Thoughts for the SIA

With many of today's blue chip companies currently making redundancies, there'll be little interest in paying for security licensing which they haven't actually requested and, in the case of some in the Capital, deem to be a panic measure announced by the Blair administration following huge increases in crime across south London.

Let's step back for a moment. The role of the security officer is to protect the assets of the client in terms of both staff and property. Many officers working in central London have been employed on one site for a number of years and offer a dedicated, personal service (performing roles that are not always within their remit).

In addition to his security work, one of my officers actually picks up a company chairman's car from Heathrow when he leaves the country, and replaces it when the client is due back. The officer in question holds no professional qualifications. That said, he has attended our three-day induction course and passed the site examination. With no criminal convictions, this officer has been employed within the industry for a decade.

On that basis, I'd expect him to receive a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence from Day One. The company chairman certainly would. If the officer were to be refused, then his job title would change – rendering a licence unnecessary.

That scenario will no doubt apply to many employed within the industry. It appears that the SIA has given little thought to how they're going to deal with such a problem. It's my opinion that the licensing of the manned guarding sector shouldn't be rushed, but rather it should be structured and only introduced when certain points have been thoroughly discussed and ratified.

The in-house equation
First, although various speakers from the SIA and the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) have stated that all security officers – including in-house and those working in central and local Government, shopping centres and airports, etc – will need to be licensed, there's nothing in writing awaiting Government legislation to include the in-house sector. I have spoken at length about this topic with BSIA chief executive David Dickinson on many occasions, and he's told me the issue will be dealt with this coming April.

To date, though, according to my friends in Parliament no proposal document has been lodged. In the event of a two-tier system being allowed to operate, it may well be that the security industry should withhold any assistance to the SIA until this matter is resolved.

Second, security companies who are currently members of the BSIA and other accredited bodies, and which are audited to ISO 9001:2002, BS 7499 and BS 7858 should automatically be granted Approved Contractor status.

Third, all security staff currently working in the industry should be allowed to apply to the SIA at least nine months prior to licensing, and be given confirmation by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) that they're free of convictions. This will enable us to satisfy ourselves that one part of the criteria has been covered well in advance.

With many of today’s blue chip companies currently making redundancies, there’ll be little interest in paying for security licensing which they haven’t actually requested

The £190 licence fee should be paid, but must be fully refundable less the cost of the CRB check in the event of that licence being refused.

The SIA's competency manager Linda Sharpe has stated that licence applications will take 10-16 days to be approved, and that staff would not be allowed to work on any assignment in the interim. This is an unworkable suggestion and needs to be changed. No applicant is going to wait around for that length of time. We're dealing with ordinary people here, all of whom are at the lower end of the employment market. They have families to feed just like the rest of us.

Ideally, applicants should be allowed to complete their induction training and on-site instruction, and then work in an unlicensed capacity until such time as their licence is approved. Most people will not apply for a licence if they know it will be turned down due to their past history. Either way, the fiasco created by the CRB and the teaching profession cannot be allowed when dealing with the licensing of the security industry. The contracting-out of the applications to British Telecom (who will then have to process them before passing the documents forward to the CRB) needs careful analysis in terms of the time involved.

What safeguards are in place in line with the terms and conditions of the Data Protection Act to protect the interests of security staff? Talking to the end user
To my mind, the SIA must also be placing a greater emphasis on communicating with end users, and explaining to them exactly why the cost of their security provision is going to rise. In the past 12 months, a huge tax burden has been placed on all businesses thanks to increases in national insurance and local Government taxes etc, and the large hikes in insurance premiums.

This year, Government pensions will increase by 2.6%. Electricity, gas, transport services and local council tax are all to see large increases. There'll be a further add-on for the London Mayor in the Capital. Some of my clients have agreed a 2.4% increase for their security spend in 2004, all of which has already been swallowed up by the above increases.

Procurement managers in the private sector aren't interested in funding the licensing of security staff (as recently pointed out to me in no uncertain terms by one of the major blue chips). The SIA is yet another section of the civil service that's apparently wasting tax payers' money.

At last October's annual Security Watchdog seminar 'The Coming of Age of Contract Manned Guarding', SIA chief executive John Saunders was asked who he thinks is going to pay for licensing. Well, the SIA is ill-advised if it believes the end user community and their security providers will stump up the funds. The money just isn't there.

One glance at Legion Security managing director David Evans' excellent article in the December 2003 edition of SMT ('Absorbing the cost of change', pp13-15) suggests that there has to be some radical thinking about the way ahead.