Security business is an assistant to the state.
Security business is an assistant to the state.
Security activities are specific, but at the same time in-demand and dynamically developing service sector.
In Soviet times, only state structures were engaged in security functions. The transition to market conditions of management and changes in forms of ownership necessitated the creation of a private security institution. Currently, about 800 thousand people work in the private security business, mainly men.
Private security companies (PSCs) are small and medium-sized businesses, their total number in the country is over 20 thousand. These structures have about 300 thousand units of various types of weapons.
In modern conditions, the private security business is an impressive force, and its activities must be carefully regulated by legislation and by-laws.
In December 2008, the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev signed Federal Law No. 272-FZ «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Connection with the Improvement of State Control in the Sphere of Private Security and Detective Activities.»
Over the years of existence of private security structures, we have all become accustomed to the abbreviation «ChOP», it has become familiar and understandable. From the point of view of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is more correct to speak not about an enterprise, but about an organization. In this regard, the familiar phrase «ChOP» will be replaced by the expression «private security organization» (ChOO).
The changes made to the law are aimed at placing private security companies as small and medium-sized businesses in a clear legal framework for their operation. They have weapons, perform specific functions for inspection, document verification, cargo escort, etc. These are the positions that affect the interests of a wide range of individuals and legal entities, therefore, any «hole» in the law provides an opportunity to resolve the issue at one's own discretion. Therefore, the new law has many areas of application of efforts — this is the protection of private security company employees, the structures they protect, and the population. Many positions regulate the system of relationships between private security companies and the internal affairs agencies that monitor their activities.
The changes in the legislation will come into force in stages – a small part this year and the main part next year.
In the course of their practical activities, private security company employees perform a number of functions to ensure fire safety at protected facilities. Practice shows that at many facilities, fire alarms, fire evacuation control systems, etc. are located in places with permanent (24-hour) presence of personnel. This is, as a rule, a security post where a private security company employee is on duty. In the event of a system being triggered, security personnel must react in a certain way and take measures.
At the request of the business entity, private security company employees perform other measures to ensure fire safety, for example, they do not allow vehicles that do not have a spark arrester to enter the territory of an oil depot, and they control the disconnection of electrical equipment (lighting) in warehouses and other premises.
The position on how a security guard should react to the activation of fire or security and fire alarm systems should be resolved not in legislation, but in documents issued at the by-law level. Unfortunately, there are none, and this complicates the activities of security structures.
For example, what should a security guard on duty do when a fire alarm sensor is activated: call the fire department immediately or first check the premises where the sensor was activated.
Can the security guard on duty, after the fire alarm has been triggered, go up, for example, to the 12th floor, where the fire detector has been triggered, in the elevator or should he walk?
The inspectors of the State Fire Supervision Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia do not answer these questions clearly and unambiguously. Each one expresses his own opinion, but none of them can refer to a specific regulation. They also «in every possible way» avoid signing (coordinating) the instructions or other local regulatory act, which prescribes the actions of the duty guard when the fire alarm sensor is triggered, and recommend resolving this issue with the organization that services the fire alarm system and the administration of the facility.
In some cases, officials of the State Fire Supervision Service strongly recommend sending a signal about the activation of a fire alarm to the fire department of the Russian Emergencies Ministry. However, even here, not everything is so simple. Firstly, this is an additional payment. Secondly, when concluding an agreement on sending a signal about the activation of a fire alarm to the fire department, there are no fewer ambiguities. The agreement is concluded not by the fire department of the Russian Emergencies Ministry, but with an intermediate commercial structure. As a result, the administration of the facility has a long chain of expenses with a simultaneous minuscule responsibility of commercial structures for the untimely detection of a fire and response to it.
It is clear from practice that even when a signal about a fire alarm being triggered is sent to the fire department, the fire departments do not leave upon receiving the signal, but rather call the security guard on duty to check the room in which the fire alarm sensor was triggered.
I would like to draw attention to the situation with manual fire alarms that say «Break the glass and press the button.» They are abundant at many facilities, including schools and other facilities with large numbers of people. Often, such systems send false signals due to the mischief of children and teenagers.
Many specialized organizations that service fire alarm systems with manual sensors admit that they turn them off or bypass them, because it is not possible to constantly respond to a false signal. As a result, they exist for appearances.
Having set a course for the widespread implementation of fire alarm systems, it is necessary to achieve their effective use, and for this a clear regulatory framework is needed, including at the local (facility) level. Officials of the State Fire Supervision Service should take the most active and direct part in this, their participation should have not only control, but also consulting functions. As specialists, they should help the head of the facility and the security structure in developing an optimal algorithm of actions at all stages of the operation of fire alarm systems, especially when receiving a message about the activation of a fire sensor. For this purpose, they should participate and sign a local regulatory act that establishes the procedure for the actions of the security guard when the fire alarm is activated at each specific facility.
In today's conditions, it is impossible to implement a policy of double standards: on the one hand, to oblige everyone to implement fire alarm systems, and on the other hand, to turn a blind eye to how it is used and what the end result of its use is.
If we recall Soviet times, then many facilities had a fire-watch guard (PSO).
This allowed its employees to combine functions and make security services less expensive. And today, in some cases, at the insistence of the economic body, a private security company performs combined security and firefighting functions, but such cases, it must be admitted, are objectively few.
The Law of the Russian Federation of March 11, 1992 No. 2487-1 On Private Detective and Security Activities in the Russian Federation does not contain any mention of the possibility of a private security company performing functions related to ensuring fire safety.
In my opinion, this is due to the following reasons. When the private security business was born in the 90s, it had a narrow security focus. This was reflected in the law. Now the situation has changed, many private security companies, meeting the wishes of business entities, take on some of the fire safety functions. When preparing amendments to the aforementioned law, we wanted to clearly regulate this position, including providing private security company employees with separate functions for monitoring the provision of fire safety requirements at the protected facility, but we received objections from the Government of the Russian Federation.
In many cases, the initiative comes from below rather than from above. For example, the order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia dated April 8, 2008 No. 330 (registered with the Ministry of Justice on May 6, 2008 No. 11635) approved standard requirements for the design and structure of training programs for private detectives and private security guards, a list of topics and key issues to be studied. The programs introduced by the said order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia provide for training security guards in fire safety measures. This is the first step towards ensuring that the employees of private security companies have a more detailed knowledge and apply their knowledge of fire safety in their practical activities.
Another important point should be emphasized. The Federal Law on Fire Safety dated December 21, 1994 No. 69-69 FZ introduced the institution of private fire protection. At the same time, the conditions for the functioning of such structures, unlike private security companies, are not defined at the legislative level on many issues. This also acts as a deterrent to combining security and fire protection functions within one structure.
I would like to touch upon another pressing issue concerning the need for additional training of security guards in fire safety measures in accordance with the requirements of the Russian Emergencies Ministry.
On December 12, 2007, this federal executive body issued Order No. 645 On Approval of Fire Safety Standards Training in Fire Safety Measures for Employees of Organizations (registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on January 21, 2008, No. 10938). This document stipulated the need to train various categories of employees, including security guards, in fire safety measures. Such training should be conducted on a fee-paying basis in educational institutions with a fire-technical profile, structures of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, or in organizations that have a license for fire extinguishing activities.
In order to become a private security guard, a citizen must undergo special training and obtain a license. In this regard, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, implementing the requirements of Article 15 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation On private detective and security activities in the Russian Federation, prepared and on April 8, 2008, issued Order No. 330 On approval of standard requirements for the design and structure of programs and training of private detectives and security guards, a list of topics and main issues to be studied. The curriculum for training private detectives and private security guards provides for the need to study a number of issues.
As a result, it turned out that two federal executive bodies duplicated the requirements for the need to train security guards in fire safety measures on a paid basis. In my opinion, the training of security guards in fire safety measures reflects the departmental interest of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, which is not regulated at the legislative level. Clause 39 of the aforementioned fire safety standards (FSS) stipulates that employees who provide round-the-clock security for an organization are trained in fire safety measures under the fire safety minimum program. It turns out that if a security guard does not provide round-the-clock security for an object, but is on duty at the object for 8 or 12 hours, then he does not need to undergo training in fire safety measures. This is absolutely illogical.
I believe that the officials of the Ministry of Emergency Situations realize the illogicality of the requirement they have put forward and will make adjustments to their regulatory act, especially since in addition to the security guards of the private security company, the security of the facilities is carried out by employees and workers of non-departmental security, employees of departmental security available in many federal structures, a certain category of enterprise employees (duty officers, watchmen, caretakers, guards, administrators, etc.)
There is a corresponding legislative and regulatory framework for departmental, private and non-departmental security. Most of the issues of their daily activities are regulated, and in practice there are no special problems. The situation is much more complicated with watchmen, various duty officers, who are essentially the same security guards. For clarity, let us turn to a specific example.
On January 31, 2009, a fire broke out in the Teploe Nest nursing home located in the village of Podelsk in the Kortkerossky District of the Komi Republic, killing 23 people. The circumstances of this fire were discussed at a special meeting with the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev.
The facility was guarded by a watchman who managed to evacuate only three residents of the nursing home.
At present, the legal status of guards, caretakers, watchmen, duty officers, controllers, administrators and other officials performing security functions at the facility is not defined at the legislative level.
Today, in the conditions of market relations, each owner has the right to choose the type of security and its number for himself. Where the owner has sufficient funds, the security structure is staffed with personnel who have the appropriate legal status, equipment, appearance, etc.
The situation is significantly worse in structures experiencing a shortage of funds, or where the owner, for various reasons, does not want to have outsiders present at his facility in the form of private, departmental or non-departmental security.
The example given for the Komi Republic is to a certain extent an indicator. It turns out that socially significant facilities (nursing homes, mental hospitals, boarding schools, dormitories, etc.) are given over to the protection of persons who, due to their age, level of training, and physical condition, cannot provide high-quality protection of the facilities.
There are many legal, organizational and economic problems in determining the legal status of guards, watchmen, duty officers, etc. In order to radically change the situation, the state must set an example. Socially significant objects, and these are, first of all, those subordinate to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, etc., must be properly protected. Regional and municipal authorities that provide their funding should not be outside observers in this matter.
It must be acknowledged that guards, watchmen, etc. are gradually being forced out of the security services market, but this process is long and largely depends on the state of the economy. Today, in the conditions of the crisis, it is not possible to prohibit the use of this category of workers providing security services for their own needs. Another thing is that workers in these positions must have an appropriate level of wages, and this will solve many of the current problems.
Above, we touched on the issue of training security guards. They currently must be trained twice in fire safety requirements. At the same time, the need to train guards, caretakers, watchmen, duty officers, controllers, administrators and other officials performing security functions at the facility is not regulated.
This year, the order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation established qualification requirements for private security guards, which are significantly higher than the requirements for a watchman. This makes it possible to raise the level of payment for this category of workers and properly demand the quality of work performed. This explains the fact that the heads of private security companies are more demanding about the regulatory framework for their activities, including on issues of ensuring fire protection.
Speaking about the activities of private security structures, I would like to dwell on the issue of access of officials of various state supervision and control bodies, including the State Fire Supervision, to the facility guarded by employees of a private security company.
Today, there are about 30 state control bodies at the federal level, more than 30 federal executive bodies have some powers to implement state control measures. There are also control bodies in each subject of the Russian Federation.
Given the abundance of state control (supervision) bodies in the country, employees of private security companies often find themselves in a difficult situation and cannot clearly determine who can be allowed into the facility, with an official ID, and who cannot. This fully applies to fire protection workers, who have different legal status and powers.
Currently, in development of the amendments made to the Law of the Russian Federation «On Private Detective and Security Activities in the Russian Federation», the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, together with other federal executive bodies, is preparing more than 20 by-laws that should regulate various positions, including those related to the organization of the access control regime for officials of state supervision bodies. This gives reason to hope that the issue of access for officials of the State Fire Supervision Service and other fire protection workers to facilities protected by private security companies will be clearly regulated.
In conclusion, I would like to note that in the security business, especially in connection with the crisis, the requirements for employees of private security companies are increasing. Most of them conscientiously and clearly fulfill their duties to protect facilities from various incidents, including fires.
The task is to create a clear and understandable legislative regulatory framework for protecting facilities from various attacks and fires through the efforts of various federal executive bodies with the active involvement of the security community and the businesses that use its services. As practice shows, there is an urgent need for this.
Source: Magazine Fire Automatics 2010, G.V. Gudkov, Deputy Chairman of the Security Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.