Four Issues, One Voice: More feedback from the industry

First of all, let me state that I commend Security Management Today’s Editor Brian Sims and Bobby Logue, Editor of Infologue.com, for launching the Four Issues, One Voice Campaign. Although I do not wholly agree with all of the ideas expressed, I do sincerely believe that the issues raised are extremely important. They most certainly need to be addressed if we are to move the industry forward in a positive manner.

Campaign 1: Licensing of in-house officers

There can be little doubt that the Government’s failure to include in-house security officers within the scope of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 seriously undermines the whole logic of licensing.

If we assume that a major justification for regulation was to increase the general public’s confidence in the security sector, how can this be achieved when a significant minority operate below the radar?

How do you or I know that the officer patrolling a city centre late at night has been through the proper training and vetting procedures if in-house teams are exempt?

I don’t deny that there will be many obstacles placed in the Regulator’s way when tackling this sector, but it is an issue that must be addressed sooner rather than later.

Campaign 2: Equal representation on the SIA Board

I’m not entirely certain the Security Industry Authority (SIA) Board should encompass any industry representation. I see the SIA as the industry’s Regulator. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Board of the SIA is there to drive and oversee the operation of the SIA, not to drive the industry forward single-handed. That job is ours to do, and we should find a suitable vehicle to make that happen – inviting the Regulator to assist in developing strategy as an equal partner, not a dominant force.

Campaign 3: Fair charging

While creating a temporary commercial advantage for those leaving it late, a phased approach to licensing proved to be in the best interests of the majority. In the medium term, those companies that were better organised and didn’t try to cheat have already benefited by picking up work from those who wanted to be ‘clever’.

In an industry where staff turnover exceeds 30% per annum, the issue of licences expiring a few months early pales into insignificance.

For some reason, I cannot get my head around the huge cost of licensing, and do sympathise with those enlightened procurers of security who buy on value rather than cost. They must be wondering what they’ve gained for their investment...

Though similarly hard to understand, the cost of the Approved Contractor Scheme will at least pay some kind of dividend if it develops the type of standards necessary to genuinely improve the industry.

My greater concern is actually whether the larger players in our industry actually have the appetite for change, or would prefer matters to be left well alone?

Campaign 4: Cutting red tape

This whole issue of dual – or even triple – licensing is, of course, madness. It represents an area where wider consultation with practitioners would have helped, although I’m sure the industry had its hand in this somewhere. Special Interest Groups have pretty much messed it up for everyone else.

However we arrived at this point, we do need to address the issue very quickly. There is a huge level of misunderstanding out there. As such, a pragmatic solution is demanded.

I for one am very much looking forward to seeing how this debate – and the Security Management Today/Infologue.com Campaign – unfolds.

Stuart Lowden, Chairman, ASIS International UK Chapter

The Editor replies: Thank You for offering your views on Four Issues, One Voice, Stuart. As ever, the points you raise are salient and will no doubt help considerably in perpetuating the debate and our Editorial Campaign. Like you, we would now welcome any further opinions from fellow ASIS International UK representatives. We will be glad to publish your views...