Four Issues, One Voice

Not for one moment has the Security Industry Authority (SIA) - or any other security sector professional body or practitioner, for that matter - ever suggested that the implementation of regulation would be easy. Indeed, the difficulty of introducing this demanding legislation to such a diverse and complex industry cannot be overstated.

On its official launch in April 2003, the Regulator entered unchartered waters. To produce a regulation blueprint that satisfied everyone was, of course, never a realistic goal. However, with the industry's endorsement and support the SIA set out its stall to introduce regulation and licensing as a catalyst that would stimulate productive (and long overdue) change. In turn, this would enable the industry to raise standards and become more competitive.

Security Management Today (SMT) and Infologue.com believe that the SIA has never strayed from its firm beliefs. Progress to date has been considerable, and much has been achieved. Ultimately, the Regulator has done its utmost to help this industry of ours greatly improve itself.

Regulation of the private security industry will indeed become fully effective, but probably not for around six months following the 20 March deadline day.

That will not stop the Regulator enforcing its deadline - the cut-off date having been set in stone by the Home Office - and prosecuting those companies who deliberately flout the law. This is as it should be, otherwise what was the incentive to licence for those companies who met the criteria in time?

‘Four Issues, One Voice'

During 2006, SMT and Infologue.com are joining forces to introduce four editorial campaigns relating to the activities of the SIA. The campaigns are running under the banner of ‘Four Issues, One Voice'. We are 100% supportive of the Regulator and its tremendous efforts to date, but at the same time there are areas which - in hindsight - are in need of immediate re-examination.

The campaigns we have devised are designed to challenge the thinking of the Regulator and the Home Office on issues we believe are - potentially - unfair, or might otherwise be tackled in a somewhat more robust fashion. nSecurity Management Today (SMT) and Infologue.com - the specialist web site dedicated to the security guarding sector - have joined forces in launching four editorial campaign strands for 2006. Brian Sims and Bobby Logue explain why the licensing of in-house operatives, equal representation (on the SIA Board), fair charging within the Approved Contractor Scheme and the cutting of regulatory red tape must be addressed by the home office. Illustrations by James Sanders

Post-20 March, it is illegal to work as a contracted security officer in England and Wales without an SIA licence (or an official Licence Dispensation Notice issued in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Approved Contractor Scheme).

To obtain a licence, a security officer must - at the very least - take part in a four-day training course culminating in a formal, nationally-recognised qualification, be subjected to a criminal records check via the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and also take part in an identity check (designed to establish that they are who they say they are).

As the law stands at present, if the same security officer were instead to be employed directly by a company (ie in-house) on a non-alcohol licensed premises then he or she does not require licensing, training, to be subjected to identity checks or even a criminal record check. When hearing of this anomaly for the first time at a recent SIA Breakfast Briefing (‘Regulation "must be policed" states CBI boss', News Update, SMT, December 2005, p7), CBI director general Sir Digby Jones expressed shock, anger and dismay that such a situation had arisen. "To not regulate the in-house element of security provision cannot be right," said Jones. "Indeed, many would say that it is sheer madness."

The CBI supremo is not the only dissenting voice. For some years now, SMT has been fielding telephone calls and written correspondence from in-house corporate security managers who run officer teams compiled either from a mixture of in-house and contracted personnel, or solely in-house operatives. These managers are seriously worried that the only security personnel they'll be able to recruit (at least in the short term, anyway) will include at least some - if not most - of the SIA's estimated 30% of contract sector officers who fail to gain a licence to operate in the private sector.

There is a genuine concern that in-house security provision will become a ‘dumping ground' for these operatives, who are plainly not up to the task for reasons of previous criminality or lack of training, etc.

In addition, security officers that have direct access to members of the general public, and play an active role in ensuring the safety of the public, could very easily lack the necessary ingredients that form the platform on which a professional security officer can be developed.

In an interview conducted by Infologue.com back in June 2004, the SIA's chief executive John Saunders referred to the inclusion of in-house security officers within the scope of regulation. "We aim to come to a considered and factual conclusion by the middle of this year."

Late last year, Saunders re-opened the debate: "In-house licensing will have to take its place in the line of issues we need to address, and we will return to it next year. First, we want to witness the real world effect of regulating the suppliers. If the trend is that businesses take security in-house in a bid to avoid regulation by the SIA, then clearly some form of action will need to be taken. It is next year's piece of work."

SMT and Infologue.com agree with John Saunders when he suggests that the SIA has - to its great credit - taken on a huge workload. However, there must be an immediate recognition that any swift and wholesale moves towards in-house security by private sector companies could inflict further pain on an industry that is already engaged in something of a traumatic transitional period.

Instead of waiting to see if that drive towards in-house security provision occurs, the SIA - with full support from the Home Office - could actually announce a date for in-house licensing in, say, 12 months time.

All wheel clampers and door supervisors are licensed, irrespective of whether they are employed in-house or on a contract basis. Thus it is unfair for the Government to effectively ‘single out' the contract guarding industry.

SMT and Infologue.com suggest a plan of action for in-house is required NOW.

Campaign 2: Equal representation on the SIA Board

At present, the SIA's Board does not include any representation from the security profession. If the Regulator intends to "do regulation with the industry, and not to it" - words that have been spoken many times by SIA employees, not least its chief executive John Saunders - surely it is only right and proper that the industry be represented in the decision-making process? SMT and Infologue.com believe that John Saunders is steadfast in the belief that total commitment is an essential part of the modern Regulator's ‘toolkit'. That said, external influences - most notably the recent delays on the decision relating to the shape, implementation and costings of the Approved Contractor Scheme - have highlighted the pressing need for industry representation at the highest level. In short, on the SIA Board.

If the recommendations of the Hampton review on regulatory inspections and enforcement are accepted, and the SIA is - at some point further down the line - incorporated into the Health and Safety Executive (or perhaps some other Government agency), in the medium term the ‘voice of the security industry' could well become muted.

While the current SIA Board has ably piloted the security sector through a difficult regulatory birth with a good degree of skill and business acumen, we would respectfully suggest that the building of a professional industry requires expertise from within.

The Private Security Authority - the regulatory body set up to administer the Private Security Services Act in Ireland - is a classic example of inclusion. The Authority is totally independent in the exercise of its functions. Its Board consists of representatives of the legal profession, private security employers and employees, the An Garda Siochána (police), relevant Government departments and assorted law enforcement agencies. Even this did not go far enough, and now the Authority has in place specialist committees advising the Board.

Barry Brady - executive director of the Irish Security Industry Association - has spoken directly to Infologue.com. "As you will appreciate there are so many security disciplines. No one person can understand each fully," he explained. "It has become a problem in so far as decisions have been made affecting certain sectors that, if proper consultation had been employed, would not have been made, or would otherwise have been amended somewhat. As a result, each sector of the industry now has a representation meeting and briefs the Authority on its concerns.

"For instance, we have six Cash-in-Transit firms in Ireland. They will have to pay upwards of 20,000 Euros for a two-year licence, while also ensuring that all employees are fully trained. However, this affects their bottom line, without any visible improvement or potential in the marketplace to compensate."

Campaign 3: Fair charging

SMT and Infologue.com feel the SIA must look at ways to ensure that security officers who have paid for their licenses in good faith prior to 20 March 2006 are not disadvantaged in relation to those licensed on or after the deadline day.

On Day One, the challenge for the SIA was how to licence approximately 120,000 officers before 20 March this year. In consultation with the industry, the Regulator then introduced a phased licensing programme over a period of 14 months. With massive support from the BSIA and its chief executive David Dickinson, the SIA managed to reach an agreement with most of the private security industry's service providers for them to submit licence applications for their staff, on time and to the correct standard.

In practice, some parts of the industry met that commitment, but others failed to do so. As SMT passed for press, figures issued by the SIA suggested that approximately 45,000 security officers physically possessed a licence on deadline day (with a further 24,000 able to be deployed in line with the Approved Contractor Scheme). Those companies - and/or their officers - who have complied have had to pay the licence fee of £190 per person in advance.

In other words, those companies whose officers failed to obtain a licence had a double advantage over their competitors. First, it improved their cash flow and, second, extended the valid period of their licenses to a date closer to the full 36-month period of a licence. Those individuals who had dutifully acquired their licence over the 14-month allocated time-span for doing so now have a shorter timescale on their valid licence.

While SMT and Infologue.com believe that it makes perfect sense for licence renewals to be staggered, the present status quo means that compliant companies are being punished unfairly. We also feel there needs to be a full and frank debate on the Approved Contractor Scheme charges. There is a feeling among many in the industry that the current costings levied by the Regulator are perhaps too high.

In addition, final details of charging and implementation were not issued until Thursday 16 February, with the Home Office having taken over three months to consider responses from the Regulatory Impact Assessment. That has not helped the industry in terms of its budgetary planning. If one were to point the finger of blame here it must surely be at the Home Office, not the SIA. Such procrastination is not acceptable in what is now a fast-paced business sector.

SMT and Infologue.com suggest it is only right that the Approved Contractor Scheme charges be constructively debated. We would ask the SIA and the Home Office to review costings for the Approved Contractor Scheme as part of an open, honest and frank debate with the industry and its stakeholders. That debate must happen, and it must take place sooner rather than later.

Regulation does not have to mean burdensome red tape. SMT and Infologue.com want the industry's practitioners and companies to bring to the attention of the SIA - and indeed ourselves - those areas where they feel the regulatory process could become more efficient without any loss of integrity.

A good example of this is the process whereby a licensed security officer has to repeat the whole licensing process if they require a Public Space Surveillance CCTV operator's licence. Our understanding is that the only difference in the application process concerns the training element. If this is in fact the case, then surely a training certificate relating to the area of competence is required?

Another possible area for discussion is the addition of required competencies for security officer training that allow officers to work as door supervisors. At present, licensed door supervisors can work as licensed security officers, but licensed officers cannot work as licensed door supervisors. Is that right?

Returning briefly to the in-house question, the security industry's premier trade body - the British Security Industry Association - has lobbied vociferously, constantly and commendably for the inclusion of in-house security officers within the Terms and Conditions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, but thus far with little success.

If the SIA has researched the in-house sector, and there is a recognition that this issue does indeed demand to be tackled sooner rather than later, why cannot a formal plan of action be put in place for the industry at large?

The SIA will have to put a business case to the Home Office justifying the inclusion of in-house regulation. Your input is vital to this process. It is time for legitimate challenges to be laid before the SIA and Government. We need to cut red tape in Parliament and address such issues - they will not go away.