Regulation: has it all been worthwhile?

There are many individuals within our industry – I purposefully avoid the word ‘profession’ here – who decry not just Security Industry Authority (SIA) licensing but everything and anything to do with it. They take great delight in pointing out the delays experienced by those applying for a licence, and waxing lyrical about what they feel has been a weak and inconsistent monitoring and policing of the whole shooting match.

The SIA, on the other hand, continually emphasises the numbers of operatives who now hold a licence to practice, and the training they have had to undertake by way of qualification. Similarly, the success of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is judged by the number of companies qualified, and who have paid their fees.

Which party is right? Or are both camps looking at matters from the wrong angle?

Much dissent has been voiced by industry players due to the lack of direct security experience among the SIA’s upper echelons, itself one strand of Security Management Today (SMT) and Infologue.com’s joint campaign Four Issues, One Voice (SMT, April 2006, pp34-36).

The question no-one has asked is why we have had so many chairmen at 50 Broadway in such a short space of time? Is the chief executive really that difficult to work with? Does this revolving door serve to explain – at least in part – why no-one appeared to listen to the concerned voices within the security industry?

Buried by bureaucracy

What about the number of revoked licences? Was this anticipated? How is the SIA going to manage the situation? Once issued, a licence is very difficult to recall and thus the numbers of people carrying and displaying an authentic (albeit cancelled) licence can only increase. That will add to the not inconsiderable amount of bureaucracy already engendered by regulation. If so much care and attention has been lavished on the initial allocation of licences, why have so many been revoked?

To my mind, the benefits of licensing for the end user have been exaggerated and overplayed by those with a vested interest in doing so. This situation was promoted by the larger security guarding companies, who felt that the introduction of licensing would lead to a significant reduction in the number of smaller security companies that, in turn, would be to their distinct advantage.

The notion of the industry being run by small ‘cowboy’ companies has never been matched by the reality of the situation. Indeed, it was sometimes the bigger contractors who acted in ‘questionable’ ways as they put in place incentives for staff to win specific rival companies’ business while almost at the same juncture telling their own operational teams that there wasn’t any money in the pot for training and new uniforms, etc.

There is now a strong case for taking stock, and objectively looking for the genuine benefits licensing has thus far been able to realise. Hiding behind the Private Security Industry Act 2001 does nobody any favours, and is a typical cop-out for bureaucrats with a vested interest in roll-upon-roll of red tape.

It was almost inevitable that the Act itself would be ‘interpreted’ to include, by default, all those areas previously excluded (either intentionally or otherwise).

Surely there’s an inherent danger in allowing an unrepresentative body to increase its influence without first evaluating its effectiveness to date?

To answer the question: “Has regulation been worthwhile?”, let’s examine the evidence. Prior to licensing, the majority of security companies already trained their members of staff. Those operatives are still subject to the same three-day Basic Job Training, but now benefit from an extra day devoted to conflict management. Did we really need an Act of Parliament to bring about this state of affairs?

There’s no widespread evidence to suggest that frontline operatives’ pay has increased post-regulation. Burgeoning numbers of Police Community Support Officers and Neighbourhood/Community Wardens are naturally ‘mopping up’ individuals who would otherwise have sought to enter the security sector. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that any increase in security officer pay has arisen through market forces, not the Act.

Utter confusion for the end user

At the top end of the scale you have multi-manned sites where it’s often the case that training and Terms and Conditions of Employment were frequently above minimum levels required. At the other end of the spectrum there are clients who buy-in an officer for out-of-hours duties. Why? They are under duress to satisfy their insurer.

These users have not benefited from regulation. Indeed, they appear confused after having been told that they are breaking the law if using non-licensed staff. Realistically, how can they monitor whether that is or isn’t so?

The same clients are then informed they have to pay more money for their security provision but, on re-tendering, discover that they can buy a similar service from someone else for less. Oh, and: “By the way, we are ACS-registered so it doesn’t matter that not all our members of staff are licensed.” Confused?

The main beneficiaries, then, must be the security guarding companies. However, all of the available evidence appears to contradict that assertion. Across the board, levels of business have not increased, and neither have profit margins. There has been none of the dramatic reductions promised in terms of labour churn, and it’s certainly no easier for guarding companies to find new members of staff. On the plus side, there is now a ream of new forms to be filled-in and, of course, for those companies that qualify there’s a new certificate to adorn the Head Office wall.

On balance, then, what has been achieved? An extra day of training stands out. Has the whole process been worthwhile, though?

• Nick Evans MA FIISec MSyI is the UK director of sales at Tag Guard Systems