Peak practice

Having been a Board Member of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) since Day One on 1 April 2003, Robin Dahlberg has witnessed both Molly Meacher and Peter Hermitage fulfil the role of chairman. Now, though, he finds himself in the ‘hot seat' and, by his own admission, the softly-spoken American-born Briton who hails from New Orleans would be "very interested" in doing the job full-time (Dahlberg was appointed acting chairman for an initial six-month period when Hermitage made his sudden decision to leave the Regulator last November).

"I will have to apply for the post. Hopefully, I'll then make the shortlist of candidates and be invited to interview," explains Dahlberg with admirable honesty. "There will certainly be no fast-track route for applications, though. It's likely that well over 100 individuals will apply, and the Home Office can then select whichever candidate is deemed most appropriate."

It would be fair to say that the Regulator could do with a little stability just now in terms of its contacts at the Home Office. Of late, the Government has seemingly instigated a revolving door policy for the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State's position, with recent incumbent Paul Goggins barely able to blink before being seconded elsewhere.

The SIA had built a mutually beneficial and successful relationship with Goggins, shown by the support the minister gave during the lead-in to security licensing and the launch of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).

On top of that, crime and policing minister Hazel Blears has just been promoted to party chairman by Prime Minister Tony Blair as one element of his Cabinet reshuffle at a juncture where, for example, excellent links had been forged with her by the British Security Industry Association (on issues including the necessity for reducing Cash-in-Transit crime).

Suffice to say that the security industry - not to mention the Regulator, one suspects - is desperate to build lasting professional relationships with the Home Office. Hopefully, newly-installed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Vernon Coaker will buck the trend (see panel ‘Reid announces new ministerial team at the Home Office').

Ensuring that "the regulatory wheels didn't fall off" between 1 February and 20 March, Dahlberg - who officially became deputy chairman in January 2005 - must surely be in a strong position to claim the SIA's chairmanship long-term. For the time being, and pretty much as you might expect, this sharp-suited professional is playing his cards necessarily close to his chest.

"You must bear in mind that I don't know what ministers are going to ask of the next chairman," says Dahlberg, who has experienced an executive management career in the IT industry up to managing director and chief executive levels in the UK, his native US and Europe. "There will almost certainly be a new job remit. Like ourselves, the Home Office has to be thinking about where we go from here as the industry Regulator, and I've no doubt that this will influence the Government's view of the SIA chairman's role. It may or may not change dramatically as a result of that."

Watershed for the industry

In Dahlberg's view, the present time represents something of a watershed. During the past three months, the "peak to end all peaks" [of licence application form submissions] has been passed with a fair degree of success.

"We still have 55,000 applications ‘in the system', though," he stresses, having referred to the latest statistics listed on his PC. "Then there's another 14,000 applications that we've received but, for whatever reason, were deemed incomplete. They'll be returned to us in due course, so our work is very much in progress at the present time."

For many contractors, the most pressing concern is that of regulatory enforcement. With good reason, security companies who have put in a great deal of hard work to qualify for ACS status want to see the Regulator clamp down on those who would continue to ignore the law. It's fair to say that many want to see a major Test Case in the Courts. If not, those who are ACS-accredited will begin to ask themselves why they bothered to ‘legalise' their operations and individuals in the first place.

"As a matter of policy we cannot comment on enforcement. This could prejudice the whole process," retorts Dahlberg. "What I will say is that our plans are being rigorously pursued. Let me reiterate that there are no special deals on the table. Each company is being treated in the same manner. What we could really use is more whistle-blowing as a major contributor to finding the guilty parties."

The SIA's Compliance and Investigation Team is intelligence-led, gathering its information on non-compliance from a number of sources (not just whistle-blowers but also partner agencies - including the police, local authorities, Her Majesty's Customs - and the end users of security services). To quote the SIA's acting chairman: "The industry is very aware of what's happening on the ground, and can help us by pinpointing those who ignore the law of the land."

Having collected his thoughts, Dahlberg adds: "Our Compliance and Investigation Team is actively targeting those companies who are not complying with the law. While we can understand the industry's interest in a Test Case being taken to Court, enforcement can take a number of forms - from a warning or improvement notice through to prosecution. We have to assess each case and then decide on the most appropriate action for those who don't comply. One of the greatest penalties would be for a company to lose its ACS status."

As a matter of policy we cannot comment on enforcement. This could prejudice the whole process. What we could really use is more whistle-blowing. The industry is very aware of what’s happening on the ground, and can help us by pinpointing those who ignore the law of the land

Before leaving the point, Dahlberg explains that he is desperate to "reassure all of Security Management Today's (SMT) readers that the Regulator is incredibly busy in this area."

Four Issues, One Voice

Prior to Paul Goggins' snap departure, Dahlberg and SIA chief executive John Saunders had given the minister a detailed briefing on the SMT/Infologue.com campaign Four Issues, Once Voice (SMT, April 2006, pp34-36). "We can see the advantages of addressing the concerns you've raised in your campaign," comments Dahlberg, "as did the minister. It is appropriate that, three years into the regulatory process, and with the initial licensing in place, we should start to look at those areas demanding further consideration."

In parallel with this, the Regulator has been (and continues to be) consistently clear in its message that the industry must now take full responsibility for its own strategic direction. "Leading the security industry is not the Regulator's job," continues Dahlberg. "The sector should govern itself, with the Regulator playing an appropriate part in that process. The strategic agenda focusing on competitiveness, skills and markets now has firmer foundations, but it's fair to say that it's time for the industry's leaders to step up to the plate."

A massive issue for the SIA is that concerning the licensing of in-house operatives - one of the key strands of Four Issues, One Voice. Apparently, it's not just the industry that is concerned about this. Dahlberg confesses that clients have also voiced their discomfort about a situation that's now beginning to confuse them.

You can be in a shopping centre, for example, where one group of security officers is licensed while others are not. Clients are much more aware of the change in standards expected of their security providers, and as such are beginning to question why pockets of officers are being left out of the equation.

"With a reasoned and sensible position statement people will be receptive to your campaign," suggests Dahlberg. "It would be helpful if the industry could produce solid evidence that in-house operatives not being subject to licensing is causing a problem. It has often been suggested that swathes of companies who buy-in security would move the responsibility for business protection in-house to avoid the terms of regulation. I have seen no evidence of that. If this is happening, we need to be told where it is taking place."

It has also been suggested that those operatives who do not qualify for a licence in the contract sector (because of a criminal past, etc) will simply gravitate to the in-house sector. "Is there any concrete evidence of this?" queries Dahlberg. "If so, we need to see it. If you can show several occurrences, and back up statements with fact to suggest that there is a significant risk to the public by not licensing in-house operatives, then the argument for regulation in this area carries genuine weight. You need more than a petition of names. That in itself is a good start, but as the Regulator we need to explain why, from a public policy point of view, licensing in-house operatives would benefit the public good. You can provide the evidence as part of Four Issues, One Voice".

Dahlberg then cites an excellent example to illustrate his point. The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has just written a report entitled ‘What Price Privacy?', which has already been presented to Parliament. In it, Thomas gives examples of private investigators conducting what appear to be large-scale illegal data sales involving the corruption of officials. The Commissioner makes four recommendations in the report, one of them directly to the SIA. "This is an example of a robust authority giving evidence of a problem, showing the consequences and recommending a course of action," eulogises Dahlberg. "That is the powerful way to make policy happen if you want to drive it."

From commerce to regulation

Dahlberg went to Columbia University in New York, studying at Columbia College (an Ivy League establishment, no less) for a general Bachelor of Arts degree in history (with a specialism on Chinese history). He then read for an MBA at Columbia Business School and, subsequently, for an MSc in computer science. He moved to London with his wife 26 years ago, initially only for two years. Twenty six years on, both now hold UK Passports.

"Overwhelmingly, my career has been spent in the commercial sector," adds Dahlberg. "Largely in the IT services and software fields for City firms, multinationals and Government bodies." A switch to running organisations in both the public and not-for-profit arenas included becoming a Member of the SIA Board (see panel ‘The SIA Board: representation from the security industry').

"The Home Office liked the fact that I had spent the previous five years working in computer security, defending large City institutions from external and internal attacks," suggests Dahlberg. "If a trading desk goes down the fines are ferocious. What I was doing was close to what the Home Office was looking for, but explicitly outside of the areas to be licensed in accordance with the 2001 Act."

The transition to acting chairman of the SIA was smooth (Dahlberg already knew John Saunders and the team at 50 Broadway). Just as well, since the period running up to 20 March was hectic. Officially, Dahlberg finishes his six-month residency in July. However, as the post of chairman is covered by the public appointments process, the Home Office (as previously stated) must advertise the role. "The advertisement hasn't appeared to date," chips in Dahlberg, "so, given the lead times involved, my tenure will now run past July."

The sector should govern itself, with the Regulator playing an appropriate part in that process. The strategic agenda focusing on competitiveness, skills and markets now has firmer foundations, but it’s fair to say that the industry’s leaders must step up to the plate

The SIA has yet to implement all of the Act, of course, with private investigators and consultants next in line. "In Four Issues, One Voice, you also comment on the need for cutting red tape. We are in agreement with you here," asserts Dahlberg. "There are clearly areas where we need to improve efficiencies and processes, and make it easier for people to work with us. Certainly, both the current and previous minister made it plain to us that we need to think of those who apply for a licence as our customers. We must provide a good level of service. Anything that makes it easier for us to do so is very positive."

One of the areas where the Regulator has struggled most concerns enquiries to the Call Centre. Officers have complained to SMT that it has been difficult for them to check on the status of their licence application.

Dahlberg's response? "We need to make it possible for them to access the necessary data quickly, and not necessarily through the Call Centre. We've made some changes here already, but that's not to say everything's perfect as a result. We are continually re-assessing what we're doing, and examining the prioritisation of our resources."

Dahlberg is at pains to point out to SMT's readers that the SIA's Call Centre has a maximum peak operating capacity of 1,000 calls per week. However, in March alone its operators received more than 100,000!

Scoping for the future

Over the past three months, the SIA has been busily completing a draft Corporate Business Plan mapping out the Regulator's future direction. The Plan was devised by John Saunders and the Management Team. Ministerial approvals must be forthcoming for the proposals, which encompass the Regulator's moves over the next three years.

"From our perspective there'll be no radical changes in direction," posits Dahlberg. "We have certainly refined our plans in the light of experience gained during the past 12 months. The masses of data we've collated has given us a much better idea of the size of the industry we are regulating. We now enjoy a far higher level of communication and co-ordination with the industry at large, and its key stakeholders. All of that has a bearing on how we proceed."

According to Dahlberg, the SIA Board is confident in the Corporate Business Plan it has presented. Constructive dialogue with the appropriate ministers is the next step. The Regulator should find out "very soon" what the Home Office makes of its plans.

At this point, Dahlberg reiterates how grateful the Regulator is for the "huge amount of support" it has received from the industry and SMT. "It would have been impossible for us to do our job, and continue to do so, without that kind of backing," opines a deep-thinking Dahlberg. "It is vital, though, that the industry becomes the custodian of its future direction."

Dahlberg has been privy to a number of comments suggesting, for example, that it should be down to the industry to decide the appropriate level of training for the ACS.

"I agree entirely with that sentiment," he concludes. "We need this kind of dialogue to take matters forward. If the industry wishes to make the ACS an even higher standard, or perhaps look to identify particular practices upon which the scheme might focus, then we are absolutely open to ideas there." Before Dahlberg nips next door to check whether or not John Saunders' latest meeting is finished, he adds an important concluding statement.

"The advantage of regulation is that we have been able to put in place standards set at the right level whereby we can initiate and stimulate positive change. The fundamental ethic underpinning mandatory regulation is that you set the bar at the minimum level possible in order to deal with the risks you have identified, at the same time ensuring that the ‘pass mark' is still high enough to increase quality of service delivery.

"It is neither our role nor our intention to cut people off from their jobs."