For the public good

Two years ago we talked of transformation, and the industry signalled its enthusiasm for using the Private Security Industry Act 2001 as a catalyst to stimulate fundamental change. There was a tangible desire to make the industry more competitive, open up new markets, improve on performance levels and support enhanced employment practices. All of which would make the industry fitter, healthier and ready to face up to a new future in which it enjoys credibility and respect across society, the business community and the police service. And, of course, across Government.

That’s one big aspiration, but nonetheless a hugely exciting prospect. However, just because you say it doesn’t make it so. There’s a lot of sweat and ‘hard yards’ ahead before we can make that happen.

When the Security Industry Authority (SIA) officially launched in April 2003 it was all-too-easy to take the pledge, rally around the flag and say: “Let’s do it!” Actually stepping up to the plate is an entirely different matter...

The bravest and boldest do so immediately. There are many who will follow energetically when they are more convinced about regulation, and then there’s always going to be an element who will wish to bury their heads in the sand. And let’s not forget those who merely rub their hands with glee at the opportunity to debate, argue and, of course, criticise.

Progress versus turf and status

Two years have passed by. Our flip charts are gone, and enormous progress is being made. The SIA has created itself, designed and launched ‘the products’ and built the infrastructure and systems for licensing (all of which are working). We are very proud of the fact that we have met all of the key milestones we set. We designed the systems to a very tight schedule, and on budget. We have commenced security guarding licensing on time, as was the case with the door supervisors.

However, we do acknowledge our imperfections and that some mistakes have been made along the way. It is worth reiterating here that the only person who does nothing wrong is the person who does nothing.

It was last year that the real activity began. The first 12 months of licensing door supervisors was tough. We anticipated challenges and the past year has exceeded all expectations! There have been many battles to try and keep the regulation programme on schedule, and just as many calls to delay the procedure. Happily, there have been no delays. Some police forces have allowed a degree of discretion in certain areas because of slow take-up caused by the industry not supporting its contractors or employees.

Did we ever think licensing door supervisors would be easy? No, we did not. What we did anticipate is that the leisure and entertainment sector would support door staff through the process. It did not do so well enough. Hence many people were misguided. As an organisation, the SIA pays enormous tribute to those businesses which had the strength and wisdom to be different.

The success of implementing regulation on such a scale demands strong leadership and professional management. Unfortunately, too much energy has been devoted to political manoeuvring and the manufacturing of excuses. Smoke screens and myths have been created, and so many of them. All credit, then, to the character of the people within the SIA, who refused to be deflected from their task.

The SIA has enjoyed enormous support from the police and many of our other partners. Government ministers have steadfastly adhered to the licensing timetable in the face of enormous pressure. Much of the press coverage in the hospitality sector was inaccurate, which hasn’t helped matters.

What is very important is to learn lessons from all of this. We are now even more conscious of the critical role the private security industry and its guarding companies are going to play in licensing and regulation. After all, this is arguably a much more mature, sophisticated and substantial sector.

Resources are in place

The challenge before us all is enormous. Security officer licensing will need very clear direction, strong leadership and outstanding project management skills to make it happen both effectively and efficiently. There is a huge accountability and responsibility to the 125,000 employees being licensed – and their customers – in making sure that regulation is implemented without disruption.

Undoubtedly, as we progress things will go wrong. There will be mistakes, some of them made by ourselves. It will be a great test of the private security industry’s character as to how it responds. What we hope not to see is a blame culture spreading far and wide. Instead, we want to see a capacity for rectifying wrongs quickly and moving on.

However, at the SIA we are already worried. Businesses have been able to obtain certification of prior qualifications since the early part of 2004, and yet we hear of delays being experienced in gathering the necessary information in May and June of this year.

Similarly, individuals have been able to undertake the required training since last September, but as of June this year only 20,000 security officers (ie less than 10% of the guarding workforce) have been listed on the qualifications database. The SIA has been open to receiving applications for five months now, but those coming in are less in number than we predicted and expected – and significantly less than the profiles provided by many of the industry’s larger employers.

We have put in place resources to deal with 125,000 licenses across a 15-month period, and that includes resources at the Criminal Records Bureau and at our managed services provider, BT Syntegra. As the months pass, the period available to progress that many licenses begins to lessen. We can only process licence applications when we receive them.

For our part, we are not passively sitting back and waiting for application forms to arrive. We are out in the industry working with suppliers, the awarding bodies, with the BSIA and alongside SITO to iron out any glitches in the system such that we can ensure the ‘production cycle’ runs quickly and smoothly.

Did we ever think licensing door supervisors would be easy? No, we did not. What we did anticipate is that the leisure and entertainment sector would support door staff during the process. It did not do so well enough

Now is the time for the leaders in this industry to do their job. We read and hear so much of the importance of sticking to 20 March 2006 as the date by which all officers must be licensed. We can see no justification whatsoever for moving that date. We are fully committed to that date, and so is the industry. It is therefore up to the industry to make sure that it has delivered, to an agreed profile, the required level of applications. On this point, the SIA cannot make matters any clearer.

If all of those applications begin to arrive in the latter part of the implementation period then the inevitable backlogs we have had two years to plan avoiding will happen. In turn, this means that a percentage of the workforce will fail to attain a licence by the due date.

Compliance and enforcement

On the subject of compliance and enforcement, let’s use door supervisors in London as an example.

When the due licensing date arrived, there were less than a desirable number of licensed individuals. For the purposes of public protection, the Metropolitan Police Service decided to exercise a limited policy of discretion, but only for those who shared a real commitment to licensing. The initial shortage of door supervisors in the Capital come the commencement date was due to the hospitality and leisure sectors issuing mixed messages. Energy was inappropriately diverted towards trying to move dates instead of being focused on the task at hand, and pushing through regulation.

We sincerely hope that the security guarding industry will respond in a different way, and actively ensure that its workforce is guided and supported throughout the process. A commitment already made by many, it must be said.

After 20 March 2006, make no mistake that it will be a criminal offence for any private sector security officer to operate without a licence. Equally, it will be a criminal offence for directors and managers of guarding companies to supply unlicensed operatives. The SIA does not anticipate any period of discretion, and indeed the industry is vociferously encouraging no such period whatsoever. Failure to licence individuals in time doesn’t merely mean that officers will be committing offences. The managers who deploy them will be committing a more serious offence which, incidentally, is arrestable.

Companies may not be able to fulfil obligations to their clients in a legal fashion, which comes back to the fundamental importance of a well-controlled process over the next ten months to ensure that all licenses are processed by the due date.

We are not making anyone apply for their licence now. Technically, individuals could apply on 19 March 2006. I can assure Security Management Today’s readers that the SIA simply does not have the resources to process 125,000 licence applications overnight. It is impossible. That is why, for over a year now, we have been working closely with the industry to find a co-operative and collaborative way of managing an implementation scheme on this scale. It is in the best interests of the industry to ‘get licensing done’. If someone wants to take the risk of submitting their application at the last minute then that is up to them.

Clever and effective management

The most successful security companies will, of course, identify where the competitive advantage lies and adopt a responsible approach. They will manage this process so cleverly and effectively that they’ll have everything in place before March 2006 so that there is no disruption to their service, and the client base is not disadvantaged in any way.

If I were running a guarding company I would have in my mind a target date of December 2005 and not March 2006, because I would anticipate a risk in that final quarter. The clock is ticking...

In addition, if contractors want to keep employees long term then aiming for December would ensure a smoother passage towards renewals in three years’ time. Companies intent on a stable workforce ought to be planning that far ahead in any event.

The whole regulatory process is, in essence, a production line with a number of key responsibilities. Those responsibilities begin with an employer carefully project planning and managing the logistics within their own organisation. It would be sad to hear of catastrophes in organisations when the rest of the supply infrastructure is functioning perfectly as it should.

Sensible and productive regulation

Beyond the private security industry, the airwaves are clogged up by regulatory debate. The ineffectiveness and inefficiency of regulation – and regulators – and the burden on business are the hot topics. It is so important that Government commentators and influencers can differentiate between sensible and productive regulation and bureaucratic, ineffective regulation.

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 – and the position of the SIA – is absolutely clear, and unchanged from two years ago. The Act quite rightly states that if there are equivalent arrangements in place already then there should be no need for the SIA to introduce regulation. We agree 100% with that edict and support it by word and deed.

We predict a small number of exemptions, but what would not be acceptable is any ‘sidestepping’ of the raised standards through political pressure or making use of unsound, emotional or alarmist arguments.

The sheer scale of the security officer licensing task is very significant. Undoubtedly, things will go wrong. There will be some mistakes. It will be a great test of the private security industry’s character as to how it responds. What we hope not to see is a blame culture

The majority of sectors involved have taken a very responsible and commercial approach to regulation – because they see the benefits – but let me balance that with the words of the leader of one sector affected by the new security standards who said – and I quote – “If we can’t get around it [ie licensing], what’s the minimum we can do to comply”. In my view not a responsible approach, and not in the best interests of either that sector or the public involved with (and within) it.

Our role is not to tell Corporate Britain how to behave. Our job is to implement the Private Security Industry Act 2001 correctly, effectively, proportionately and lawfully.

Buyers must heed change

It appears that great strides have been made in the world of sport. Risk assessments to ensure that the public and participants alike are safe have risen dramatically in their thoroughness. By and large, if we take our children to a Barclays Premiership football match or a concert it’s now a pleasurable experience, but there is no room for complacency.

In the football world, for example, violence and racism are never far from the surface. One of the many reasons why organising responses to meet short bursts of demand requires specifically tailored solutions, and doesn’t offer an excuse for allowing lesser standards.

One of the big challenges for the sporting sector is to ensure the right blend of skilled professional security staff and qualified amateur stewards. Such a differentiation is critical for effective security solutions. We are not convinced that the buyers – among them security, stadium and Health and Safety managers at Premiership football clubs – fully recognise the changes that are occurring, which is a worry. We cannot allow avoidance or complacency of any kind to set in.

The security industry is investing something in the region of £400 million on implementing regulation. It is doing so because its practitioners recognise the importance of raising standards, and their own responsibilities. However, if they see sectors sidestepping the regulation through political influence then they have every right to scream very, very loudly.

BSIA chief executive David Dickinson has already signalled the approach his own organisation will take if it feels people are circumventing regulation (‘Football authorities bid to ‘sidestep’ regulation’, News Update, June 2005, p7). In other words, the BSIA will seek a Judicial Review.

If actions such as this are necessary then so be it. However, it will be a sad outcome.

Thinking back, looking forward

The strategic direction of the SIA is built around working collaboratively with the industry and stakeholders to stimulate change. Changes that the industry, its stakeholders and the public see as important.

Using the regulation as a catalyst and continuously balancing the public purpose with the commercial implications.

In essence, the strategic direction of the SIA is industry transformation.

Security industry licensing, the accreditation of businesses, the skills agenda, public sector buy-in, the extended police family, the insurance industry engagement and the capturing of knowledge all contribute to that underpinning direction.

When we started out in April 2003 it was never the Security Industry Authority’s intention to try and win any popularity contests. We undertook to work with – and listen to – the most qualified, and that is what we have done (and continue to do).

Our direction, approach and organisational personality is not set for change. Our focus in 2005-2006 is to license 125,000 security officers, and introduce the ACS on schedule.

We are ready for the challenge.