SIR – I FELT COMPELLED TO WRITE TO YOU regarding the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) claim that door supervisors are suitably trained to carry out a security officer’s role without attending or completing Basic Job Training – and, more importantly, without having passed the required assessment. This notion is absolutely ludicrous. The implications have obviously not been thought through.

On a personal note, I’ve worked in the security industry for over 25 years now and, like most of my generation, have performed a static security guarding function on building sites with no facilities. I have worked 36-hour shifts. I know only too well what it’s like to be treated with little or no respect, but I’ve stuck it out.

Nowadays I train security officers. I’m a member of several recognised industry bodies, have worked for the West Midlands Police and can produce a CV similar in scope to that of many of my industry colleagues at the same level.

I attended the SITO National Conference (‘Together we can’, SMT, December 2004, pp16-21), and had to listen to the same old speech from SIA chief executive John Saunders. Then, to add insult to injury, I was informed that a door supervisor’s licence could be used to gain employment in the manned security sector. Like 90% of the audience that day, I felt pretty insulted.

Pat Brady, the training manager at Freelance Security Services, raised the question most of us wanted to ask: “How can that be justified?” However, following the SITO National Conference the SIA has failed to do so.

On the day, John Saunders suggested that the basic skills required of a door supervisor had been ‘mapped’ against those of a security officer. Apparently, there’s an 85% match between the two, the remaining 15% to be covered by on-site training. He then went on to state that, by extending the licensing activities of a door supervisor, the SIA had created more job opportunities and what will be a more flexible workforce.

As yet, no-one seems to have mentioned the requirements of the British Standards. Most good companies in the industry have based their employment requirements upon – and have been inspected against – accepted British Standard criteria for the manned security sector. However, those same British Standard requirements (ie BS 7499 Section 5.3.3 Basic Job Training) don’t include door supervision. To employ a door supervisor without re-training him or her to security officer standards would surely mean that the company isn’t complying with the requirements of BS 7499.

Perhaps Mr Saunders would benefit from reading BS 7499 Section 5.3.3 such that he might understand exactly what site-specific training entails (ie on-the-job training appropriate to the assignment, the needs of the trainee and the client).

What’s being proposed isn’t a substitute for Basic Job Training. There’s an 8.5-hour shortfall from a door supervisor’s Basic Job Training package in order to bring them up to the same standards as a security officer. By my calculations that’s a whopping 35% difference. Based on that calculation, I can see why Mr Saunders found it necessary to leave the banking profession.

I wonder if the SIA would find it appropriate to boast to our customers that we’re to employ door supervisors for the purpose of guarding their premises. Door supervisors who have received none of the following modules in their training: customer care, equality and diversity, patrolling, security systems, fire awareness and emergency procedures.

Or perhaps the SIA simply doesn’t rate these modules as being either necessary or important to the role of the modern day security officer?

If the views expressed in this Letter to the Editor appear a little strong then that can only reflect the passion I have for the industry and its future success.

Yes, we need licensing. Yes, we need good training. And, yes, we need strong leadership. However, in my opinion what we’re currently faced with is a tail-wagging-the-dog scenario.

Terry Price, Training and Personnel Manager, GRB Security

In response to this and other concerns voiced on the subject in recent weeks, the SIA has chosen the pages of SMT to issue a formal statement:

SIR – THE SECURITY INDUSTRY AUTHORITY’S (SIA) approach to licensing is designed to allow a given individual licensed to operate in one sector the opportunity of working in another, wherever possible and appropriate. This philosophy aims to maximise sector interchangeability, treating different sectors as gateways to the overall licensed private security industry.

The integrated licence approach also provides for greater flexibility and (wherever possible) minimises the requirement for an individual to hold two or more licenses. This isn’t possible where the competencies needed are distinctly different, or where different regulatory controls are required.

For each sector to be licensed, the SIA has specified sufficient competencies to reassure public trust and confidence while driving up standards. However, competency specifications for licensing are not intended to cover all the training requirements of each job activity before the individual can start work. This responsibility rests with the employer.

All security operatives in the door supervisor and security guarding sectors are required to demonstrate competence by achieving a qualification set at Level 2 in the National Qualifications Framework. This means that they will have been trained to nationally recognised standards, and will achieve comparable qualifications for licensing. We acknowledge that competency may be transferable to different scenarios, even if it has been achieved through different qualification routes.

The door supervisor qualification has a high degree of overlap with the security guarding qualification in terms of competency development. However, it has a greater emphasis on communication and conflict management skills – necessary for a role which is constantly public-facing. The few competencies that aren’t covered by the door supervisor training don’t constitute a risk to public safety, and can be covered during on-site training before a new officer takes up his or her duties. Even if an employer failed to provide the additional training, the impact on public confidence would be minimal.

The guarding qualification has far less overlap with the door supervisor qualification, and significantly lacks the additional competency development in communication and conflict management skills. This level of competency in these skills was agreed during the consultation period covering the security guarding qualification. Therefore, it’s not possible to allow individuals licensed as security officers to also be licensed as door supervisors.

Security companies need to decide which route or qualification they wish to take for licensing their security personnel according to the predominant job activity. If they want their security guards to have greater skills in people management, and be available to guard at licensed premises, they can then choose the door supervisor licence for many of their staff.

Conversely, if companies desire greater technical skill, envisage less contact with people and are unlikely to perform guarding functions at licensed premises, they can choose the security guard route. Each company can build a different mix to suit its business.

The Security Industry Authority, 50 Broadway, London (December 2004)

Source

SMT