The Licensing of Private Investigators in the UK

The history of licensing of private investigators in the UK. It all started in 1969 when Tony Gardner MP introduced under the 10 Minute Rule, the Private Investigators Bill.

Are you a flash in the pan?

In May 2001 the Private Security Industry Act was passed by the British Parliament. This in essence licensed the private security industry.

The industry is separated into four key segments.

• door minders / bouncers
• wheel clampers
• manned security
• private investigators

These segments will be licensed in this order and it is anticipated that private investigators will have to wait until 2008 before licensing for them is introduced.

1969

It all started nearly 40 years ago when the first move was made in 1969 by Tony Gardner, the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, who introduced under the 10 Minute Rule, the Private Investigators Bill.

This Bill was based on the Law of Distress Amendment Act of 1888 in which an individual could apply to the County Court for a certificate to act as a Bailiff. The Bill proposed that anyone acting as a private investigator would need to be equipped with a written certificate issued by a County Court Judge. This was to be issued following the Judge having satisfied himself that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold such a certificate. The applicant furthermore would be required to take out a bond in the sum of £1,000.

Unfortunately this Bill did not progress beyond the first reading and Tony Gardner made no subsequent effort to re-introduce it. He was a “flash in the pan”.

Committee on Privacy

The next chapter in the story was contained in the report of the Committee on Privacy, chaired by the late Sir Kenneth Younger. This Committee diligently studied the private investigators situation in this country and came to the conclusion that there should be a licensing body to control the activities of the private investigator.

It was also gratifying to note that the Committee included in its report the fact that it had been noted ‘the desire of The Association of British Investigators, apparently the only large organisation of private investigators in this country, to have a licensing system’.

The Younger Committee's report was eventually debated for one whole day in the House of Commons, exactly a year after it was made public. The Home Secretary said the Government did not agree with the recommendations as it felt that by granting private investigators a licence it would be taken that they had a right to snoop. The Home Secretary however did suggest that a ‘Disqualification Scheme’ be introduced. This would require, in essence, for anyone wishing to practice as a private investigator to report to his local police station where he would be checked to see if he had a criminal record. Should the police ever find that the applicant had been convicted of certain crimes he should then be disqualified for practising as a private investigator by the police.

1972

The Control of Personal Information Bill was introduced in April 1972 by Leslie Huckfield, MP, and control of the private investigator was mentioned but this came to naught.

Shortly afterwards Norman Fowler, now Sir Norman Fowler, MP for Nottingham South, introduced his Security Industry Licensing Bill which sought to establish a licensing board on the lines of the gaming board to control private security firms, firms manufacturing, supplying and fitting security equipment, and private detectives. Sir Norman did not even draw a Bill as he was perfectly aware that it would not become law.

It is interesting to note that he followed the American theme of recognising the private investigator as being an integral part of the security industry, something which was to be followed by Bruce George, MP, several year later and indeed included in the current Act.

I feel that it is rather significant to note that although Sir Norman Fowler has remained a Member of Parliament since that time, he has not introduced another Private Members Bill to licence the security industry. He too was a “flash in the pan”.

1973

Michael Fidler, Member of Parliament for Bury and Radcliffe, then took up the cudgel at the end of 1973 when he introduced not one, but two Bills. The first being the Private Detectives Control Bill Nr 1 and the second the Private Detectives Control Bill Nr 2. The first was very simple and solely to disqualify persons with criminal records from practicing or describing themselves as private detectives. The second was a little more complex in that it set out stipulations for licensing control by a licensing authority consisting of a Chairman and no more than seven other members, who would include one qualified solicitor or barrister, one official of the Home Office, and one serving police officer. Neither became law and regrettably Michael Fidler transpired to be a “flash in the pan”.

1977 and beyond

The Security Officer's Control Bill was introduced in 1977 in The House of Lords by Lord Ted Willis. This was a short Bill to provide for the disqualification of persons with criminal records from practising as security officers and although debated was eventually lost. Lord Ted Willis could not pursue the matter as he became ill and eventually died.

Later that year Bruce George, MP for Walsall South, entered the scene by introducing the Private Security Registration Bill and to give Sir Norman Fowler his due, I note that he supported Bruce George. This listed 22 different clauses:

This however was lost, as are the majority of Private Members' Bills, but Bruce George was not a “flash in the pan”. He tried again and yet again and I am sure that it was through his efforts that the Labour Government introduced the Private Security Industry Bill which became law by the skin of its teeth the day before Parliament dissolved in May 2001.

Private Security Industry Act 2001

I had the pleasure of introducing Bruce George to address various meetings on his Bill and I always did it exactly the same way. I went through the Members of Parliament who had introduced similar Bills and who had been a “flash in the pan”. My introduction always included the words “and now we have Bruce George, Member of Parliament, are you too a flash in the pan Mr George?”. He told me later that when he came to the various meetings and saw me there he knew exactly what to expect and dreaded it.

He did however have the last laugh in that during the debate on 28th March 2001 he said: “In my home I have a plaque which says ‘To Bruce George in appreciation of his dedication to the task of regulating the private security industry’. That plaque has been hanging on the wall of my house since 1978. When my Honorable friend the Member for Tottenham said that he was the youngest Member of the House I was tempted to say ‘I was almost the youngest Member of the House when I first took an interest in the private security industry’. One should not draw too many conclusions about the ageing process, but I waited a long time. A good friend of mine, Peter Heims, once asked at a public meeting whether I was another ‘flash in the pan’. He asked whether I was another Member of Parliament getting quick publicity from introducing a 10 Minute Bill, then disappearing. Well, Peter Heims, I proved not to be a ‘flash in the pan’.”

Indeed, Bruce George was not and has earned the appreciation of the private security industry in the United Kingdom for his persistence.

2007

1 August 2007: The partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for licensing private investigation and precognition agents was approved by the Home Office and published for consultation.

A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is an important exercise that helps determine the most appropriate way to implement regulation. An RIA is designed to assess the costs and benefits of new proposals for addressing regulation issues and facilitates the development of creative, flexible and informed policies.

This consultation document sets out the options for the future regulation of the activities of private investigation and precognition agents. The partial RIA illustrates the need for licensing on the basis of the potential harms posed by these activities. It then shows different options for regulation of one or both sectors to address these harms. These range from doing nothing and allowing one or both sectors to continue to self regulate, to implementing a licensing scheme with core competency requirements attached. The partial RIA also sets out the likely cost and benefits of the options. The document seeks views on all the options presented.

The partial RIA is aimed at individuals or companies operating within the Private Investigation or Precognition Agent sectors, their Associations, Agencies and Forums. It is also aimed at purchasers of these services; such as insurance companies and the legal profession, and the subjects of either activity. It will also be of interest to other public or private sector organisations with an interest in the activities of private investigation or precognition agents, or those individuals or companies with a general interest in the wider private security industry.

Individuals and organisations with an interest in this sector had until 24 October 2007 in which to respond with their comments. After this a full RIA will provide details of the approach that will be taken.

2008

The full RIA is expected to be published first quarter of 2008.

To be continued ...

This article was originally published on the Investigators Sector web site in 2004, and has been updated to cover recent events.

Article index