Keep an open mind about a single inspectorate

This letter then is not in response to that but to follow a letter from the Chief Executive of the SSAIB, which appeared in the June edition. I believe that Security Installer readers should be told the facts. Everywhere you look the industry is changing and all too often it’s the poor installer that suffers most. Insurance recognition, new standards, the need for end user recognition are all areas of ongoing concern that a brand new inspectorate – not a merger – can so easily better address. We know the new inspectorate has a lot of appeal to open minded installers because we have spoken to a lot already and we continue to welcome views.

As you comment, the initial lengthy work we carried out was based on a large research study concluding that the security industry was held in a poorer regard than many other service industry sectors by both commercial and consumer end users. There are clear facts to support this. We have never stated that standards have “fallen” as again you rightfully pointed out at the end of Geoff Tate’s letter.

Again you are quite right, we have never suggested a “merger” and indeed much of Mr Tate’s comments relate to how this could not happen. We agree with him. Hence our proposal for a totally new inspectorate which seeks to assist all recognised firms so that these firms can try to improve the image of the industry and seek benefits for themselves. Of significance would be the opportunity for ABI members to recognise all installers which are regulated by the new inspectorate providing them (including all previous SSAIB firms) with much sought after insurance company acceptance - something that the SSAIB has not achieved in many years for its firms to date.

We have found not one installer who would reject the added benefits that a new premium inspectorate could offer them.

Our report was simple. We pointed out to all inspectorates and their Boards that following a study of the service industry the image of the security industry needed improving. We also felt, having researched many installers, that there was a general view (even with SSAIB installers) that actual standards could be improved. This is not a criticism of any inspectorate.

Installers, not all of course, also led us to believe that there was confusion about the differences of the inspectorates and that marketing to end users was dissipated and confusing. We concluded, no one else, that the time was right to see what merits there were for a single NEW inspectorate, allowing for all the good parts of the existing regime to be incorporated, any outdated areas to be dropped.

Our proposals did, in principle, meet with the approval of many including the ABI who clearly saw the opportunity to offer all quality installers insurer recognition. Mr Tate is correct. We gave no details of any “merger”. We proposed no “merger” at all. We simply said to each Board here are some issues, here are our suggestions for vastly improving the industry, the image and installer benefits. We stated that it would be wrong for us to attempt to put in the finer points before the overall objectives were accepted. Instead we suggested setting up a working party with the four inspectorates.

With the introduction of European standards and the requirement for UKAS accreditation, we also felt that it would be preferable (and far cheaper) for one Inspectorate to incorporate these changes rather than four. We are a little surprised to hear that Geoff Tate feels that one body cannot accommodate the needs of the differing sizes of installer. We do disagree here but wonder if deep down he does also. Clearly the SSAIB seek to grow their business and to do that means accommodating installation companies of different sizes. Our view is that a new organisation can do this much better than an old one trying to make changes. Each of the inspectorates has something to offer and we wanted to include all that’s good.

My message to installers and other organisations, all of which can benefit from a new inspectorate is: Keep an open mind, encourage your inspectorate to partake in the development of the proposals for a new inspectorate so that all inspectorates, not just the SSAIB, can state “Whatever the outcome, no recognised firm will be disadvantaged by any decision the boards may ultimately reach.”