PrivateSecurity Industry Bill

PARLIAMENTARY BRIEFING

GMBwelcomes this Bill. We are the majortrade union representing workers in the security industry and have members inthe largest providers: Securicor, Group4, Security Express, Armaguard, Chubb, Brinks Matt and many regional and localoperators. In addition we havemembership in the leisure security industry, including door supervisors andsecurity staff that work at major entertainment events. Our total membership across the sector isover 20,000.

Inthe GMB response to the White Paper we indicated that we were pleased that theLabour Government was addressing this issue,which we have campaigned on for decades. Lack of statutory regulation of the Security Industry has led tothe industry's reputation being damaged by unscrupulous "cowboy"operators who undermine standards.Reputable providers in the industry have also sought statutoryregulation of the industry for some time.

Weare particularly pleased that the Bill offers a first step towards overallregulation of the security industry and that it proposes to regulate employeesin the manned guarding sector through a Security Industry Authority (SIA).

Webroadly welcome the Bill's proposals, but feel that improvements are needed toenhance the reputation and standards of the industry. We are concerned that theBill proposes mandatory licensing for individuals, directors, managersand supervisors of security companies, but proposes voluntary registrationof companies. We believe thatemployees in the industry should have a stakehold in the SIA, and also that they should not be expected topay a licence fee in order to carry out their employment.

TheGMB has good working relationships with a number of major employers in the industryand is working particularly closely with Group 4 on raising issues on theBill's proposals that are important to reputable employers and to all employeesin the industry. To this end, we arelooking forward to working together with Government and Parliament tostrengthen the Bill on the following:

Mandatory regulation of companies

Scope of the Bill's coverage of the manned guardingsector

Constitution and make up of the proposed SIA

The licensing arrangements and cost to employees

Minimum standards of training and vetting

An independent right of appeal

Forfurther information contact John Hockenhull, National Secretary on 020 89714223 or Dolores O'Donoghue, GMB Research on 020 8971 4243

Constitution and make up of the SIA

Schedule1 gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint the Chief Executive of theSIA and determine its constitution. TheGMB considers that this should be defined more clearly to give clear guidelinesfor the Secretary of State on the appointment of the Chief Executive, and thenumbers and make up of the SIA, to ensure that it is clear from the outset thatthe SIA is a representative body. It is also important that there should bestakeholder representation on the SIA of employees in the industry.

Clause1 covers the terms of reference of the SIA. The scope of the SIA should bebroadened to give it a responsibility to consult with industry and stakeholderson proposed changes in the law, review of its activities etc. We suggest that the SIA should also play anadvisory role on "best practice" issues in the industry. Clause 1 empowers the SIA to set or approveminimum standards. Broad parameters should be laid down within which standardsshould be set.

Licence Requirement

Clauses3 -5 cover the licence requirement. The exclusion of in-house staff from thelicensing requirement causes us some concern.The competitive nature of the industry means that contracts move in andout of the in-house sector. Thisexclusion would hamper this, and also affect the labour market flexibility ofemployees. Different standards wouldapply in the in-house and contracted sectors.

Clause4 covers exemptions from licensing requirements. We are concerned that court escort services may be exempt fromthe scope of the legislation, creating a two-tier standard for employees. Clause 4 also allows for exclusion forpending applications. We feel thatthere should be an agreed service level period for the SIA to processapplications to ensure that the pending process is not exploited by companiesemploying a series of workers on temporary contracts to evade licensing.

Clauses6-11 cover the licensing conditions.Our concerns here are mainly related to the cost burden on individualemployees. The "applicant" isresponsible for the cost, to be determined by the Secretary of State (estimatessay this could be 40-60) of the licence which is valid for 3 years. This is an employment cost, and thereforeshould be borne by the employer.Security Guards are low paid workers and this would be an unfair burdenon them. It would also be a barrier toentry into employment opportunity in an expanding industry. We also feel that the opportunity could betaken to tie in the licensing criteria to BS7499 vetting standard.

Coverage

Schedule2 defines those who will be covered by the legislation: the manned guarding sector (which includesdoor supervisors), vehicle immobilisers, private investigators, securityconsultants and keyholers. We areconcerned that the definition of activities in this schedule does not make itclear whether cash in transit or court escort services are included.

Appeals

Clause10: The SIA will be given wide powersof entry and inspections under the Act.The government may wish to consider that the rights of individuals and companiesto an independent right of appeal, in line with Section 5 of the Human RightsAct 1998, should be laid down clearly and fully in legislation.

Approved Contractors

Clauses13-17 establish a voluntary system of inspection of providers of security services. We are concerned that security companieswill be inspected and approved by the SIA on a voluntary rather than mandatorybasis. We believe that a mandatorysystem is required if the industry is to be free of unscrupulous anddisreputable operators who undermine public confidence. This is particularly important at a timewhen the industry is expanding into new areas which bring them into closercontact with communities. We wouldwant the parliamentary processes to examine:

the issue of mandatoryregulation

an agreed statutoryreview date on the operation and effectiveness of the Act, with a specific remit to considercomprehensive statutory regulation within, say, three years.

GMB Research

January 2001

[ [ [