Enforcing the Law of the Land

Slowly but surely, clients are beginning to learn more about the Security Industry Authority (SIA) legislation that became law seven months ago. However, ADP remains surprised and somewhat disappointed at the level of ignorance still prevalent despite the best efforts of contractors and the Regulator alike to inform and educate.

During the run-up to 20 March, we believed that licensing would change the face of the industry very much for the better. We embraced the new requirements, choosing to invest additional resources in the training and development of our staff. We also worked extremely hard to attain Approved Contractor Scheme status. Our concern now is that the SIA licensing laws have (thus far, at least) not been taken as seriously by end users as we anticipated they might.

Did Security Management Today (SMT) – much like ourselves – anticipate that contractors who were prepared, trained and licensed prior to 20 March would be confronted by a deluge of enquiries on the matter? If not a flood, we expected at least a trickle of concerned customers asking the all-important question: ‘Are your people licensed?’ Let me tell you it didn’t happen.

Post-May 2001 and the enshrinement of the Private Security Industry Act in law, we determined to keep all of our customers informed throughout the regulation process. Although some were picking up news through attendance at seminars and via articles in SMT, many learned of the implications of licensing solely through direct contact with us.

Licensing: the initial impact

In London, licensing is beginning to have an impact. Contracts are changing hands with fairly swift regularity. However, we aren’t convinced that licensing has had any kind of impact ‘in the sticks’. Many of the end users we speak to don’t even realise that they are breaking the law, and fail to understand that they could be liable for prosecution if employing unlicensed officers.

For various reasons, most small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) don’t have a dedicated security manager in place and, as a result, aren’t questioning their contractors on this matter. The responsibility for security may lie with the sales or accounts manager. With respect, the security knowledge here is negligible. Consequently, in our view the whole regulatory process has not been grasped by the SMEs.

The enormity of the enforcement task facing the SIA is understood and recognised, but how long will it be before the smaller firms are checked out? The big companies on the high profile sites are now subject to inspection, but there has been little enforcement at the grass roots level. At the moment, that fact alone is making a mockery of the law.

Too many security companies are simply carrying on in the same old vein. A number have not even bothered to make any attempt at applying for licences. Since April, we have stumbled across several contractors who seem to be working on the assumption that they’ll not be found out. They could well be right.

If we’re not careful there’s a real danger regulation will beget a two-tier workforce, with one rule for The Big Boys and one for everyone else. We all wanted licensing. We need licensing. Understandably, the SIA is ‘going after’ the larger companies and the high profile cases first, but how long will it be before the enforcement process filters down to the smaller organisations?

The responsible contractors who have made the effort, confronted the additional costs and training and generally met the Regulator’s brief feel that they are now losing out to the non-regulated operations. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Let me be clear that ADP fully supports what the Regulator is doing, but now that the legislation is in place we’d like to see it enforced across the board. The SIA has repeatedly threatened financial penalties and/or prison sentences for those who break the Law of the Land, but if they are not going to be imposed what’s the point of it all?

Step in the right direction

On a more positive note, our own customers have recognised that the industry is desperately trying to better itself, and they welcome the improved standards realised by regulation. Although not professing to know very much about the subject, the facilities managers we have communicated with all believe it to be a step in the right direction.

The facilities manager at one major property company commented: “The security industry is endeavouring to clean up its act. That has to be a good thing as far as we’re concerned. I have a file that I keep on all of the security officers at the site so that I can show ADP to be compliant with the law. We take regulation seriously. Everyone should. We are delighted to see standards being raised.”

Jon Pratt the facilities manager for East Hampshire District Council – makes an interesting point when he states that, as well as guaranteeing the standard of security officers, regulation has made a difference to their self-motivation. Officers, he feels, are now more likely to multi-task, and are far more open to requests to stay late, etc. “ADP’s security officers were always fairly flexible, but we’ve noticed that the actual standard of their reporting has improved, and that they are all more proactive since being licensed.”

The standards in security will continue to improve. Licensing will bring positive results – for training, for security officer motivation and in terms of customer satisfaction but only if the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is enforced at every level.

At the present time, we would say that licensing hasn’t had the effect we hoped it would. The responsible companies are working to new and higher standards, while the irresponsible are carrying on as before in the hope (or is that belief?) that they’ll never be caught out.

Everyone must embrace the legislation and determine to raise standards. Those who are not intending to do so cannot be allowed to slip through the net.