Filling up security’s strategy vacuum

From the numerous conversations I have with people who operate in the industry – and not all, I hasten to add, are Joint Security Industry Council (JSIC) members – they too are clamouring for a Forum which draws together the security provider and client, the private and the public, the inspector and the regulator, the local authority and Government. A body that begins to get to grips with the really big issues affecting the future of the industry, and can then engage in a meaningful dialogue.

Indeed, given the very nature of international security, that dialogue needs to be pan-European in scope.

What is also clear is that the regulator recognises the demand for such a body – in the words of the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) chief executive John Saunders, to “effect the transformation of the industry”.

However, I do not believe that the SIA wishes to lead – nor even sees itself as leading – any such Forum. As the regulator, the SIA is legally obliged to review the provision of security services, make recommendations and proposals for achieving improved standards and ensure that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is kept under review.

It is no part of the regulator’s remit to run the industry or any of the companies within it. Indeed, any effort or desire to do just that must be resisted. If people think that the SIA sometimes appears pushy (and maybe they are) then I do not believe that it is because they necessarily want to ‘run the show’. It is more because the SIA perceives a vacuum at the strategic level. The organisation is uncertain as to how or whether that vacuum is going to be filled, and thus frustration has been creeping in.

JSIC may well have been established to address these kinds of issues, but that was pre-regulation when the issues were less clear, and for a variety of reasons it has not done so. One could be that the organisation was simply formed before its time, another that while achieving much JSIC has never quite managed to fire peoples’ imaginations and deliver that little bit extra. Another (and this time slightly controversial) reason could be that JSIC was viewed by some commentators as a threat to the existing ‘traditions’ and power bases, and so its efforts were always frustrated.

Whatever the case, time has moved on. A new future is beginning to emerge, one that is being set by the SIA. We must look forwards rather than backwards, and afford some thought to ways in which the industry rather than the regulator is going to determine that agenda.

JSIC has a role to play in using the knowledge, skills and experience of its wide membership base to influence this future strategic agenda. It should also provide a Forum and act as a representative body for all those who are involved in the industry but who do not have – or feel that they do not have – a voice elsewhere, or who simply wish to be involved with an organisation that is both independent and non-aligned.

In times past, JSIC may well have made a mistake in claiming to be ‘the’ voice ‘of’ the security industry, but it certainly can claim to be ‘a’ voice ‘in’ the security sector. Moreover, given its constitution and membership base, JSIC’s is a unique voice that will contribute much to the debate.

For the sake of equity and balance, the SIA should support JSIC in its efforts to fulfil that role. If JSIC fails, a large number of disparate but nevertheless important players, some small and some big, will be disenfranchised. The debate will be one-sided and, inevitably, trade-dominated. The SIA cannot allow that to happen.

Maybe the least controversial and most cost-effective way forward is for the SIA to draw a line under the past and create a new strategic body encompassing the various key interest groups within the industry. By doing so, the SIA might also ensure that the degree of influence exercised within this group is due to the quality of someone’s input rather than the size of their wallet.

If JSIC is prepared to accept that times have changed, and that it shouldn’t seek to undertake this industry-wide role in the future, I very much hope and trust that David Dickinson will likewise acknowledge that the BSIA cannot expect to become that body, nor exercise disproportionate influence on any new group that may be formed.

If one were to coin a phrase, ‘a’ voice... but not ‘the’ voice.