Issue 4: Cutting red tape

 
David Ward – Protecting our businesses from Cyber attacks In his blog for infologue David Ward, CEO at Ward Security discusses the importance of cyber awareness & why integrating physical and cyber security is crucial Read on »
UK OSPAs Winners Announced The UK Outstanding Security Performance Awards (OSPAs) event took place at the Royal Lancaster in central London on 28th February 2019, with over 450 security professionals attending. Read on »
An Interview with Ken Palmer, Founder of CIS Security Ken Palmer, Founder of CIS Security reflects on how the security industry has developed over the past 50 Years; from SIA Licencing to the current political climate Read on »
Saturday, 23 March 2019

Issue 4: Cutting red tape

Regulation does not have to mean burdensome red tape. SMT and Infologue.com want the industry’s practitioners and companies to bring to the attention of the SIA – and indeed ourselves – those areas where they feel the regulatory process could become more efficient without any loss of integrity. A good example of this is the process whereby a licensed security officer has to repeat the whole licensing process if they require a Public Space Surveillance CCTV operator’s licence. Our understanding is that the only difference in the application process concerns the training element. If this is in fact the case, then surely a training certificate relating to the area of competence is required? Another possible area for discussion is the addition of required competencies for security officer training that allow officers to work as door supervisors. At present, licensed door supervisors can work as licensed security officers, but licensed officers cannot work as licensed door supervisors. Is that right? Returning briefly to the in-house question, the security industry’s premier trade body – the British Security Industry Association – has lobbied vociferously, constantly and commendably for the inclusion of in-house security officers within the Terms and Conditions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, but thus far with little success. If the SIA has researched the in-house sector, and there is a recognition that this issue does indeed demand to be tackled sooner rather than later, why cannot a formal plan of action be put in place for the industry at large? The SIA will have to put a business case to the Home Office justifying the inclusion of in-house regulation. Your input is vital to this process. It is time for legitimate challenges to be laid before the SIA and Government. We need to cut red tape in Parliament and address such issues – they will not go away.

INFOLOGUE.COM VIEWPOINT

The manned security industry is in transition and it is important for the views of all stakeholders to be heard. One of Infologue.com’s founding objectives is “To stimulate positive debate on manned security issues.” This is your chance to have your say on any industry issue. If you want to air your views on a manned security industry issue please feel free to do so. All you have to do is e-mail your thoughts to viewpoint@infologue.com and we will do the rest.

VIEWPOINT CONDITIONS

The only conditions are that you are a subscriber to Infologue.com and the comments are within the bounds of professionalism. Infologue.com reserves the right to exclude contributions that it deems to be offensive or prejudicial to any particular person, group or company. Contributions posted on Viewpoint are comments of the named contributors and should not be construed to reflect the views, editorial policy or opinions of Infologue.com or its sponsors.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Interconnective Security Products