In the name of the law

Once the online self-assessment FOR THE ACS had been submitted, a decision was taken to invite the auditing company to come in and complete a pre-audit, helping to pinpoint those areas where existing evidence was insufficient. Although this seemed expensive, it was a very useful exercise because, however ‘independent’ of ourselves the company tried to be, it was difficult to remain totally impartial. On occasion, the wood could not be seen for the trees. C UK Security Services is convinced that this further significant investment was a meaningful contributor to its success at audit.

A major component of the audit is feedback from customers, employers, consumers (ie customers’ customers) and stakeholders (for instance the wider policing family). It is not sufficient for this audit to create a folder of policies, procedures and company statements etc. If the information is not communicated to and understood by the officers, and customers do not support company claims, that would constitute a failure. While a really important aspect of the audit, and one that builds on what the company was already doing, it is a time-consuming and difficult process to ‘prove’ to the levels sought by the inspectors.

One of the difficulties found during the audit centred on the linguistic skills of some employees in the field. English is not their first language and, although they can deal with day-to-day matters, they were not sufficiently aware of business terms such as ‘mission statement’ and ‘key performance indicator’ (when asked about the latter, one operative reached up and showed the auditor the key cabinet for the location!)

This has undoubtedly highlighted the desperate need for further training. The auditor could see that the necessary information had been provided to them, but they had simply not been able to access it. A problem which lies with the company, but a problem all the same.

Enforcement of regulation

Critical to companies willingly engaging with licensing and the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is whether or not the Regulator is properly ‘policing’ its own regulation. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) cannot prosecute itself. This means that, unless the Regulator can persuade the police to become involved nothing much is going to happen, despite recent claims by the SIA to the contrary.

While the Regulator’s approach of sending out threatening letters and issuing dire warnings to companies and their directors is interesting (if without legal basis and so actually pretty meaningless), what really makes an impact is rigorous enforcement. The summonsing of those who are working without a licence or trading with the help of unlicensed operatives, and the rigorous unplanned audit of companies who have over-optimistically assessed themselves as being above the ACS line. Neither of these things is happening in the way it should.

In reality, there are still a significant number of unlicensed security officers (and, for that matter, door supervisors) and companies employing them who are still trading. They should not be. Frankly, given the investment a great deal of companies made in regulation, the SIA is hardly behaving like a proper Regulator if it does not underpin its good work with robust and very visible enforcement.

The issue of enforcement or, rather, the lack of it is so important that I would suggest it demands a root and branch review. The Security Industry Authority should do this, and not only look at its existing approaches but also examine if there are more effective alternatives

Sour grapes this may well appear to be, but in what is a highly competitive industry, the ‘free ride’ given to some by the Regulator is totally unacceptable.

The issue of enforcement – or, rather, the lack of it – is so important that I would suggest it demands a root and branch review. The SIA should do this, and not only look at its existing approaches but also examine if there are more effective alternatives. That really will keep faith with those who have played by the rules and made a significant investment in support of the Regulator and regulation and through that the future of the industry.

What are we looking for?

In summary, what I am looking for is ‘no taxation without representation’. The SIA’s fees are effectively the same as taxation. What we really need is a transparent and level playing field in terms of communication between the SIA and every part of the industry, and without fear of favour.

We also need a receptive mind within the Regulator’s offices looking at how it reacts to criticism and a recognition that some changes may well be needed if we are to make the coat of regulation a little easier to wear (but not, of course, at a price that compromises standards).

On another level, there is a requirement for proper auditing of those interpreting and inspecting any SIA standards to make sure they are doing as they should be doing and are behaving consistently and entirely correctly. There simply must be proper and rigorous enforcement which is consistent and effective rather than being notional and lightweight.

If these changes are made, and made soon, the under-performing Security Industry Authority may well become a Regulator of which the security industry can be proud.