The manned security sector is having to show considerable flexibility at the current time to deal with a fast-changing commercial environment affected by new technology, social legislation and changing attitudes amongst end-users, the general public, the Government and the Police. Taking a look at just one of these factors, what precise role will regulation play in the sector’s evolution?
The quality end of the market, as well as public bodies linked to crime prevention, have been lobbying for regulation for some years with the result that the word ‘regulation’ has acquired a nearly mythical status. This brings the danger that some people will lose track of the precise, intended impacts. So, nearly a year after the Government’s proposals were issued, it is worthwhile focusing on the key elements of the legislation once again.
Regulatory umbrella
If the legislation is enacted as set out in the White Paper, one of the key provisions would be the statutory licensing of individuals by the Private Security Industry Authority (PSIA), the body that will oversee the regulation process. Licences must be obtained by those who wish to be employees or managers within a security company or who wish to set up such a company. Licences will only be awarded after consideration of an applicant’s full criminal record.
The second fundamental element will be the voluntary ‘Inspected Companies’ scheme, under the aegis of the PSIA, by which companies can volunteer to be inspected to the standards which have been set for their particular sector. The Authority can use an existing accredited body to undertake inspections. It is via this voluntary route that companies will tackle the more general quality issues relating to the overall operation of their organisations.
But what will be the impact of these elements in practice?
Of course the most significant impact in the first instance will be the removal of the criminal element from the industry. When the licensing process starts we will have a much clearer picture of what percentage of individuals are unsuitable for the industry as a result of their criminal record.
I believe that the percentage will prove to be very small, although one would not think so from the type of sensational coverage that the industry sometimes receives in the media and the negative stereotypes portrayed in TV drama. However, to a degree the smallness of this figure does not matter; even a tiny minority of ‘cowboys’ can serve to tarnish the image of the industry as a whole, and reduce the positive impact of the professionalism being shown by the majority of manned security companies, so this tough action is very welcome within the industry.
Of course, decisions still have to be taken about what criteria will be used to bar individuals with criminal convictions under the new legislation. Clearly, there is a considerable difference between, say, an isolated childhood prank with a very limited impact and grievous bodily harm at the age of 25.
In order to ensure that robust, fair criteria are developed, I believe that the PSIA will need to set up a working party drawing on the practical experience of security companies as well as the police services to define where the dividing line should be.
Rehabilitation and recidivism
Clearly, the new arrangements will make the processes involved in criminal record vetting much more straightforward with full criminal records being obtained by the PSIA via the Criminal Records Bureau — candidates will be exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 , meaning that details of spent convictions will also be provided.
Currently, employers have been looking out for discrepancies and gaps that suggest a possible criminal record through the assessment of references obtained in line with BS 7858. Sometimes they also require applicants to provide a print out of their criminal record from the police. A typical problem that might arise is when a candidate explains a six month gap in their employment history by saying that they spent the time travelling abroad. It is difficult with the current vetting options available to companies to establish categorically that this was not in fact a period spent in prison.
The Data Protection Act is likely to reduce the circumstances in which it is acceptable to obtain information about individuals, so it is particularly important that a new, effective route to establishing whether an individual has a criminal record is created by regulation. Indeed, this may speed up some aspects of the overall vetting process.
It must be stressed, however, that establishing whether there is a criminal record is only one aspect of vetting. It is important that companies continue to obtain references, undertaking proper vetting against all aspects of BS 7858, to ensure that they do indeed have a well-rounded picture of the individual.
Inspectors and dodgers
As regards the Inspected Companies scheme that will be developed under regulation, it remains to be seen precisely how this will be implemented and promoted, and how important companies will feel that it is to become involved in this.
There is a danger that confusion will arise among end-users and the general public about what legislation actually requires. Companies may feel they can take advantage of this by meeting only the standards required by legislation and then claiming that this indicates that they are a ‘quality’ company across the board. It is important that the merits of conforming to relevant quality standards are promoted very heavily by the PSIA to the whole industry and end-users so that customers are well-informed.
Companies ought to feel that it will ultimately be in their best interests to embrace a quality approach relating to recruitment, training and general operational issues. Of course, the BSIA has always promoted adherence to all relevant industry quality standards, indeed stipulating this as a criterion of membership, and this will continue to be a major focus of our activities.
I estimate that final and effective implementation of the legislation will not have been achieved until 2005. Meanwhile, we are in a position to consult with the Home Office on the details of the legislation prior to the Queen's Speech. We will continue t
Tough regime
The UK has one of the most successful regimes in the world for inspection to industry standards, which has developed in the absence of statutory regulation and which on the whole meets the needs of industry and its clients.
The Government’s proposals for regulation stated that any inspectorate used for the Inspected Companies scheme should be independently monitored and that accreditation by UKAS (the United Kingdom Accreditation Service) would be a suitable way of achieving this. It is very likely that different inspectorates will cover different segments of the security industry, and indeed this is already the case.
I would hope that the legislation does not enable a plethora of inspectorates to operate in individual segments, but rather uses existing UKAS accredited inspectorates specialising in the security industry. Otherwise, we will have a situation where several inspectorates are competing for business in the same segment which, in my view, would lead to a situation where companies will gravitate towards the cheapest inspectorate with the easiest regime.
Basic training
It will be up to the PSIA to work with its approved inspectorates to decide if industry standards are sufficiently all-embracing. A common topic of debate is the amount of basic training required for a security officer under BS 7499 and whether this should be increased by a day, days or even months!
It is very easy for individuals who do not have to pay to demand additional training for which funding is not available. At the same time, the skills that clients require from their security officers are clearly changing and companies need to be able to meet these demands.
From the type of feedback that we have received from security managers within client companies, I believe that on-the-job training, tailored to meet the requirements of a particular role and client, will be of paramount importance in the future, coupled with appropriate vocational qualifications.
But what kind of administrative and cost implications will regulation place on security companies?
As with the minimum wage and working time regulations, those that focus on quality of service rather than low price at any cost will have a head start. Companies that are already rigorous about vetting procedures are not likely to find the introduction of the administrative activity required for licensing a strain.
There will obviously be cost implications from licensing security personnel, and it is important that the regulatory system is set up in such a way that enables this to be kept to a minimum. However, I envisage that costs will be more than offset by the greater reassurance offered to customers.
Deep impact
I would say, however, that regulation will have a much greater impact than other pieces of legislation that we have already seen in enhancing the image of the security industry. Indeed, it will help raise the profile of the industry in a positive way. This is something that we all look forward to, particularly in the light of debate that has taken place recently about all kinds of possible extensions to the role of security officers.
Over the last year or so in particular there has been much debate about security companies taking on activities which might previously have been considered the domain of the police, such as street patrolling. We have always said that it would be desirable for regulation to be in place before consideration could be given to implementing these kind of changes on a wide scale, because it is important that all companies meet certain baseline standards and also have public confidence.
Enforcement is also obviously going to be a key issue. We have heard allegations that some companies are finding ways to get round the minimum wage, so it is vitally important that any enforcement mechanisms are up to the challenge to avoid the impact of legislation being diluted.
Ministerial promises
I recently had a very constructive meeting with Home Office Minister, Charles Clarke; it would appear that the aim is to get this legislation into the Queen’s Speech in November with enactment by the end of 2001.
Of course setting up the whole infrastructure on which regulation is dependent will take much longer and, if we achieve these timescales, I estimate that final and effective implementation of the legislation will not have been achieved until 2005.
Source
SMT
