Safe haven from the storm

My wife Libby and I spent 20 years developing The Watch Security as a competent provider of security services operating within a 50-mile radius from Warwick. We were a family business always striving for quality in both our guarding and - for the past three years - systems operations. We held firm views about leadership, integrity, quality, reliability and all the other characteristics that would allow us to succeed in what is a people-heavy business.

We also accepted the need for voluntary regulation and adherence to British Standards, and had every intention of continuing as an independent until the reality of compulsory regulation began to cloud our dreams.

Following hot-on-the-heels of the European Working Time Regulations - which sought to limit the fundamental Human Rights of our members of staff to work the hours that they wished to provide for their families - came the widely condemned Private Security Industry Act 2001, to be imposed on our industry by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

Industry critics had won. All security guarding companies were to be treated as though they were disreputable, while much enterprise was to be curtailed in pursuit of the SIA's mission to "help protect society by collaboratively developing and achieving high standards in the private security industry".

Delivery of regulation

Three years down the line, the industry finds itself poised to be unable to provide officers to protect much of society due to the failure of the individual licensing process that formed the core of the Act. Despite the SIA's initial good intentions and fine words - words that have become more strident and blame directed as Doomsday approaches - the Regulator appears to have lacked sufficient resources and industry experience within its ranks to deliver practical regulation.

What happens post-20 March will be very interesting. I commend National Security Inspectorate chief executive Tom Mullarkey's ‘Raising The Standard' article (‘Irresistible force meets immovable object!', SMT, February 2006, p44) highlighting the perceived dilemma (in mid-February) when the "irresistible force" of punitive action against non-compliance with licensing meets the "immovable object" of the impossibility of gaining all licences by 20 March.

John Saunders and his team have worked hard, consulted widely and done their level best to deliver a workable solution in a situation where the basic tenets of the 2001 Act were always going to make this unnecessarily complicated

Tom's last sentence quite rightly points out that unless the Regulator's current inconsistent behaviour changes into logical communication, our industry - which is supposed to be improved by regulation - will certainly end up much the worse for it.

What a mess, and what a good reason for Libby and I to have sought protection from the storm for The Watch Security within a larger organisation. Regulation is not the only reason why we abandoned our independence, but it is the major one.

We are not the only mid-table (ie below the Top 5 in the Infologue.com ‘League Table') company that has responded to overtures from wider service providers as regulation has advanced. First there was Resolution with OCS, then First Security with McClellan and, most recently, Pegasus with ISS. There have been others. Motives will have varied, but the MITIE model was the only attractive option for us.

Investing in the future

The MITIE name stands for Management Incentive Through Investment Equity, while the corporate philosophy encourages entrepreneurs to invest in their own company within the overall group (which provides services ranging from catering and engineering maintenance through to cleaning, pest control and security).

MITIE's unique structure allows The Watch Security to continue with no personnel changes. We are able to bid with sister MITIE companies for national contracts, while many members of our management team are able to invest in the future success of ‘our baby'.

The Regulator requires in its ranks people who understand our industry, have worked within it and who are able to challenge and correct Home Office attitudes and policy

Such an incentive is providing the motivation for our team to overcome the sterile effects that the regulatory process may well have on our industry.

I am deeply concerned for the future of security guarding. I'm disheartened for the small operator providing an outstanding service who cannot afford the regulatory overheads... for the security officer from overseas who is having difficulty in proving his "proper personship"... for the early licence holders who have been swindled out of one years' licence value... for all of us who have matched British Standards and are now totally bemused with the ACS standard and cost.

Of course, I also feel sorry for our clients, who may well have to pay more for the same officers doing the same job (with little more to justify the increase than some additional training and a very expensive piece of plastic hanging around their necks).

I feel sorry for the SIA. John Saunders and his team have worked hard, consulted widely and done their level best to deliver a workable solution in a situation where the basic tenets of the 2001 Act were always going to make this unnecessarily complicated and muddled.

Guarding's likely fate

If regulation was necessary then companies rather than individuals should have been licensed and British Standards enforced. Everybody who truly understands the industry knows this to be true. BBC Television's Watchdog programme has twice exposed the futility - in relation to wheel clampers - of a law which can do nothing to curb disgraceful company conduct despite individual licensing. I fear a similar fate awaits security guarding.

The SIA badly needs help and change as the storm looms and gathers momentum. The Regulator requires in its ranks people who understand our industry, have worked within it and who are able to challenge and correct Home Office attitudes and policy. It would be wise to select its next chairman from such a background, and to consult much more closely with Tom Mullarkey and the NSI.