Go ahead Make my day!

Spare a thought for over 4,000 would-be security officers who opened their mail one morning last summer and discovered that future prospects for them in this industry amounted to zero. Spare a thought, certainly, but don’t spare any sympathy. The letters originated from the Security Industry Authority (SIA), and informed these ‘site sentinels’ that their application for a Government-approved licence to operate had been refused.

You can only speculate as to the various reasons spelled out in this correspondence for non-compliance and ineligibility. One thing is certain, though. The world is now a rather more secure place for not allowing these individuals to occupy an officer’s uniform.

You can also be certain that, in addition to those 4,159 individuals refused an SIA licence, many more had previously given the Application Form a glance and decided that a sudden career change was in order. The licensing and training requirements laid down by the Regulator – and the criminal checks and criteria that have to be met by all applicants – will have sent maybe thousands scurrying back to the Recruitment pages in their local paper.

That’s a lot of people who might otherwise have been employed in positions of trust, bringing with them a background which would have been – at the very least – libellous and, at worst, downright questionable.

When compulsory licensing for contracted private security personnel was introduced last March, our firm was among the many applauding such a move. In addition to the obvious benefit of barring individuals who should not be allowed such responsibility, we boldly predicted a realignment of the guarding industry’s image. The creation of an environment in which a contractor is judged more upon its credentials for the tasks at hand than how wafer thin it might pare its prices.

However, before that could happen we also knew that the message about licensing had to be taken seriously by security providers and their clients. Press releases issued by the Government’s Information Office – and from the SIA – concerning the new regulations were (and are) all very well, but the key to driving the message home would always be enforcement. In other words, the Regulator had to be seen to take a zero tolerance approach to non-compliance, and do so with haste.

Off-stage, the noises were encouraging. We were assured that the SIA would indeed be coming down heavily on individuals operating without benefit of licence, and cede no quarter to the companies who employed them. On stage, however, there appeared to be a distinct lack of activity. Just when, we began to wonder, were the SIA’s spotlights going to fall on the villains of the piece?

It wasn’t until we were comfortably into last summer that we heard of successful SIA operations targeted at individuals and companies operating outside the jurisdictional boundaries. Some transgressing firms were issued with improvement notices requiring them to put their house in order, while others are now the subject of pending prosecutions.

So far, so good. Maybe, but I don’t believe I’m alone in wondering whether the Regulator could do with sharpening its teeth a little. Its pursuit of cavalier contractors must be vigorous, sustained and uncompromising if it is to avoid the charge of complacency, and regarding its work as having come to a natural conclusion now that regulation is on the statute books. In truth, the real work is only just beginning for the SIA.

Over time, awareness of the Approved Contractor Scheme will grow at a natural rate, but there is perhaps a strong case to be made for accelerating that process through widespread publicity. Publicity that’s targeted at the buyers and users of security guarding services

Intelligence-led operations

We need to put the message across that most of the SIA’s operations are intelligence-led. That being the case, licensing should not be treated like some minor European Union regulation that is there to be cheerfully ignored by those who simply cannot be bothered to comply. Offending contractors must be sent a signal that their chances of being found out do not depend on bad luck. Rather, someone is out there watching, and subsequently making notes and telling tales.

The action that has been taken so far should bring a measure of relief and reassurance to end user organisations employing private sector contractors. Those end users now know that their solutions providers must pay more than lip service to the notion of employing only properly trained and vetted security officers. They must be able to prove it, too.

Some clients might also feel that, to a large extent, compulsory licensing has done their job (in other words, providing an adequate level of care and protection for staff and premises alike) for them. Why does that notion leave me feeling slightly uneasy, though? Well, just as holders of driving licences divide into distinct types of motorist, security companies employing licensed officers also fall into different categories of proficiency. The problem for the client is knowing which contractor will perform most effectively on its behalf. Without that knowledge, the purchaser cannot sit back and feel confident that they have made the right buying decision.

One way of assessing a security solutions provider’s performance is to carry out regular in-house audits of how well it’s protecting a given site. A number of clients do carry out such periodic checks on our officers, and we are more than happy for them to do so.

In fact, we will even provide guidance as to how this can best be achieved through, for example, a penetration exercise whereby someone from the employing company tries to gain access to a site with a lower degree of identification than has been specified.

Time for Plan B, perhaps?

Should the holding of ACS accreditation be made mandatory for the suppliers of security guarding services? While highly desirable in principle, such a move would surely prove to be unworkable. It would also discriminate against smaller contractors and those who have recently set-up shop

Such checks can only be carried out after the outsourced contractor has been appointed to site. Shouldn’t there be a better way of assessing, up front, the credentials of a security company? A more detailed interrogation of the supplier could be the way forward, but the success of this will depend on the client knowing the right questions to be asked about aspects including training, supervision and incentivising officers with rewards for superior service. The client must also be in the best position to judge correctly the veracity of the responses they duly receive.

There’s also a Plan B, and it’s one of which too few organisations employing security companies are fully aware. A security firm that has been granted Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) status by the Security Industry Authority has already subjected itself to a much higher level of inspection than most security specifiers could ever apply. Standards of recruitment and training fall under close scrutiny, as do the levels of supervision provided for staff and the company’s overall management and compliance with professional standards and Codes of Conduct.

Should the holding of ACS accreditation be made mandatory for the suppliers of security guarding services? While highly desirable in principle, such a move would surely prove to be unworkable. It would also discriminate – perhaps unfairly – against smaller contractors and others who have recently ‘set-up shop’. Such firms might be providing a perfectly acceptable service, but are presently unable to invest the sums of money needed for personnel training, development and support.

ACS: clear endorsement

That said, for client organisations seeking assurances of their contractor’s integrity and professionalism, the ACS stamp is the clearest available endorsement. That’s why I firmly believe the SIA – which invested a huge amount of time in consulting over the Scheme and preparing for its launch – should be seeking greater payback for its efforts on behalf of those companies doing things ‘the right way’.

This could well arise through greater recognition of the standards to which Approved Contractors must conform, and the overriding benefits to client organisations. Over time, awareness of the ACS will grow at a natural rate, but there is perhaps a strong case to be made for accelerating that process through widespread publicity – publicity that’s targeted at the buyers and users of security guarding services.

In conclusion, the licensing of security officers represented the first major step forward in years towards polishing up the image of the security guarding sector. ACS accreditation can add a real shine to that work, but only if enforcement is regular and effective and the benefits of ACS-registered companies are fully disseminated, understood – and then realised – by end users. n

Paul Heeran is operations director at Northern Security (www.northernsecurityltd.co.uk)