Keep screening in Securi-Check

How long has the contract security industry lamented the deficiencies of BS 7858, yet been too spineless to do something about it? This was a question raised at a meeting of The Security Institute Committee back in early 2004. The limitations contained within the procedures outlined in BS 7858 are widely acknowledged by the majority of those who are ‘forced’ to operate the system. In spite of this, the security sector has singularly failed to devise a suitable alternative.

BS 7858 is a cumbersome process that, in many instances, may be flawed or open to manipulation by the candidate or their associates – despite the very best endeavours of an employer to prevent that from happening. The five-year telephone vetting process is virtually impossible to complete within the allocated time frame, taking into account the complexities of the Data Protection Act and the reticence of many organisations to offer any comment over the telephone.

Ultimately, a given officer’s file will simply progress to a full ten-year vet, whereupon the emphasis rests with closing any gaps in employment history by whatever means possible. That ‘closure’ can come in many guises… a director’s signature, statutory declarations or confirmation of the applicant’s whereabouts through character references, no doubt supplied in conjunction with the applicant (who has already lined up their respondent to say exactly what the employer wishes to hear). Perfect!

The system is second rate and open to abuse. Any thought of the primary objective behind a screening system is lost in a myriad of meaningless paperwork whereupon the emphasis lies with the quantity of reference checking rather than the quality.

The time for rhetoric has passed

At Securiplan, we’ve decided that the time for rhetoric with regard to security screening has passed. The time for action has arrived!

Alongside our employee screening partner – the Screening Bureau at The Security Watchdog – we picked up the gauntlet and decided to make a stand. The Watchdog looked at how the free market approached employee screening for sensitive positions without the shackles of BS 7858. In addition, the organisation cross-examined the leading security industry insurers to ascertain their views. The feedback was unanimous: the insurance industry knew and recognised the limitations of BS 7858 only too well, and would welcome any suitable alternative or innovation with open arms.

All of our research and painstaking discussion has led to a decisive end result: the design and launch of Securi-Check. The Securi-Check screening standard is synonymous with quality, not quantity. It offers guidelines for the robust security screening of individuals to be employed in an environment where the safety and security of people, goods and property is a requirement of the employer’s operation. Notably, the system meets – and complements – the requirements stipulated by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

Securi-Check includes a criminality and financial probity check that’s not a requirement of BS 7858. We believe this to be a major step forward. Preventing fraud and theft is of primary importance in the manned security industry. Being able to assess this aspect of a potential security officer’s background is clearly of significant benefit.

Screening will carry on!

Securi-Check includes a criminality and financial probity check that’s not a requirement of BS 7858. We believe this to be a major step forward. Preventing fraud and theft is of primary importance in the manned security industry

Assessing the background of an officer is exactly what Securi-Check is designed to do, by carrying out the following exercises: financial probity check, proof of residence check, identity check, a ‘right to work in the UK’ check, quality employment references covering the past three years and a criminality check (both for the UK and abroad).

In addition, a matrix has been agreed which offers guidance with respect to the treatment of issues identified during the course of screening. These will be examined on a case-by-case basis. The system has been tried and tested in the corporate world, and has been proven to deliver rapid, effective results with clear objectivity.

The Proposed Standard Definition for the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) – which the SIA recently distributed for discussion and consultation – suggests that the Authority will not insist on adherence to BS 7858. In what is a definite step in the right direction, the letter accompanying the draft standard (signed by the SIA’s deputy chief executive Andy Drane) states: “It will not be a requirement of the ACS to have these other accreditations [such as BS 7858], but those firms that do might find it easier to demonstrate compliance.”

In other words, those security companies seeking ACS accreditation must provide evidence to the auditors that their vetting process is satisfactory. Compliance with BS 7858 will be one form of evidence, but not the only one.

In conjunction (and agreement) with its clients, Securiplan introduced Securi-Check screening for all new employees with effect from 1 February. We’re fully confident that the process is a far more rapid and effective mechanism, affording a more substantial and pro-active screening system that’s in harmony with the methodology behind licensing.

We’re confident that, once established, Securi-Check will be recognised as fulfilling – and indeed exceeding – the ACS’s requirements for compliance while at the same time raising the bar on screening.

Why stop there, though? Surely there’s an argument here for some cohesion and co-operation between competing manned security companies? After all, we all recruit from the same pool of available labour. Applicants move from one security company to another and, each time his happens, every company must undertake the screening process all over again.

With the SIA issuing licences, surely the security industry is crying out for a centralised screening authority running in tandem with the licensing process? This body could administer and provide a quantified screening check on candidates that move between one guarding company and another, sharing the same information with each employer. Naturally, this would need to be controlled in line with Data Protection requirements, but the end result could be a far speedier recruitment process.

It’s good to see that – through its process of consultation with industry stakeholders – the SIA is demonstrating a welcome willingness to ‘think outside the box’. By not insisting on compliance with BS 7858, the Authority is affording forward-thinking companies the scope to raise vetting standards.