Some answers from GW/3, please

As many readers of Security Management Today will know, Legion Security’s Derek Smith is chairman of the GW/3 BS 7858 Review Panel and, last June, he announced the proposed changes to that same standard.

Without doubt, it would appear that BS 7858 is going to be tightened up. The ‘spin’ is that “...the proposed amendments will complement licensing” [by the Security Industry Authority (SIA)]. Given that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is such an excellent piece of legislation, with its in-house (and other) exemption clauses, surely it should follow that all is well in the world? After all, that would surely be the manifestation of a joined-up process, would it not? In other words, standards complementing licensing, and thus easing the business burden by smoothing out contingent management processes.

Stealthily, GW/3 is not only proposing a somewhat tougher BS 7858 that “complements licensing”, but is also introducing new concepts that – to the best of my knowledge – have not been asked for by the SIA? Or am I wrong?

GW/3 is planning to introduce a Consumer Information Check (Financial Probity). I have already asked the “Why?” question. The only answer given was that: “The industry wanted this”. I take this to mean that the industry has been consulted and resoundingly replied: “Yes. We want tighter, harder-to-comply-with standards, including a bureaucratic and expensive credit check”. Maybe Derek can enlighten me as to when this consultation took place… I, and others like me, missed it completely.

In an attempt to shut me up, an enthusiast in favour of this change told me that “...even if individuals are deemed to be a fiscal risk you can still employ them, can’t you?”

So, let’s make sure we’re correct here… According to the proposals laid down in Section 4.7, an applicant who holds an SIA licence is now liable for a credit reference check (through an agency like Experian) on payment of a fee. The response indicates County Court Judgements in excess of £5,000 (whether satisfied or not). Now, you have to obtain a copy of the Judgement from the County Court, and only then can an executive of your company – having reviewed the necessary documentation – sign off the risk. Or he or she can decide not to employ a legally licensed officer. Choose the latter and the licensed officer will go elsewhere, either to a non-inspected company or via transfer to an in-house operation.

To put it another way, other than the security officer working in the supermarket no other person is screened to the current level of BS 7858, let alone the new proposals. Yet the retailers know where they are most vulnerable, where most staff theft occurs. However, they do not appear to implement any of this industry’s screening standards to protect themselves from the threat.

No doubt Mr Retailer will be very happy to know that the security officer doesn’t have any County Court Judgements, even though he cannot access the till or the cash office. Happy, that is, until he incurs a rate rise for security services given the extra bureaucracy and burden associated with fiscal screening.

Strangely enough, I was also told that retailers wanted the changes being proposed to BS 7858. I have never heard any retailers ask for it, nor the British Retail Consortium suggest it. This begs the question: “Which retailers beat down GW/3’s door to demand such changes?”

Or do I sense the Financial Services Authority (FSA) meddling in the world of security guarding? That would certainly appear to contradict the suggestion that ministers have no appetite for looking at the in-house question because of the principles that lie behind the work of the Better Regulation Task Force (which include cutting red tape and unnecessary burdens on business).

If you were to ask any client: “Would you like a 6’4” security officer on one of your sites who possesses a degree in security management and will only charge you 50 pence per hour?”, I wonder what the answer would be? Ask any retailer: “What are the main clauses of the current British Standard BS 7858?” and I would be highly surprised if more than an enlightened few could articulate any kind of sensible answer.

That said, watch out for the weasel words of those who would defend such changes. They will tell you: “Think yourselves lucky. Other clients are demanding even tougher changes”. An ‘enthusiast’ for the amendments to BS 7858 told myself – and others – that they want to “see a 20-year work history” screened. According to this logic, it follows we should be very grateful that the proposed standard will only require five (as opposed to the current ten) years. Wait a minute! The changes are supposed to complement licensing. The five-year period does just that, so why should we, the industry, be grateful?

Just who are these ‘tough’ clients that GW/3 is resisting? It certainly isn’t the FSA. Perhaps it’s the managers at the Barrow-in-Furness Docks where Trident submarines are made and private security officers are needed to make sure that the subs aren’t stolen or taken for a ‘joy ride’? It certainly isn’t Mr Retailer, nor the client who wants his offices secured overnight and at weekends.

Being a cynic, is it maybe the case that the few in the back rooms are attempting to shape BS 7858 to suit their own agenda? Are people within GW/3 trying to raise the bar for all of us because they are burdened with such clients? Are they attempting to put many of us on the same playing field which they now occupy?

Perhaps Derek Smith could answer the following question: “Imagine that a security officer TUPE transfers to another company from one that is non-inspected, and for whom he or she has worked for the past five years. Say that an attempt is made to screen him or her and is unsuccessful. Given that the executive concerned will not sign the officer’s County Court Judgements – what next?”

Terminate his or her employment? I don’t think so. An Employment Tribunal will uphold an unfair dismissal, for which they can now impose unlimited penalties. Compliance with BS 7858 will not be an effective defence given that this is a ‘voluntary’ Code of Practice – enforced, ironically enough, by the BSIA, the client and the tendering process.

If we allow the officer in question to continue working in a legal and licensed capacity, we will be non-compliant and sanctions could be imposed by any UKAS auditor and membership of the SIA’s Approved Contractor Scheme placed in jeopardy. Caught between a rock and a hard place is the phrase that springs to mind at this juncture.

The weasel words from the ‘enthusiasts’ on this occasion – ie GW/3, the SIA and the BSIA – are: “That is an executive decision the company will have to take...” Cut the flannel, get joined up, leave the FSA out of the Standard, exit the back room, put your big sticks in the gutter and get real!

Maybe we should demand that all members of the GW/3 Committee be screened to the same standard. I would volunteer to take responsibility for the administration of the task at no cost.

I’m already looking forward to receiving their applications to be ‘Consumer Information Checked’, and to their financial probity assessment.

Jon Elliott, Director Matrix Security