Strong in attack... Civil in defence

Recommendations were passed on the proposed legislation by a Joint Committee consisting of Lords and MPs from all parties, and the Government then had to respond to these suggestions (which it has now done).

In light of the Bill, the publication of which was announced by Douglas Alexander (minister for the Cabinet Office) on 7 January, the private security industry is wondering how it might help with national and local emergencies when the new legislation is brought in. That simple question, however, is raising a wide range of issues that need to be clarified before private security companies can consider their potential new role.

The Bill: what does it outline?
Under the Civil Contingencies Bill, private sector security companies could become part of the response if an emergency, either national or regional, were to be declared. There may well be a heavy mix of duties to be undertaken, including the protection of buildings and sites of destruction, deterring looters, rescuing survivors, leading people to safety, helping the injured and assisting with any decontamination procedures. The industry is still in the dark as to its likely tasks, but that's only to be expected at the draft stage of a typical Parliamentary Bill.

The Right Honourable Bruce George MP – the well-known Labour politician who has championed the cause of private sector security, and currently chairs the national Defence Committee – admits that the role of private security companies is indeed uncertain, but trusts that they'd be willing participants in any crisis operation.

"I sincerely hope the private security sector wants to make a real contribution here, and is capable of doing so," he told SMT.

The ways in which that help might be given is the real debate to be had, though. George continued: "It's possible that larger security companies would designate a number of personnel who'd report to a certain police station during a crisis scenario, and place themselves at the disposal of the police."

Whatever the outcome, Bruce George has a niggling concern that could be serious in terms of its ramifications. He imagines a situation in which there appears to be an emergency. For example, the police may be tipped off anonymously or otherwise that a number of bombs have been placed in a large office block, and that the explosion could demolish the building. First, George asks whether or not the established intelligence services would actually be willing to give out adequate information to the private security officers concerned. Second, how would those officers then react to the various tasks at hand? "This would place one hell of a responsibility on the shoulders of the head of security in marshalling an evacuation," added George. "Those who control blocks of buildings are in an extremely delicate position." Ultimately, the business (or businesses) occupying the offices could be away from the building for hours or days, with a loss of trading and severe disruption at work. That result would be acceptable if bombs were found, but a problem arises if an alarm is proven to be false – however well-intentioned it may have been.

Covering lost profits
There are certain companies that would be deaf to any protestations that the warning had to be taken seriously, and that it was better to be safe than sorry. The next item on the agenda could then be a claim for compensation to cover lost profits. One issue that hasn't been addressed by the Government is that of a legislative framework for commercial buildings.

Indeed, George added that commercial buildings should be constructed in such a way that those responsible for security can evacuate the premises more easily ('Everybody out', SMT, April 2002, pp24-26). "The Defence Committee thinks designers and architects ought to build security into their calculations from the outset, and fully consider how people might respond to a given threat," he suggested.

Controversial as always, George concluded his exclusive interview with SMT by offering comments the industry could regard as being helpful – although some security companies may not feel that way. "If a few of the major contractors voluntarily offered the services of their officers for free in an emergency that would help raise the industry's profile and improve its tarnished image."

However, Bruce George feels the level of training in the industry at the present time is "lamentable", and is adamant that if security companies are to participate in any kind of emergency operations then instruction for them "should last for more than just a few days" (as is the case at present).

Proper accreditation is essential
Whichever way the industry cares to take the Labour MP's remarks, quality is the byword of the authorities that will have to direct operations in any UK emergency scenario. Trish O'Flynn – senior project officer with the Local Government Association, the organisation representing Britain's councils – is concerned that any security companies brought in must be properly accredited. That, of course, is coming up with licensing of the private sector courtesy of the Security Industry Authority.

A similarly tacit approval for the Civil Contingencies Bill is offered by the fire service. Initial discussions at the Cabinet Office (where the Bill originated) were attended by Eric Clark, chief fire officer at the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service and the lead officer on civil contingencies for the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association.

"Improvements are desperately needed in the handling of crisis events at local authority level," opined Clark, who went on to emphasise the stress that would be heaped on the authorities if the unthinkable did happen. Commented Clark: "It would always come down to the councils, police and fire services having to do that much more. "All of those organisations are vulnerable because none of them can call on unlimited reserves of staff."

At present, local authorities are particularly thin on the ground. Few councils employ manual workers any longer, instead outsourcing their work. They'd have limited numbers of people to deploy in an emergency.

If a few of the major contractors voluntarily offered the services of their officers for free in an emergency that would help raise the industry’s profile and improve its image

Clark filled in the gaps in the Bill by setting down a few principles for the officers employed by security companies. "We must be clear about what we want them to do," stated Clark. "And we must also be absolutely sure of their competency and ability to respond. There has to be thorough preparation, integration and risk analysis. All of this is demanding and expensive, so a higher level of resources must be the overriding order of the day."

Powers of arrest
As stated, the actual responsibility afforded to private sector security officers in a state of emergency is not defined as yet, but could well include powers of arrest similar to those accorded to the police. It's vital that officers are properly trained, organised and licensed for the task. If officers were securing a devastated retail area, for instance, they would almost certainly have the power to arrest looters.

Speaking to SMT, Alan Goldsmith – deputy chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and ACPO lead on the Bill – said: "The police would not expect security officers to do such a job without the necessary powers."

That said, any consideration of arming security staff is a long way in the distance. "Arming members of the police service is a delicate topic as it is," stated Goldsmith, who also mentioned the issue of public acceptance of the security officer's uniform. "It's probably fair to say that most citizens would accept help, heed advice and instruction in a crisis no matter who's offering their services."

Those private sector security companies we talked to appear to be in favour of the Bill. John Bates – director of corporate communications at Group 4 Falck – told SMT: "There may well be a number of opportunities for properly regulated, selected and trained individuals to assist in a civil contingency plan on a national or regional basis. The crucial ingredient here is the regulation of the private security industry."

Bates believes private sector contractors would be keen to work in support of the emergency services without actually replacing them. So far, however, there has been no proper consultation between the Government and the industry on the matter. In fact, lack of detail has prevented the security companies from making any kind of truly informed comment.

"It's difficult to find clarity at the moment," suggested Douglas Greenwell, marketing director at Securicor Security. Greenwell does believe that the role of security companies – if they're afforded one – would include initial risk assessment as well as providing security on the ground. To this end, Securicor is talking to Government officials about how its officers might be co-opted in practice.

Greenwell is quick to point out that private sector operators are already well suited to emergency work. "Our officers are trained in certain emergency procedures," stated Greenwell, "including First Aid. What we'd really be concerned with is getting the emergency services to site as quickly as possible and then we'd go in. We could be even more involved."

Rotas would be needed
If London were to suffer from a terrorist attack and all available help had to be recruited, it would be impractical and unrealistic for the authorities to suddenly ask a solutions specialist like Securicor to provide 100 officers. The company would already have all of its normal commitments to think of, including the transportation of cash and valuables and on-site patrolling/CCTV monitoring, etc.

The industry is insisting, therefore, that the various public services and security companies would have to make very thorough preparations, drawing up special rotas if necessary so that security officers could potentially be made available at short notice.

Presumably, the security companies would not be asked to supply their services for free. "In the event of an emergency we'd have to react to circumstances, but we're still accountable to our shareholders. The commercial implications of any participation in civil disasters would have to be discussed," added Greenwell. "Training is already costly. Any emergency scenario would involve taking employees away from their normal duties, so that would represent another expense to us in having to find adequate cover."

One massive question remains unanswered by the Bill. Ministers will be given wide-ranging powers in an emergency, so will they then be able to order security companies to provide their services? Such an occurrence – basically the equivalent of conscription – would be highly unlikely. That said, emergency situations often demand emergency measures.

Ministerial powers to compel private citizens to help out in an emergency would surely bring howls of protest to add to reservations already being raised about the terms of the Civil Contingencies Bill. Indeed, last June The Guardian referred to the Bill as "potentially the greatest threat to civil liberty that any Parliament is ever likely to consider".

A threat to civil liberty?
Objections have been spelt out by Liberty, the civil freedom organisation. Liberty is worried that the powers proposed may be interpreted too widely, and could be invoked in situations that perhaps fall short of an emergency.

For instance, they could – according to Liberty's campaigns director Mark Littlewood – be used to cover public demonstrations. Littlewood is calling for more scrutiny by Parliament, and wants a far more detailed definition of what constitutes an emergency.

Liberty's particular concern is that private security companies could act without public accountability. Continued Littlewood: "We would want clear guidelines on security officers' accountability here. We absolutely insist that they shouldn't have full police powers. What safeguards would be put in place to limit security officers' powers and ensure that they use them properly, and what redress would be built-in to the law if those powers were exceeded or misused in any way?"

Littlewood points out that, although the 1920 Emergency Powers Act has served Britain reasonably well for more than 80 years, maybe the time is now ripe for it to be updated. In a sense, of course, it was revised with the introduction of the Police Reform Act 2002. Section 239 of that Act, as many of you will know, enables chief police officers to designate employees of security companies with which they already have contracts to provide detention and escort services to their forces.

The Act is also very specific that the police authority may ask for these extra services only from companies with which it already has an agreement, and is precise in laying down the law that the chief police officer may designate any employee of the security company to be a detention officer, escort officer... or both.

The first reading of the Civil Contingencies Bill in the House of Commons is only a matter of months away. Much like the Private Security Industry Act 2001, this is designed to be enabling legislation.