Regulation “must be policed” states CBI boss

Sir Digby Jones – director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) – has made an impassioned plea to the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and the Home Office in a bid to ensure that “every effort is made to rigorously police licensing” once the cut-off deadline for security officers of March 2006 has come and gone.

Jones has also called for “an holistic response” to business security in the UK, and suggests that added value for clients post-regulation “must be demonstrable”.

Speaking at a Special Breakfast Briefing organised by the SIA – where exclusive press access was granted only to Security Management Today and Infologue.com (and run under the banner: ‘Transforming the Private Security Industry: The Impact on Risk Management and Corporate Governance’), Jones told the assembled in-house managers and guarding contractor managing directors: “What the business community always craves is better regulation that changes behaviour. Behaviour thus far indicates that security has been bought on the cheap. It must be bought on quality.

“Once the current SIA regulation has changed client behaviour for the better, we cannot stop there. Rigorous policing of licensed individuals is paramount to make sure that high standards are maintained at all times.”

Suggesting that the police service is now “at full stretch” in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7, Jones is a firm believer that Corporate Britain must always support what the police is trying to achieve in line with protecting businesses across the country. “The police and the security services have an enormous job on their hands. You only need talk to Eliza Manningham-Buller at MI5. They have evidence concerning individuals currently free to roam the streets of our country, but who – as intelligence suggests – want to maim and kill in the name of their cause. Some of the evidence gathered on these individuals may not have been obtained through the traditional routes, though. Do we attempt to use that evidence to convict, or do we just ignore it? If we opt for the latter path, then surveillance systems must be expanded.”

Jones is “not interested in security managers operating in silos within businesses”. He suggested that: “Security must be ingrained in the DNA of every part of every business. Security directors must ensure that security is part of the company culture. Members of staff must be told on a consistent basis to remain alert and report any suspicious activity.”

Quoting from a recent survey commissioned by his own organisation, Jones was keen to point out that, of the companies questioned, only 10% suggested that security was a standing item on the Boardroom agenda.

Jones is adamant that if each strand of security in a given operation is pulled together – for example plans combat terrorism and overall building security policies – in an holistic policy then business risk will be significantly reduced. “Business will pay far less for its insurance premiums if risk is at a minimum, and demonstrably so as far as the insurance community is concerned.”

• The Speaker Panel for the SIA Briefing – held at Centre Point in London, the home of the CBI – was completed by Paul Goggins MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and the minister responsible for the SIA, John Saunders – the SIA’s chief executive – and Peter Hermitage, the SIA chairman.

Goggins focused his comments on the need for structured career paths in the private security industry in line with the wider policing family remit espoused by the Home Office. Goggins also reiterated the fact that the 20 March 2006 deadline by which private sector security officers must be licensed will NOT be moved.

In the Q+A session that followed the main presentations, Bill Wyllie (chairman of The Security Institute) posed the question about regulation for in-house teams. “I know about a company in central London that employs 6,000 people and yet, for a number of reasons, doesn’t screen any joiners,” said Wyllie. “A dialogue has to be opened up with chief executives in regard to this matter. The in-house question must be revisited.”

Digby Jones was in total agreement with Wyllie’s views. “To not regulate the in-house element of security provision cannot be right. Indeed, many would say that it is sheer madness.” In response, Paul Goggins agreed that “it’s an issue we will have to address”.