Evolution of Private Security Industry – Problems and Progress

What this session covered

This session was an interview conducted for the institute, in which a host put questions to two guests on the state of the private security industry following the enactment of the legislation regulating private security agencies. One guest was described as a retired police officer serving as the institute's president; the other as a retired Army officer who had headed an organisation placing ex-servicemen in employment. The exchange was framed as the first of two sessions, with the lacunae in the legislation and the way forward to be taken up in a later discussion.

The speakers described the Act as an important step that had brought organisation to a previously disorganised sector, while arguing that several of its provisions operated in practice as more restrictive than regulatory. Recurring themes included the tension arising from internal security being a state subject while the Act is central, which was said to produce interstate variation in rules and the absence of any national licence, so that an agency must obtain a separate licence in each state; delays in police verification and no-objection requirements before digitalisation; record-keeping obligations regarded as vague and as overlapping or conflicting with labour, provident-fund and tax law, leaving much to the discretion of the inspecting officer; penal provisions making a proprietor liable for offences committed by an employee; and the cancellation or suspension of licences, including the concern that a commercial contractual dispute with a client, or the misconduct of a single guard, could cost an agency its licence and leave a large number of guards unemployed. One speaker observed that the provisions had not been challenged in court and that substantive change would require amendment by Parliament, with only the rules being amendable.

Part of the discussion concerned ex-servicemen. One speaker recounted being required to register under the Act even when placing only former service personnel, and said he had been unable to have this requirement amended. On whether ex-servicemen should be regarded as trained security personnel the two speakers took differing views: one argued that military training differs from the requirements of guarding residential complexes, industrial sites, airports, hotels and events, so that further training is needed, while the other observed that the Act already reduces the training period for ex-army personnel and that this premise had informed the recognition of prior learning for serving guards. The speakers pointed to skill development and recognition of prior learning as emerging correctives, and called for a clearer, more comprehensive and more user-friendly regulatory framework to encourage new agencies and support employment in the sector.

Key points raised

• The session was the first of two, an interview with two guests on regulation of the private security industry under the private security agencies regulation Act.
• Speakers characterised the Act as a welcome step towards organising the sector, but saw several provisions as more restrictive than regulatory.
• The tension between internal security as a state subject and a central Act was cited as a source of interstate variation and of the absence of a national licence.
• Concerns were raised about vague record-keeping duties, proprietor liability for employees' offences, and licence cancellation arising from contractual disputes or a single guard's conduct.
• The place of ex-servicemen drew differing views on whether military training equips a person for private-security work.
• The discussion looked to skill development, recognition of prior learning and a more comprehensive, user-friendly framework as ways forward.