At this point in time I think it would be useful to summarise the core issues that the BSIA did not feel that the legislation covered adequately, and which it has discussed with Government in considerable depth.
In essence, the BSIA has requested that there should be some element of licensing of companies – involving mandatory inspection – in addition to the licensing of individuals. We have also stated unequivocally that in-house personnel should be licensed as well as contract security personnel.
We've highlighted the necessity of introducing an effective system for issuing licences. The BSIA has also stressed the importance of the security industry being represented on the Board of the Security Industry Authority. In addition, the BSIA has asked the Government to carefully consider the financial implications of the Bill, with a view to keeping licence fees to a minimum.
The challenges that lie ahead
In view of all the work that has been done, and the progress that has been made, the BSIA feels it's unfortunate when 'soundbites' on this topic over-simplify the issues, and do not help to create a meaningful understanding of the challenges ahead.
For example, in David Maclean's article in the March issue of SMT ('Regulation... at a price', p13), he claims that the industry has been so desperate for regulation for so long that it has bought into a 'pig-in-a-poke'. Of course, the BSIA is well aware that the Bill isn't perfect, but the points I've made above clearly illustrate that we are lobbying for improvements, amendments and clarifications on a number of different fronts. And we will continue to do so for as long as it takes.
During our discussions with Government and our analysis of the Bill, it has become very clear that this is only a framework document, and that there will be considerable scope for refinement once the Bill goes through and the Security Industry Authority is set up.
It has also become clear that the Government is determined the Bill should go through as soon as possible, with one of the ultimate goals being the opportunity to explore public/private partnerships in crime prevention and reduction initiatives. We believe this will be a positive development.
A vigorous campaign of objections to the Bill could easily have jeopardised the progress of the legislation for a long time to come. That would not be beneficial to the industry, or indeed the public at large.
One of the problems is that, on a day-to-day basis, the industry itself cannot view the huge amount of consultation that is taking place behind the scenes. Although it's not possible to encapsulate every aspect of these discussions in the Bill, the BSIA is confident that the level of consultation will continue, particularly as enabling elements of the legislation come under consideration.
Unfortunately, David Maclean has not even checked the facts prior to stating that the industry has taken no action in specific areas. He refers to licensees' names and addresses being made publicly available, stating that "the industry has not uttered any discontent about this". In truth, as a direct result of BSIA lobbying, an amendment was made in the House of Lords stating that only the address of a licensee's employer would be available to the public for inspection.
At the BSIA, we do not share David's view that exclusion of in-house personnel will necessarily lead to a revival of the in-house sector on the scale that he suggests, as clients have long realised the benefits of contracting-out their non-core activities.
However, we have been campaigning vigorously in this respect because clearly it would be counterproductive if candidates who are not granted licences feel drawn towards the in-house sector, not to mention the anomaly of licensed officers working alongside non-licensed personnel. Our discussions with Government suggest quite strongly that the in-house sector will be brought within the authority of the Bill in due course.
We don't feel that the Government is going to impose unreasonably bureaucratic demands as regards 'the manner in which the licensee is to carry out the specified activities of a security operative'. Best practice is already laid out in British Standards – the Government fully understands this, and is not about to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.
Regulating the 'irresponsible'
Following discussions with the BSIA, the Government knows that the approved contractor scheme could be more than adequately run by existing inspectorates and is taking this into consideration. The only companies that the regime may penalise would be the very ones that regulation aims to 'regulate' – namely the 'irresponsible' element of the industry.
While additional bureaucratic burdens for business are an anathema to the BSIA and its members, this has to be weighed against the need to raise standards right across the industry. That is why the BSIA believes there should be an element of mandatory licensing for companies.
Finally, we come back to the issue of cost. Of course we want to minimise the cost of licensing, but at the same time the sector itself has to come to terms with the fact that raising standards within the industry will come at a price, whether it be within a statutory framework or not.
The industry has allowed itself to be governed by the lowest common denominator on a whole range of issues, including screening, training, supervision and management and security officers' employment terms and conditions.
This approach is as responsible as any other factor for creating the highly fragmented market we have today, and with it the accompanying spectre of low margins – which has made sustained reinvestment in standards almost impossible.
Far from being a "millstone around the industry's neck", this Bill represents an opportunity for the manned services sector to take stock of itself. With good will on all sides, the Bill could act as a catalyst in the transformation from a low-tech, lowest common denominator-driven industry into one that is thriving, highly-skilled, equitably-remunerated – and well-respected.
David Cowden is chairman of the BSIA.
Source
SMT
