The Emperor’s New Clothes?

Perhaps John would do well to recognise the part played by the SIA in realising the current situation.

At first glance, John’s statement on the Internet that: “The SIA has secured £107 from the LSC towards the cost of each applicant’s fees” appears to be a model of fairness. The SIA has made clear the number of security officers it expects to license. The SIA and the LSC have agreed their figure based on the achievement of this expectation. The gravy is now in the boat, and the boat is ready to set sail.

Only one problem. The ‘Gravy Boat’ is apparently too difficult for the SIA and the LSC to manage, so they enlist help. They invite tenders from lead colleges to act as Captains. Those Captains then appoint their first, second and third Mates, etc to help them in dispersing the gravy. This is vaguely reminiscent of the ancient practice of purchasing a ‘Commission’ that was the norm a couple of centuries ago. The purchaser gained access to status, prestige, wealth and/or power.

True, the downside for them was the very real potential for death, but is there ever any reward without risk?

Apparently, the answer to that question is: ‘Yes’. If you happen to be one of our modern-day Captains or their Mate, that is.

What risk is there to your business if you can deliver the same course at £107 less than your competitors, and yet still make the same profit? No doubt those with their snouts in the trough will say that they have fought long and hard to establish their reputation. However, this is not a valid argument when you consider that individuals and companies have been actively encouraged by the Government to invest in the qualifications necessary to deliver these specific courses.

Leaving aside for one moment the whining of disgruntled training providers, you would be forgiven for thinking that at least the applicants can access funding through these sinecures… but you would be wrong!

The reality of the situation is that an applicant is only eligible for funding if they live – or pay business rates – in an eligible SIA region. Currently, those regions include the North West, the North East and London. Given that the requirement for licensing security officers is nationwide, why have these areas been singled out for special attention? Is the Government trying to tell us all that these regions have an excessive level of criminality?

This gross distortion of the market has far-reaching implications. Firstly, it encourages fraud and corruption. Scratch the surface and tales begin to emerge of funded providers manipulating the rules to maximise their funding receipts. Then there are the unscrupulous, unfunded training providers offering the necessary course over two days instead of four. Individuals suddenly claiming that they are now living with friends or relatives, etc are bountiful.

Second, opportunities for the creation of modern day protection rackets are endless. For example, if it is illegal to operate your business without licensed security, what happens if they withdraw their labour? Of course it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there might be unscrupulous people around who are inclined to make conditions so bad that the owner is forced to hire licensed security staff!

Finally, this unequal subsidy has added to an already negative market wherein everybody wants someone else to absorb the cost. Preferably the Government. Why should Bill pay more than Ben for the same product? Why should Betty have to apply for her licence a year before it is legally required? Why should security solutions providers pay for an employee’s necessary additional training and the licence itself when they may subsequently leave either the company or, indeed, the industry? Why should they go to all this trouble when their existing clients have the potential to opt-out for a further year?

Why should a company outsource security services when it can realise greater value for money if they go in-house? Why not wait and see if the Private Security Industry Act 2001 disappears, as does so much other legislation?

All of these factors have made waiting until the last moment perfectly good business sense for private sector security contractors.

If John Saunders wants to do something positive then the following suggestions may prove helpful. Remove funding for training and let the free market find its own level. Reduce the licence contribution from applicants to £90. Those applying before March 2006 would pay £80 for a yearly licence. That alone would encourage earlier applications. The SIA would then receive £107 for every successful application up until August 2006.

If the above suggestions are not fair, equitable and practical then I am a Civil Servant. A yearly licence is something that most people better understand. It facilitates more effective policing of individuals’ circumstances within the industry. It would also produce greater revenue over the stated three-year period.

Oh yes. As the £107 would be going straight to the SIA, it would achieve their funding requirements without having to travel all around the mulberry bush to get there!

Ian Fox, Principal Director, M3T