In-house stewards must not be excluded from Government licensing

When two people are carrying out the same duties, where is the justification in one of them needing hundreds of pounds of additional training and licensing over and above the other (as is the case between privately contracted and in-house football stewards)?

Upon hearing this unfair decision, which states that privately contracted security stewards will require a licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA) while those employed in-house will not, our industry trade body – the United Kingdom Crowd Management Association (UKCMA) – entered into discussions with the BSIA. After much consideration, we have decided to seek legal advice and strongly voice our opinion concerning what we feel to be the Home Office’s anti-competitive stance on this matter.

The introduction of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 means that event security staff are now viewed as falling into the security guarding sector, and are thus required to obtain an SIA licence. As this mandate governs any staff operating in a security function at a football ground, private contractors have already invested tens of thousands of pounds in a bid to license hundreds of staff.

Our members will now be commercially disadvantaged for taking such proactive steps. How can contractors expect to remain commercially competitive when they are being forced to bear these additional costs? Our members will be forced to charge higher rates which the majority of football clubs will refuse to pay, in particular when they recognise that the supply of in-house stewarding is more financially beneficial to them.

On that basis, we feel it is very discriminatory to now exempt in-house stewards carrying out the same job functions. This places companies operating in the private sector under some considerable risk, threatening many livelihoods in the process.

Another knock-on effect is that there will be a shortage of appropriately-qualified staff available for other event activities where professional contract staff are needed (which we understand will include the 2012 Olympic Games in London). The new Act means that all security operatives working at the Olympic venues will also require SIA licenses. That being the case, it is absolutely vital that life is not made unfairly difficult for the UK’s private sector security contractors in their efforts to develop a workforce of SIA licensed staff for both this and other events.

To be frank, there is the potential here that many events will not be able to take place safely – or indeed at all – if the Private Security Industry Act is applied with great stringency.

It would appear that pressure has been exerted on the SIA to grant this exclusion (although we are currently uncertain as to the reasons for this, other than to save expenditure for those football clubs who already have an in-house stewarding operation). True, the SIA’s web site has set out some explanation behind the decision, but what isn’t highlighted is why the privately contracted security staff require the SIA licence to carry out the same job?

At the present time, less than 50% of football clubs in the Barclays Premiership, the Coca Cola Championship and the Football League staff their matches without the support of a contract supplier. The feeling is that clubs will now be forced into endeavouring to employ in-house staff in order to realise cost savings. This is something that a great many clubs will find a near impossibility to do in the real world.

What also surprises us is the apparent and fundamental lack of understanding concerning the implications of this decision, not only for the contractors involved but also in terms of the Health and Safety repercussions this will engender in the football world.

Privately contracted, SIA-licensed stewards work on hundreds of different events across the year, so the cross-fertilisation involved with more training and wider experience can only be of benefit to safety in professional footballing arenas right across the UK.

Terry Wise, Chairman UK Crowd Management Association

The Editor replies: Many thanks for writing to SMT, Terry. The Government’s stance appears to promote an uncompetitive playing field which will bring about unfair business implications.

More importantly, perhaps, if almost half of the stewards deployed in our football stadiums up and down the country are privately contracted, there could be a decrease in the number of available stewards which may lead to matches being cancelled.

Ever since Sky television came along, swiftly followed by a raft of high profile sponsors begging to be associated with The Premiership, football has been seen to ride roughshod over anything and everything in its path. Ticket costs have spiralled out of control, pricing many fans out of attending games. Matches now kick-off at ludicrous times of the day just to suit the media moguls and advertisers.

There is now far too much money swilling around football’s coffers, and it has reached the stage where that cash is (arguably) buying too much influence. It must not be allowed to do so because peoples’ livelihoods (and, indeed, the lives of innocent members of the football-watching public) may be at stake here.