trade for example.

   As the role of the private security industry is encroaching further into the traditional areas of policing and private security companies are routinely considered part of the wider policing family. I think that the SIA should retain its current self funding format and its remit should be widening to regulate a wider portfolio of areas:

   Private investigators
   New specific licensing category “Event Security” (to include pit crew training – which is of generally low standard across the industry and a range of event security specific skills and knowledge).
   Aviation Security licence category mapped against the ICAO standards

   One of the key functions of the application process to the SIA is the process of vetting staff and ensuring that individuals are screened at the point of licensing, by taking this process away from an independent body with no conflict of interest in the vetting of staff this, it is likely that vetting will be less rigorous that the current standards.

   In summary, I do not support the changes proposed to the SIA and the regulatory framework and I believe that the costs of running a accountable and professional licensing frame work represents value for money for the standards and professionalism which the regulation has and continues to do so within the private security industry.
2. Andrew Miller on November 12, 2012 at 6:33 pm said:

   With progress made with this legislation along with processes and procedures that are now working well the legislation should be left where it is. I can understand the governments actions in reducing costs and removing some of the QANGOS but this serves a purpose the benefits of which can be seen and felt, and not only within the security industry. Should the industry be self regulating, in a word no the independance of the SIA is a welcome addition to scrutiny and monitoring of all that provide this type of service. The SIA will most probably push for ACS members to have privilege over other accredited companies in terms of any future of self regulation which can only be seen as a form of favouritism that should not be allowed. We all play on an even field and the ACS accreditation is not the only method of proving you run a capable, ethical and professional business.
3. Tony Heldt on November 9, 2012 at 3:55 pm said:

   As the regulator is now self funding it should be left alone. The ACS scheme is good for the industry as certain criteria has to be followed in order to gain ACS status BUT there should be a way of grading companies under ACS as zero is a pass mark although the maximum points achievable is168. Under the present scheme a company scoring zero and just scraping through the system carries the same clasification and accreditation as a company scoring 168 who has invested a great deal of time and money to achieve continued improvement of services offered. Perhaps the system should be a tiered one that can grade companies according to their score.