In full support of One Voice

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has had and continues to face a great many challenges while attempting to make the legislation work. In the main, the Regulator has succeeded in its endeavours.

It’s all-too-easy for individuals to sit back and criticise the SIA’s progress, in particular when procedures and systems begin to ‘fall over’ even in the slightest way. Instead, what the industry needs is a unified approach with everyone pulling in the same direction so that we make licensing work.

Along the road to licensing there have already been numerous debates as to how regulation will work out in practice. Certain key issues have been recorded as areas of concern.

To this end, I am a staunch advocate of the Four Issues, One Voice Campaign (‘Four Issues, One Voice’, SMT, April 2006, ) and would like to offer my views on its four subject areas.

Campaign 1: Licensing of in-house officers

I believe that no-one has an argument for any rationale to exempt in-house operatives from the licensing and regulation process. Since 20 March, I have seen many in-house teams who have transferred to contract operations. In the majority of cases, the levels of vetting, training and development are sadly lacking among in-house operations once viewed as the cream of the security crop. They are now a poor second.

Contracted security services, meanwhile, have moved on in leaps and bounds over the past decade, and I am proud to be associated with several of the milestones that have been reached on the way towards making security a profession with a defined career path.

It will be a travesty if the Government doesn’t move quickly to ensure that in-house security provision is operating to the same level as the contract sector. In-house staff need to benefit from the same advancements, while we must plug the escape route for unlicensable staff who, at present, might be able to walk into an in-house team protecting a sensitive or high profile location. Why in-house operatives were not included within the scope of licensing from Day One beggars belief. They weren’t. Now, we must play ‘catch up’, and as swiftly as possible.

From my own experiences, I am pleased to report that there’s little evidence of customers changing to in-house security provision in a blatant attempt to sidestep the regulation process. This offers me some comfort that end users do value the professional security services they receive.

Campaign 2: Equal representation on the SIA Board Having been part of the Consultation Committee for the new training criteria, I would have thought that the SIA would have required not to say welcomed a Board Member to be a stakeholder from the industry, as there are many areas in which the Regulator would benefit from ‘knowledge of the inside track’.

I hold no personal opinions of the current SIA Board Members. I am sure they are all doing their level best to make the new regulation work. However, it all smacks of attempting to build a new design of car without consulting the driver. It might look good, but maybe everything’s not quite working to plan.

On the plus side, there are better relationships forming between private sector contractors and the Regulator, particularly those companies already part of the Approved Contractor Scheme and with a vested interest in compliance and development.

In short, I sincerely look forward to the time when I read in the pages of Security Management Today and on Infologue.com that the SIA has appointed a new Board

Member from the security sector.

Campaign 3: Fair charging By signing up to the percentage commitment levels leading up to 20 March this year, we ensured that our officers were in possession of their licences well before the enforcement date. On a commercial level, a great many customers paid in advance in order that we could achieve our targets. Our staff will suffer financially, though, as their licences come up for renewal well before those that left it to the last minute – ie the same people that caused the backlog in March. That cannot be right.

I would like to see all operatives who applied early compensated. That may involve a reduced renewal fee, or even an extended licence period (for instance, all licences issued prior to 20 March would be renewable three years hence from the date of issue).

I realise that, again, this may cause a backlog in three years’ time, but applications could be made earlier to avoid this problem. That way, hopefully the renewal process would be less arduous for all concerned.

Campaign 4: Cutting red tape

The process of applying for SIA licences through individuals has created some nightmares. In reality, the majority of security personnel have chosen to apply via their own companies. The administrative procedures involved remain fundamentally flawed when it comes to being able to track the progress of a given licence from application submission through to issue.

I feel that the process mirrored that of the door supervisors who, in the main, operate as individuals. Therefore, the system works to that template. Given the sheer number of operatives involved in security provision, and the fact that most work for contract companies, the procedure needed to involve the employers so that they could deflect some pressure from the SIA. I include in this statement the issuance of blank application forms in bulk right from the start.

My argument is that any blank document is worthless until such time that data is provided. The forms should be made readily available to the public in much the same way as those for driving licences and passports.

Another area worthy of consideration here is that almost all companies have qualified members of staff competent in checking documentation for identification. Again, much heartache could have been avoided if documents had been verified by such staff and then certified copies passed on to the Regulator for final cross-checks.

As I write, I’m very pleased to say that the SIA has recognised many of these ‘problem areas’ and concerns and is now working with stakeholders via a Human Resources Forum in a bid to rectify them.

I would say that regulation and licensing is the best thing that has ever happened to this industry. However, the benefits have yet to filter through in their entirety, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest a timetable of between five and ten years before they manifest themselves in full.

Bill Muskin Chairman