Regulation: what lies beneath?

Regulation and licensing for contracted operatives in the security guarding, Public Space Surveillance CCTV, close protection and Cash-in-Transit sectors became legal reality on 20 March. According to official statistics published at the time, by the stated cut-off date 79,000 security officers had qualified to work lawfully - 24,000 of them under the Terms and Conditions laid down by the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). The overall figure would naturally lead one to assume that the industry is at last moving on in a positive, upward direction.

The estimated licensable population of security officers is 120,000 and, according to the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the Regulator was initially in a position to licence 12,000 operatives each month (or 4,000 every week). In other words, 10 months would have been needed to complete the process. Of course, that doesn't legislate for the increased time the Criminal Records Bureau needs to check and verify 120,000 applications, nor the lengthier period required to train the exact same number of operatives.

At the end of April, the SIA increased its processing capacity to a maximum of 24,000 per month due to a backlog which, it must be said, is predominantly the fault of too many security companies not applying in good time.

That said, why did the Regulator wait until February to try and do something about it?

Statistics for door supervisors

Statistics that have appeared on the SIA's web site suggest that anomalies exist when it comes to the licensing process and the time taken to regulate.

Look at the door supervising fraternity, for example. Back in October 2005, 64,000 operatives were qualified for a licence. Of those, 42,000 were on the SIA's system. 33,000 licences had been granted, with 2,361 applications refused. Come April this year, 86,000 individuals had qualified, with 53,000 of them on the system. 42,000 licences were granted and 2,653 refused.

Interpreting the data, this means that in the period between October 2005 and April 2006, 22,000 new candidates qualified for a licence. 11,000 of them were on the system. 9,000 further licences were granted and 292 more rejected. If 3,142 operatives qualified each month why, then, did only 1,571 apply? Surely the fact that they had taken their qualifications meant that they fully intended to apply? What happened to the other 11,000 who were qualified? Where did they go? I think we need some answers here.

And what happened to the 286 individuals per month who applied but did not receive a licence? Taking into account the 41 applicants per month who were rejected, that still leaves 245 operatives each month who appear to have ‘vanished' without trace...

Security guarding in comparison

By last October, 48,000 security officers had qualified for a licence. 16,000 of them were booked-in on the SIA's system. 9,000 licences had been granted and 117 refused. Come April this year, 106,000 officers had qualified, 69,000 were on the system, 40,000 licences had been granted and 662 refused. Thus, over a seven-month period 58,000 further officers were qualified, 53,000 more were on the system and 31,000 further licences had been granted (with 545 more rejected).

Month-by-month, 8,285 officers were qualifying, 7,751 were placed on the SIA's system, 4,428 licences granted and 77 rejected every four weeks.

Given that 53,000 more officers applied across the seven months, why did only 31,000 receive a licence? What happened to the other 22,000 who applied but didn't receive a licence? Did they all wait until March/April to apply? If so, why?

If we use the door supervisor and security guarding sectors as benchmarks, then, over 11,000 operatives per month tackled the necessary qualifications. The SIA enrolled just over 9,000 applicants per month on its system, granting approximately 5,600 licences. On average, 118 licences per month were rejected.

If the SIA had the systems and procedures in place to process 12,000 applications per month, but then only achieved a processing rate of just over 5,600 per month in the period from October 2005 to April 2006, what went wrong? Why has there been such a backlog?

Surely all of the applications the Regulator received in the period to April 2006 (circa 64,000) should have been dealt with because the organisation was clearly working at well below stated capacity?

Obviously, during March and April the influx of applications would have been abnormally high, but remember that the increase in manpower at the SIA only occurred in February 2006. Adding to the melting pot, just how many of those applications were rejected (and for what reasons, one might ask) and then re-submitted for further examination?

Some of the larger contractors are blamed by the SIA for the sudden surge in applications. If they'd kept to the verbal promises they had made, their laxity would not have impacted with such force on SME companies who applied nearer the deadline. As a result, what has happened here simply isn't fair.

Why is it that not all of the national providers are ratified for the ACS? Are those not ‘in the club’ responsible for the late surges in applications, and the ones offering the sweeteners?

The question must also be asked as to why a security company or individual should apply ten months in advance for a licence that didn't come into effect until March 2006? That is why many applied late. What will happen in three years' time when the renewal date comes around? More of the same... Huge backlogs. Or are we going to be expected to apply even earlier and lose yet more money? Shouldn't the SIA have looked at offering an incentive to apply early in the first year of regulation in order to offset the costs, and set a sliding figure at maybe £100-£190 depending on when applications were being made?

Another point. Why should the door supervisor sector have been allowed to ‘get away' with regional implementation when it was (and is) a much smaller industry?

If the SIA's figures are accurate, why do there still appear to be discrepancies in how many operatives are trained? If everyone applies on or before the expiry date of their existing licence then surely the problem can only occur again in three years' time?

Distinct lack of any realism

I wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments of Guarding (UK) director Frank Quigley (‘Enforcing the Law', SMT, April 2006) that there has been a distinct lack of realism applied to the regulatory process. There has also been some blatant naivety in the way that the SIA believed promises made by the industry would be kept as the realisation of the costs and logistical difficulties involved began to sink in for services providers.

Let us not forget that there are many employees in the security industry who are poorly educated and have been poorly paid. They encountered for the first time application forms which, while not exacting and complex, were duly filled in only to be rejected by the Regulator for minor errors and omissions. That only added to the administrative burden. Surely some leeway could have been granted? In addition, many security officers do not have driving licences or passports. Some of them genuinely do not know where their birth certificates are to be found.

Some officers could not produce enough documentary evidence to satisfy the SIA simply because they still live at home with their parents, or merely due to the fact that their domestic bills are received in their spouse's name. Such simple issues have taken weeks - if not months - to rectify.

To cap it all, the SIA insisted on these bills being current to within three months, but when you consider it was taking 36 days to process one application, some individuals have not met the requirements through no fault of their own. Then there are those officers who receive quarterly statements only!

God alone knows what's going to happen if the Government takes on the monumental task of introducing national identity cards. We'll need 60 million-plus of them, not just 120,000!

I will not even begin to dwell on the fact that, only recently, the Criminal Records Bureau appeared to wash its hands of issues raised by overseas candidates - including operatives from the USA - who received minimum support and guidance from the Regulator (and, in some cases, even conflicting advice as to what was required of them).

Too many sat on their hands

Elsewhere in your excellent article, Douglas Greenwell - marketing director at G4S Security Services (UK) - hinted that many companies ‘sat on their hands' in respect of licensing, probably hoping that regulation would fall at the first hurdle (like many Government Bills and laws of recent times, in fact).

With the greatest respect, I would suggest that the SIA could have communicated the main licensing issues more adequately. It was amazing that so many companies and individuals were ill-prepared even after Christmas 2005. There was so little national newspaper, radio or television communication. The Regulator chose to use its marketing spend on the Internet and in certain journals and magazines (due to cost, perchance?). As a result, the SIA did not reach out to the smaller, less-equipped organisations that help populate this industry of ours.

There is also an obvious undercurrent created by the small and medium-sized providers of contracted security services suggesting that, in many ways, licensing and regulation is proactively designed to favour the larger supplier who has the wherewithal to withstand its impacts, thus forcing the smaller ones out of business. Then the industry can be carved up and shared out among the Top 100 or so companies. Of late, the suggestion has been made that around 200 companies will survive the regulatory ‘cull' - a preferred outcome for many - with the rest disappearing.

Then there's the present ‘recruitment drive' to consider, whereupon licensed staff are being offered financial ‘sweeteners' to join other companies. Is the unattractiveness of the industry being further blighted by many having to wait over 12 weeks to work? Why is it taking over 35 days for the SIA just to acknowledge and enter into their system an application form? Why is it that only 1,000 applications can be loaded onto the system at any one time?

Consequences for the clients

Commenting on the likely impact of licensing back in 2004, SIA chief executive John Saunders stated: "There will inevitably be consequences of such change for the end users of security services. Net margins for security providers average between 2% and 4%. The investment needed to raise standards, licence and train individuals cannot be absorbed, and prices must increase. That must be coupled with the fact that up to 30% of current security staff may not meet the licensing criteria."

Are we bearing witness to the raising of standards that we all hoped to see, and an improvement in career structures within the industry, or is it merely a carve up for the benefit of The Big Boys over the next few years?

Well, on 5 April 2006 the SIA's own figures showed that over 40,000 individuals had been granted a licence, with only 662 applications rejected. Some way off Saunders' original predictions, then. This would appear to suggest that all those who would be rejected are playing the system by not applying and waiting for the investigators to pounce.

Has the cost of security contracts increased that significantly? Many businesses were quick to spot a bargain, and duly asked for two and three-year contracts to pre-empt costs rising substantially this year. They took advantage of the fact that many security companies would rather have longer agreements in place with a smaller rise than a greater rise for a year with the possibility of losing their investment in training and licensing to those companies offering sweeteners.

One has to ask a fundamental question at this point. Are end users employing (and deploying) the same staff with a licence rather than a better-trained workforce demonstrating increased standards?

In addition, has the training for a licence changed employees to any great extent? After all, that training was aimed at a minimum level of competence so as not to disadvantage too many individuals.

The Approved Contractor Scheme

Many commentators have offered their views on the ACS (Guarding Watch, SMT, May 2006, pp105-107). It appeared just as the financial year ended and, for many, the pot of available funds was bare. Some will argue that provision should have been made to cover the costs. Others would counter that the fine detail was supplied way too late by the SIA, such that any meaningful planning was nigh on impossible.

As I write, there are eight organisations who can legitimately offer an assessment service for those companies seeking Approved status. At present, many of them are booked up solidly for months ahead, carrying out assessments for standards like ISO 9001:2000 that many companies already use. Will eight inspection bodies be sufficient for a scheme which has seen over 150 contractors and more join in the space of a few weeks?

With some degree of trepidation, I note also that the standards required for ACS approval may change in the future, with the possibility that training requirements might well be enhanced in three years' time or even sooner.

The ACS is beginning to separate the security industry and its customer base into two tiers - the ‘haves' and the ‘have nots'. Will those companies who survive the Government's onslaught now be allowed to carve up the market and charge end users more for their services?

Smaller security companies have always offered their services to businesses that could ill-afford those of national providers. While some of them were not so good and perhaps had links with criminality, others - in some cases, at least - actually provided a better service than the majors.

A further question springs to mind here. Why is it that not all of the national providers are ratified for the ACS? Are those not ‘in the club' responsible for the late surges in applications, and the ones offering the sweeteners?

The end of the rainbow

The aim of regulation and licensing was to drive the criminal elements and poor standards out of the industry. The aim certainly wasn't - or shouldn't be - to create monopolies akin to the situation once pertaining between giant supermarket chains and smaller retailers.

Someone, somewhere has found the pot of gold under their rainbow and, I would suggest, is looking to milk it for all it's worth.

Are we bearing witness to the raising of standards that we all hoped to see, and an improvement in career structures within the industry, or is it merely a carve up for the benefit of The Big Boys over the next few years?

Or am I just being a cynic as usual?