The Private Security Industry Act: what about the consequences?

Ever since Molly Meacher and John Saunders took on their respective posts, a considerable amount of time has been spent by numerous individuals – many of them representing industry organisations – in trying to define the industry's ills, and make their recommendations known to the Authority. Some of those recommendations have been perfectly realistic, others not so, whether taken from a wider security industry or Government-based perspective.

Avid readers of Security Management Today will know that the official launch of the Security Industry Authority was held at the QEII Conference Centre in London's Westminster on 2 April ('From aspiration springs reality', SMT, May 2003, pp 20-26) – virtually two years after the passing of the Act. In truth, there were very few actual revelations or declarations made during the various presentations given on the day. Indeed, some attendees expressed disappointment that little progress appeared to have been made in respect of the licensing of those engaged in the private security industry in spite of all the recognised problems.

It must be borne in mind that projects of this size and complexity do require extended organisational and preparation time. Nevertheless, some ideas concerning the direction in which the Authority intends to proceed were provided.

On the day, the assembled hordes were treated to an indication of some of the research that's being undertaken, while there was also an explanation of the degree of criminality to be accepted by the licensing Authority in granting a licence (while leaving the subject open to a degree of minimal discretion in some notable instances).

The cost of an SIA licence
Cast your minds back to the Parliamentary debate on the Bill as it was ('Fitting the Bill', SMT, January 2001, pp13-14), and a statement made by then Home Office minister Charles Clarke to the effect that the cost of a licence would be in the region of £35-£45 and cover a three-year period. Not too surprising that there was a gasp of amazement at the QEII Conference Centre when John Saunders announced that the charge has now risen to something like £150-£190 in order to meet contractual fees. Some increase!

During the initial discussion period immediately after the passing of the Act – and indeed during the Parliamentary debates on the projected legislation – security companies were encouraged to pay the initial licence fee for their existing employees. In general terms, they agreed to accept the statement that each licence would cost between £35 and £45.

The revised (and substantially increased) figure has presented a major financial turnaround, bringing into play a number of peripheral but nonetheless serious corporate financial problems that have yet to be resolved.

It has long been recognised that the licensing procedure and its conditions for implementation would result in higher charges for a contracted security service, but a projected charge per licensed person that has now increased by over 300% will certainly cause contractors to review not only their charges to clients for the security service provided, but also their decision to fund the initial licence fees on top of the higher remuneration for employees resulting from the much-touted move towards greater professionalism.

The fact that future applicants for licenses will have to find their own funding will surely present considerable hardship to many of those operatives in the industry earning low wages. Let alone those who are currently unemployed and looking to enter the industry.

With the cost of licensing as now projected, how many end user organisations that buy-in their security expertise will instead revert to a presently unlicensed in-house operation?

There are obviously a number of other consequences being talked about by industry commentators who themselves are only too well aware of corporate and wider industry security matters. One of them directly affects in-house security.

Bringing in-house into line
With the cost of licensing as now projected, how many end user organisations that buy-in their security expertise will instead revert to a presently unlicensed in-house operation? While it is now recognised that early application will be made for the in-house sector to be included within the provisions of the Act, before that actually happens it's highly likely that there'll be a mass migration of those currently employed in the contract sector to the in-house regime because they're either unable to obtain a licence or are disinclined to try for whatever reason. Human Resources managers beware.

And how many security managers now employed in the contract security sector will have their responsibilities reduced, and be 're-badged' as sales managers (meaning that they would not have to meet the Security Industry Authority's declared training and qualification standards)? Neither would they be required to obtain a licence, thereby making a considerable personal and corporate saving.

The private investigation sector poses yet another question. Accepting that Investigatory Journalists are exempt from the qualification and licensing process, how many private investigators will suddenly become Investigatory Journalists and submit occasional paragraphs to their local newspapers (or even trade journals) while continuing with their old ways of doing things? Qualified accountants are also personally exempt from a licensing requirement under the terms and conditions of the Act, but their subordinate and unqualified colleagues are not. Will that exemption be total, or will they only be exempt in respect of financial enquiries?

Many senior personnel employed within the wider security industry will recollect the actions taken by organisations during the period of salary control enforced by Government. Are we now to see the changing of job descriptions and job titles (as well as other devious methods) being used to avoid the consequences of the introduction and implementation of the Act?

What decision will be made concerning a possible licence requirement for IT security consultants, and how about the many security advisors working in the insurance industry?

The news that the Scottish Executive has requested the inclusion of Scotland in the geographic coverage of the Act ('Denham resigns as SIA goes live', News Update, SMT, April 2003, p7) is both a sensible and welcome extension to the legislation, but when will this occur exactly?

Until such an adjustment is implemented there will certainly be licensing problems in Northern Ireland and southern Scotland.

An enforcement of probity checks
In the first instance, what the industry must prepare for is the enforcement of the probity checks which should have been carried out by employers – but perhaps not to the same high standards – during the normal recruitment process. At the launch of the Security Industry Authority, it was emphasised that the possession of a licence would not be an entitlement to employment. Normal corporate vetting will still be a requirement.

It’s true to say that personal qualification may present problems to some, but it should be recognised that very few people enjoy competence assessments of any kind. They must include formal examinations. It must also be realistically considered

It's true to say that personal qualification may present problems to some, but it should be recognised that very few people enjoy competence assessments of any kind. This must include formal examinations.

It must also be realistically considered that many security practitioners in senior positions have never really found it necessary to attempt to obtain any form of industry-related qualification. How times have changed.

So what are the solutions?
The problems surrounding the precise implementation of the provisions of the Act are mostly known by both the Security Industry Authority and leading industry executives (but are perhaps viewed less positively by the latter). The industry must give the Authority sufficient time to resolve these outstanding problems. They'll make an announcement from Broadway when they are able. Is Continuing Professional Development (CPD) to be considered in respect of future licence renewal? Early advice on qualification standards has been promised.

Where does the responsibility of the individual security employee lie? Don't complain about the requirement for personal qualification needs appropriate to corporate status. They are a requirement of the Act, and that particular requirement has been known for some time. Managers and directors are specifically mentioned in the Act – expanding on recent attitudes of confining any training provision to lower status employees.

Training: modular and accredited
The advice has already been given – training should be modular, cover the required criteria and be fully accredited.

Let's stop talking and get on with it! Such training is currently available to us. Make use of it, and obtain your accredited qualification appropriate to employment status before you are given a time limit in which to achieve it such that a licence may be granted.

Corporate bodies can do much to encourage or even assist their employees when it comes to training. Senior personnel can help greatly in those situations where comprehensive training and subsequent qualification is likely to be a long and drawn out process.

Above all, senior influence must be brought to bear in the early stages of security training to ensure that all required members of staff possess the necessary qualifications before the time comes when licence applications have to be submitted.