Ensuring consistent standards for Protect duty implementation

The Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) discusses the importance of frontline door security in counter terrorism.

In an era where the threat of terrorism looms large, the role of frontline door security has never been more critical.

This role extends beyond simple access control; it encompasses the protection of public spaces, ensuring safety, and maintaining public trust. As the UK moves towards the implementation of Protect Duty, also known as Martyn’s Law, the need for stringent and consistent security standards becomes paramount. However, significant challenges such as tax disparity, inconsistent vetting standards, lack of compliance, and untracked non-Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) security resource supply companies threaten to undermine these efforts.

Frontline door security is often the first line of defence against potential terrorist threats. Trained security personnel can identify suspicious behaviour, manage crowd control, and respond swiftly to emergencies, thereby mitigating risks. Their presence serves as both a deterrent to potential attackers and a reassurance to the public. In high-risk environments, such as large venues, hospitality settings, and crowded public spaces, their role is indispensable.

Despite the importance of frontline door security, several systemic issues within the private security sector jeopardise the effectiveness of these measures. The recent refusal by the Home Office to implement business licensing for private security companies is a significant concern. According to the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) and the UK Door Security Association (UKDSA), this decision weakens the sector’s ability to protect the public from terrorist threats and compromises the future implementation of Martyn’s Law.

Tax

A major issue is the tax disparity across the industry. In particular ACS-accredited companies are required to employ all their operatives via Pay As You Earn (PAYE) schemes. In contrast, a considerable proportion of the businesses within the sector often use Untaxed Trading Receipts (UTR) self-employed schemes, allowing them to maximise their financial positions and offer more competitive rates. This practice not only creates an uneven playing field but also encourages tax avoidance and undermines the financial integrity of the sector, but this is now being addressed through the agency’s act with HMRC now coming down on companies who are not using PAYE Schemes

Licensing

The lack of a standardised vetting process across the industry poses a severe threat. Many companies undergo rigorous checks to ensure their personnel are properly vetted and trained. However, there are a considerable number of companies that operate without such stringent requirements. This gap allows individuals with insufficient training and questionable backgrounds to work in sensitive security roles, increasing the risk of infiltration by malicious actors.

The NTIA and UKDSA estimate that approximately 8 - 12,000 frontline security resource supply companies operate within the hospitality and night-time economy sectors, many of which remain untraceable by regulators and government departments. The current ACS, with only around 800 voluntary members, relies heavily on self-assessment, raising questions about the regulator’s ability to control this segment of the sector effectively. This lack of oversight results in a fragmented industry with varying levels of compliance and accountability. E

F The refusal by the Home Office to pursue business licensing leaves a significant void in the regulatory framework needed to support Protect Duty. Without mandatory licensing, there is no assurance that security resource suppliers meet the necessary standards of vetting, insurance, and training required to keep public spaces safe. This oversight is particularly concerning as businesses across the UK prepare to implement Protect Duty, designed to enhance the protection of public premises from terrorist attacks.

The Manchester Arena Inquiry highlighted these issues, recommending amendments to the Private Security Act (PSA) legislation to require licensing for companies involved in counter-terrorism-related security work. This change would ensure that only fit and proper companies operate in this critical area, adhering to robust procedures and training to mitigate terrorist risks.

Reforms

The NTIA and UKDSA, along with other industry stakeholders, continue to advocate for comprehensive reforms. They emphasise the need for business licensing to ensure consistent standards across the sector. Southern Ireland and Australia have implemented similar licensing regimes, demonstrating their efficacy in maintaining high security standards and protecting public safety.

Michael Kill, CEO of the NTIA, stresses the urgency of these reforms: “Following the recommendations from the Manchester Arena Inquiry, the refusal by the Home Office to implement a business licensing scheme for all private security businesses is a considerable oversight. The Home Secretary and Security Minister have little or no grasp of the issues faced by the sector, particularly one that is on the verge of implementing a new duty to protect premises accessed by the public from a potential terror threat.”

The implementation of Protect Duty is a critical step towards enhancing public safety in the face of evolving terrorist threats. However, without consistent standards and robust regulatory oversight, the effectiveness of frontline door security will be severely compromised. Addressing the challenges of tax disparity, inconsistent vetting standards, lack of compliance, and the absence of business licensing is essential to fortify the private security sector.

The Home Office must reconsider its stance and work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to ensure that the security infrastructure in place is capable of protecting the public and maintaining trust in these turbulent times.