We report from last month's BSIA-sponsored conference examining the future direction for our industry.
Anyone living in the real world, though, will recognise that the industry's drive to 'clean up its act' does not – indeed cannot – stop there. Implementing the terms of the Act (and how the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will administer those terms), likely partnerships between the private sector and the police, the future role of the Criminal Records Bureau, how we can better train those working within the sector and the tasks befalling local Government are just some of the areas to be debated.
And debated they were – on Thursday 20 September, when the BSIA joined forces with Security Management Today (SMT) in sponsoring a high-profile, wide-ranging conference entitled 'The Private Security Industry Act 2001: Raising Standards Through Regulation'. The Neil Stewart Associates-organised event attracted over 100 delegates, all of whom packed into central London's New Connaught Rooms to hear heavyweight speakers including Bruce George MP, BSIA chairman David Cowden and SITO's chief executive Raymond Clarke offer their views on the best way forward for the industry.
Bruce George – MP for Walsall South and chairman of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee – kicked off proceedings in typically forthright fashion, leading a discussion that offered a basic examination of the Act and what it really means.
First Security (Guards), Securitas and Reliance Security Services all had representatives in attendance, noted George, but he was dismayed that many of the other major security companies did not. "It's likely that those companies that are here will already be meeting the standards laid down by the SIA. Those that aren't will not have the chance to attend security conferences in future, because they'll likely be working in another sector." Emotive words.
George feels that it's almost impossible to predict what the Act will really mean for the industry in the longer term. "Excellent legislation is already in force in countries like Denmark and Sweden," added George. "The Jury is very much out as to whether or not our own Home Office's efforts will have been in vain. Without doubt, the Act has the potential to be a superb piece of legislation. Although it is very sad, what happened in the States must surely give us the impetus to get things right." According to the often outspoken MP, it's now all to play for. "We're in a very important period," added George. "With a logic that's beyond me, in-house teams and installers are not included in the Act. We must reverse this by way of supportive legislation, because the Act is only a 3/10 document at the moment. It's also high time that training became serious, continuous, compulsory and examined. And it must be carried out regularly at every level, encompassing senior management." In George's eyes, no one company must have a competitive advantage as everyone should be working to the same schedule. "If we can achieve this level playing field, it will be much easier for the police to work in tandem with a properly trained and regulated private security sector." "Over the last three or four years we've heard harrowing stories of criminals infiltrating the industry," he added. "Do local authorities have the nous or the will to be tough where door supervisors are concerned? This is one area alone of which I was highly critical when the Bill was passing through Parliament. And what about inspection of security companies on site 'at a reasonable hour'? That's ludicrous. The SIA or whoever should be able to inspect at any time of the day or night." Making the Act effective Jim Daniell – director of police services and volume crime policing for the Crime Reduction Group at the Home Office – was slightly more positive in his thoughts on legislation when giving the Keynote Address. "There is body and guts behind this Act," opined Daniell. "Of course it's not 100% perfect, but there is a real opportunity for committed members of the industry to make it effective." Licensing, added Daniell, will be based on a set of competitive criteria which, as Bruce George explained, must centre on effective training for all. Another important strand of the SIA's work, of course, will be the implementation of the (at present) voluntary company registration scheme. There are many who feel this should be mandatory.
"In terms of policing and crime reduction," continued Daniell, "the Government is now beginning to focus strongly on delivery and outcomes. The police want to reduce all types of crime, be it car theft, burglary or organised crime. More importantly, perhaps, the fear of crime has to be curtailed in the minds of the public at large." Street robbery, claimed Daniell, is a particular area of concern, with mobile 'phone theft alone exhibiting sharp increases.
"Over £150 million has been spent on town centre CCTV schemes," suggested Daniell. "They're proving very successful in alleviating the public's fear of crime." Daniell is a firm believer that this 'public reassurance' will be a vital factor in the years ahead. "That reassurance will be bolstered by the police actively working with its 'extended family', and by that I mean the security companies. If the Act is to be truly successful, the police and the public sector must be in a position where they can have absolute faith in the private security industry." Daniell then added an important caveat. "We must ensure that this legislation has teeth and is meaningful. That will mean reporting any abuses of its terms and conditions. For clients, price should be much less of a deciding factor than quality. The Government itself has been one of the very worst offenders in this regard. This is a practice that simply must be halted in its tracks." Paul Sheppard-Watson, security manager at Belfast City Council, made a salient point in the Q&A session that brought the first part of the proceedings to a close. "I'm responsible for an in-house security team as well as contracted workers. The exclusion of in-house security operatives from this legislation is horrifying. We are in real danger of cleaning up the contract sector, only for the in-house sector to become the dumping ground for the unregulated and unwanted." Food for thought.
Working with the legislation 'Raising the profile of the security industry' was the subject of David Cowden's lead-off discussion on 'Working with the Act'. "When the Act came into force last May," stressed Cowden, "this marked the end of the beginning of formally regulating the industry. The real work starts here".
Speaking as a former chief executive of Securicor's Security Division, Cowden is adamant that practitioners should not hold any undue anxieties about the full weight of Government coming down on them. That said, he feels that the Act should not be seen as a panacea for all ills.
"It's right and proper that manned security and the Cash-in-Transit function are the first areas to be targeted, if only for the fact that they're the most visible to the public," said Cowden. "Eventually, we must address all the relevant parts of the sector, including installers and system providers."
Cowden is a firm believer that raising the profile of the private security sector is not so much about visibility or a physical presence. "That's already there," he said. "The real problem lies with the minority that continue to bring the industry into disrepute. The building trade, the travel industry and indeed the police are all sectors which are judged by those elements within them that exhibit low levels of competence and poor standards. The private security industry is no different."
Cowden is very much in agreement with SMT in believing that the approved contractor scheme should be mandatory, although he feels that – in the short term, at least – the scheme as it stands should help with improving operational procedures and practices. Cowden is happy that the BSIA "will no longer have to carry the weight of legislation on its shoulders, focusing instead on asking its members to continue providing a quality security service to end users."
Next on the podium was Graham Titcombe, the Home Office mandarin responsible for drafting the original Bill and now tasked with its implementation. Titcombe was quick to stress that the SIA will be independent of Government and the industry it serves, before going on to talk about the rudiments of licensing and its enforcement. Crucially, he reiterated that the SIA will maintain a publicly-accessible record of all licence holders – another important strand in enhancing public and police confidence in the private sector.
"The secondary legislation to the Act is of great importance," claimed Titcombe. "At the moment, the Home Office is expanding its implementation team with this in mind. Let's not fool ourselves, because regulation is a huge task. Licenses will be needed for around 125,000 people every year, not to mention the company approvals. Our immediate task is to find a chief executive and a Board to oversee the work of the SIA. Once they're in place, we can really get to work."
The police-private sector partnership
Like Bruce George, Richard Childs – chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and a member of SMT's Editorial Advisory Board – is passionate about his profession. Speaking initially of the Home Office's stated desire to reform the police service, Childs opined: "In a few months time, when it looks in the mirror at what police reform means, the police service might well find that it turns out to be something more along the lines of a demolition, redesign and rebuild than a dainty touch up with a tin of emulsion."
Childs pointed out that the currently high levels of Government interest in how the police service is run say nothing of the likely impact of regulation in the private security sector. "What regulation should ensure," stated Childs, "is that a more professional security regime will be put in place, a regime that can challenge perceived wisdom that policing is solely a state-run activity. We must also see regulation against the background of a clearly-stated and often-repeated desire by a determined Government to see improved delivery by everybody and anybody when it comes to fighting crime and social disorder."
According to Childs, the tide is moving inexorably towards more private sector involvement with policing duties. "A sector which could pick up the high costs and abstractions incurred in the selection, training, equipping and first line supervision of staff employed in some previously traditional police duties," said Childs.
"The way in which the police service operates now might just be verging on the overly-complex for every circumstance. It may be pricing itself out of the market."
Athough not every patrolling officer in every part of the country could be replaced by a private security operative, Childs feels that some could be. It's really down to funding.
"When the private sector picked up prison transfers, it took money from police budgets because the police was no longer 'doing the job'. Provided that the work goes from the state to the private sector, and the quality and quantity of that work remains the same," said Childs, "then defending the status quo on budgetary terms alone becomes difficult."
Criminal Records Bureau in focus
Communications manager Mark Favager closed the morning proceedings with a useful overview of the Criminal Records Bureau, and how its work will dovetail with that of the SIA.
The Bureau's basic aim, of course, is to 'increase access to information in order to help provide protection for vulnerable members of society against those who might wish to harm them'. As part of the Bureau's 'new service', said Favager, there will be wider access to criminal record checks, improved consistency and quality and better safeguards.
At present, the three different levels of checks focus on enhanced disclosure, standard disclosure and basic disclosure. The SIA will be the registered body for standard and enhanced disclosures, taking in door supervisors (at the enhanced level) and manned security, private investigators, consultants, key holders and wheel clampers at the standard level.
"The SIA will be key to the success of our disclosure service," said Favager, "as both partner and customer. It will approve and countersign standard and enhanced disclosure applications, as well as acting as a secure point of contact for all such sensitive information."
Security training and education
"I have a good many battle scars from trying to put training firmly on the industry's agenda," said Raymond Clarke – chief executive of SITO – when leading the afternoon session on 'The Future for the Security Industry'.
"That's why I'm delighted to see the Private Security Industry Act in place. Perhaps we can now start to change people's perceptions of the industry, and attract 'first' and 'long-term' career people."
Since 1990, added Clarke, no less than 180,000 people have gained nationally-approved qualifications. "Quality Basic Job Training is now in place, and we've managed to open up educational pathways from entry-level to Masters degree-level. We have an effective training regime," said Clarke. "What we need to do now and in the future is make sure the industry uses it to its very best advantage."
So what's required? According to Clarke, an educational framework built upon national standards "which is universally applied". Quality assurance arrangements must be put in place to check that training is undertaken and of the required standard. A form of benchmarking, if you like. There should also be mechanisms that take account of social change. As Clarke puts it: "The Act should not be seen as a 'one shot' solution."
The $64,000 question is whether or not training should be considered as an aspect of licensing, the approved companies scheme – or both? "There must be a strong relationship between SITO and the SIA," added Clarke. "We also want to see training providers licensed and inspected. That must be the way forward."
In looking at the future role of local Government and its relationship with the security sector, Ian Foulkes – head of public protection at political lobbying body the Local Government Association – provided a succinct and highly informative overview.
"Our views on security have been informed and affected by the Community Safety Act," stressed Foulkes. "We know that we need to take a wider interest in security, moving away from being seen as solely concerned with door supervisors." This wider advocacy role will involve liaison with community leaders.
For his part, Foulkes would like to see even more town centre CCTV schemes get off the ground. In this regard, he feels it is a lost opportunity that operators and managers are not included in the legislation as it stands.
The responsibilities of the industry
As managing director of Securitas Security Services, David Cairns is well-placed to speak on the responsibilities befalling contractors now that the Act is in place. Having joined Bruce George in expressing disquiet that many of the top guarding firms were not represented at the debate, Cairns went on to deliver a lucid assessment of where the industry is – and the key issues it must now address.
"The officers are the most important cog in the wheel," said Cairns. "It's they who are 'on the ground' and earning money for the contracting firms' directors. That said, they don't have nearly enough health and safety expertise. They're entitled to that." Clearly, this is an issue up for discussion.
Cairns feels that it's not sufficient to say that an officer is licensed, and that that should be an end to the matter. Constant training and vetting is needed. "We cannot expect the police to give us any respect until we've earned it," said Cairns. "Gaining professional respect should be our priority. Every time security gets it wrong it costs us all, not least in insurance terms."
How, though, wondered the audience, can the industry attract and retain quality officers? "Salaries are really important in this regard," said Cairns. "You get what you pay for. End users are in a unique position in that they can help drive up standards by paying top prices for a quality service. I'm not talking about just providing a wage packet, either. We should be moving towards salaries and the attendant benefits that go with them."
"The only way we can move forward is by investing in our service," he added. "And that means investing in the officers." Let's see if reality mirrors this laudable objective.
Source
SMT
