Whose licence is it anyway?

As we approach the end of 2004, our attention is being drawn more and more towards the impending regulation of the security industry’s officers, due to commence in 2005. It’s increasingly clear that there are still more questions than answers in relation to licensing of private sector operatives, making it difficult for any manned security company to plan for this regulation, let alone submit competitive tenders on future contracts.

The British Security Industry Association’s latest document entitled: ‘The Estimated Financial Implications of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 for Manned Security Suppliers’ suggests that we should budget for additional costs of approximately £600 per officer to cover extra recruitment, training and licensing expenses. Included in this sum is the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) £190 licence fee and the £35 registration fee needed for qualifications, as well as additional training and recruitment costs.

On that basis, as the employer of 4,000 officers, next year Securiplan could be facing up to additional costs somewhere in the region of £2.4 million.

In many industries it’s accepted practice for a recruit to pay for his or her own training, qualification or licence that will enable them to enter their chosen profession. However,

one suspects that such a concept will be alien to many security officers, or those currently thinking of entering the industry. It’s widely acknowledged that the security sector isn’t one characterised by high pay, thus staff turnover can be high. The recruitment of high calibre individuals is therefore somewhat difficult.

With this in mind, at Securiplan we pay above the average hourly rate, and provide welfare and benefits packages to match. That said, if we’re to tell potential recruits that they need to pay £190 before we can even consider employing them, this is going to reduce our available labour market still further. The stark reality of the situation is that security companies will simply have to help in paying for officers’ licenses.

However, the situation’s not quite that simple. We know from past experience that not all new recruits make the grade and pass our stringent induction training, while others decide that security simply isn’t for them. Licensing will not change that situation. There will always be some individuals who leave the industry during the introductory training course (which is set to last for four days under the SIA’s new regulations) or within the first week of being deployed on site. While our recruitment process endeavours to keep the number of officers lost to a minimum, how can we be expected to pay out for a £190 licence fee, a £35 registration fee and an estimated £300 on training for each officer without some sort of guaranteed return on that investment?

We also have to consider the possibility that some security companies could become ‘training grounds’, paying for the training and licensing of new officers who then simply move on to work for another manned security solutions provider. Licenses are both personal and portable. There’s nothing to stop a given officer moving to another company, having been trained by us to SIA standards and been granted a three-year licence.

Make no mistake that licensed security officers will be a highly desirable commodity. My nagging concern is that some security companies will deliberately target licensed officers by offering incentives or higher pay rates to join them, funded out of the savings those companies will make by not having to shoulder the administrative and financial on-costs of the initial training and licensing stages.

Setting the precedent

If we look towards other industries for comparable examples, we find that road haulage companies which pay for their drivers to obtain an HGV or LGV licence usually insist that a ‘bond’ be signed, specifying that the driver concerned will stay with them for, say, two years. If the employee leaves within the stated period they must pay back the cost of their training or at least part of the cost on a sliding scale. Is this an option for our industry?

While our recruitment process endeavours to keep the number of officers lost to a minimum, how can we be expected to pay out for a £190 licence fee, a £35 registration fee and an estimated £300 on training for each officer without a guaranteed return on that investment?

Security providers who pay for an officer’s licence could ask them to pay back all or part of the cost if they leave the company within a designated time frame. However, this is only feasible where there’s a proportion of salary from which to deduct such monies. There are some circumstances where officers resign without notice or receiving any outstanding pay, and in such cases the individual in question could walk away fully licensed at our expense.

One answer to the problem may be to change our approach, and for the security company who pays for the licence to be able to ‘hold’ that licence for an individual officer. While still being issued in the name of the officer, the licence would be sent to the employer rather than the employee, whereupon it would be held in trust for them for a defined period of time to enable the security company to recoup its investment in that employee.

If the officer then chose to leave the company within the designated time frame, they would be charged for the time left to run on the licence (for example, £150 after one year or £75 after two years). Once this sum had been paid, the licence would then be released to the individual. This is an elegant solution to the exposure of security companies, but is one requiring approval from the SIA.

Another solution would be for security companies to delay applying for licenses until such time as each new officer has worked sufficient hours to accumulate the licence cost, which is probably one week. The company would then be able to hold in lieu this amount for the duration of the officer’s employment, so that if they leave the security company can then retain the cost of the licence. The real question is whether the SIA will allow for such a delay? Or are we legally obliged to apply for a licence for a new officer on the day we hire them, before either their formal training or paid employment has begun?

Time allowed for processing

We know that only Approved Contractors will be able to employ officers while licence applications are pending. The SIA currently estimates that it will take four weeks to process a licence, so waiting a further week before submitting the application may be allowable.

It seems to me that four weeks is an optimistic estimate on the part of the SIA. We’ve all seen the ramifications of any kind of backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau. The rush in the summer of 2003 to carry out criminality checks on teachers caused a systems overload, so imagine what havoc the deadline for licensing UK security officers will wreak?!

Another burning issue surrounds the rules concerning individuals who have spent six months or more abroad in the last five years, or indeed have moved to the UK from overseas (which, in some areas, could represent a high proportion of applicants). They will have to present evidence of an acceptable criminal record from the country or countries in which they have lived. Whatever documentation they present will have to be verified by their Embassy, Consulate or High Commission in the UK, and translated by an approved translator.

This process is bound to take many weeks, and cost the applicant money and time away from the workplace when dealing with all the bureaucracy involved.

The SIA has issued a list of Consulate and Embassy addresses for overseas residents seeking employment in the private security industry. However, closer examination of the list shows that certain countries appear to be excluded at this stage.

Surely the whole purpose of security officer licensing is to screen for criminal records, not to discriminate because one comes from – or has resided in – a specific country? We must have more dialogue on the issue of overseas residents

Securiplan has undertaken a sample study of 1,000 employees, and has found that 25% either come from or have lived in countries currently excluded from the SIA’s checking procedures. Are those individuals to be excluded from our industry because of their nationality or residency, even if there’s no suggestion of criminality?

If this is the case, we’ll find ourselves recruiting officers in a depleted labour market and the question of discrimination will arise. Surely the whole purpose of security officer licensing is to screen for criminal records, not to discriminate because one comes from – or has resided in – a specific country? We must have more dialogue on the whole issue of overseas residents. Dialogue that will cover extending the time frame for issuing licences, together with a plan to ensure that we don’t exclude a significant proportion of the currently available labour market.

At Securiplan, we’re also rather concerned about the recent announcement that door supervisors, once they are licensed, are also licensed to become security officers. If this

is so, should we not be making sure that the criminality criteria for both door supervisors and security officers are appropriate? The SIA’s web site sets out the criteria for ‘criminality’ for both door supervisors and security officers, stating that: “We will pay special attention to offences involving violence, weapons, drugs, criminal damage and sexual offences”. There’s no mention of fraud, which is clearly an important issue for security officers while being less important for door staff. Surely this is a loophole that must be closed?

All of these implications are, of course, unintended side effects of a very necessary process that will (hopefully) elevate our industry to the standing it deserves. My argument is that the process by which we arrive at this point must be more carefully thought through so as to protect security companies from ‘runaway’ recruits and soaring costs associated with licensing.

One immediate step that could be taken to alleviate some of the financial pressure on contractors would be to revise or revoke BS 7858, the current vetting standard which is cripplingly expensive and unattainable.

Once it has been established that a candidate doesn’t have a criminal record, all that remains is to assess his or her suitability for the role of security officer (including an appraisal of the individual’s financial stability). This could be achieved by taking up two quality references and completing a thorough credit check – a process which would cost less, and achieve considerably more than the current vetting requirements stipulated in BS 7858.

Workability and sustainability

In this article I’ve addressed five key issues: how security companies need to safeguard their investment in new recruits, how we might stop predators from poaching newly trained and licensed officers, how we can continue to recruit good officers from overseas, whether BS 7858 will be relevant once licensing is in place and whether or not door supervisors can actually become automatically licensed security officers without the need for further criminality checks.

Securiplan wholeheartedly supports regulation and licensing. We’ve been a serious campaigner for such legislation for a good number of years. However, the industry needs to tackle each of these five issues urgently to ensure that licensing is introduced in both a workable and sustainable manner.