Enforcement in The Real World

As first reported in Security Management Today (‘SIA and Merseyside Police take rogue security companies to task’, News Update, SMT, October 2006, p7), on 21 September Operation Seahog took place in Liverpool as the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the police and other law enforcement agencies targeted unlicensed security provision and links to serious and organised crime. And not before time, it must be said.

As the Merseyside Police is fully aware, ‘strong arm’ tactics have frequently been deployed by many security firms on construction sites across Merseyside.

Indeed, the link between drugs and/or gun-running and site security in Liverpool is nothing new. Contractors in the building sector have known about this for years. As long ago as May 1995, Contract Journal reported that Merseyside Police had made more than 20 arrests during Operation Aladdin (part of which involved the examination of dubious security firms using building site security to ‘legitimise’ activities including gun-running.

At the time, Merseyside Police stated a belief that similar activity went on in every major conurbation in Britain (although cities like Glasgow and London were swift to deny that they had a problem). Contract Journal identified that this could be the case because contractors were/are too scared to report the culprits for fear of reprisals. Then, as now, the main target on a national basis was urban regeneration. Police suspected that certain Council officials were involved in some kind of scam. In 1995, the very fact that security companies weren’t licensed was central to the issue. Many were set up by known criminals, either as directors or operatives.

Looking for softer targets

Back to September this year... With a plethora of construction sites springing out of the ground throughout the city – a direct result of Liverpool’s forthcoming Capital of Culture Status in 2008 – the situation is now beginning to approach critical levels. Harsher sentencing in relation to drugs-based offences has encouraged the criminal element to seek out softer targets – and the security sector has become a notable victim.

As a result, arson has been rife. In recent months, three separate attacks have cost developers over £500,000 to put right the damage done. This included an attack on a Bellway housing development where a brand new apartment block was torched, causing £150,000 worth of damage. During a devastating attack at an acclaimed charity housing project in Toxteth, three buildings – all part of the £1.9 million Habitat for Humanity Scheme – were burnt down and a security officer badly beaten.

Not surprisingly, we welcomed licensing and, in particular, Operation Seahog. There was a great anticipation of positive change. It was big news in the region, because so many arson attacks had taken place on construction sites. Merseyside Police chief superintendent Andy Cooke wanted to break the criminals’ stranglehold on the city, and then help secure new investment for the Merseyside region.

It’s a laudable aim, and we support it 100%. However, eleven years after Operation Aladdin, there is now a sense of déjà vu creeping in.

For its part, Operation Seahog was deemed a success. Merseyside Police made 14 arrests. SIA Investigators, Merseyside Police officers and representatives from the Department of Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Immigration Department visited security offices on 81 sites operated by construction companies right across Merseyside.

What happened next?

Members of the construction sector know what’s going on, and we simply have to challenge the (wrongly-held and misguided) belief that specifying on price – or, much worse, on fear – offers any kind of real security. It doesn’t

What happened next, though? What of the companies that didn’t make the grade? 43 individuals were issued with a summons for working without an SIA licence, nine people were arrested for immigration-related offences and 14 ‘miscreants’ reported for suspected offences in relation to Department of Work and Pensions Laws.

However, today we are still privy to those individuals and their companies trading on Merseyside, eking out a few extra months before we sincerely hope and trust – they are held to account and closed down. For those of us working on the right side of the law, it is hugely frustrating and sickening to see these companies continuing with ‘Business As Usual’ mentalities and fearing no consequences.

We would like to believe that licensing and the Approved Contractor Scheme will precipitate the demise of the ‘Cowboys’, leaving those of us who have invested good money and time in training and compliance free to provide clients with a high quality security service of which we are proud. That said, it appears the Regulator will need to show its enforcement teeth before we are going to witness any discernible improvement.

In the meantime, we are firmly committed to our aim of educating those security and facilities professionals who buy in security services for their company. Our business simply cannot afford to wait around for tangible results to materialise from regulation.

We know that we need to make the key decision-makers in security specification fully aware of the facts – and quickly. Like many others, we are a regional security company without the luxury of being bank-rolled by some behemoth sister organisation, but we must allocate budget to communicating the facts. Members of the construction sector know what’s going on, and we simply have to challenge the (wrongly-held and misguided) belief that specifying on price – or, much worse, on fear – offers any kind of real security. It doesn’t. Not by a long way.

Forced change of mindset

When it comes to the crunch, perhaps the Association of British Insurers (ABI) will be every bit as instrumental as the SIA in forcing a change of mindset among the client base?

The ABI’s guidance document for member insurance companies on the importance of SIA licensing makes it abundantly clear that, when underwriting a risk, professional insurers should always check that licensed operatives are being deployed.

On those occasions where policy conditions have not been fully met because unlicensed officers are not deployed to site (and thus the insurers subsequently begin to shun claims), the real incentive to buy smart and not cheap may finally kick-in.

In the meantime, if reputable security companies position their heads above the parapet and shout loudly enough we might at least hope for change from outside. If those of us who cannot afford to rely on the success of the SIA wait too long for change from within, we may well find that we have left it too late.