The success of the Joint Security Industry Council’s 2001 Annual Security Forum – which, as events transpired, was held within a week of the Private Security Industry Act receiving Royal Assent – convinced chief executive Mike Welply that a third session should be run in 2002.
The aim of this year’s Forum was essentially three-fold: to build on what had been achieved in the previous 12 months (both by JSIC and The Way Forward Group), to give the Security Industry Authority chair (Molly Meacher) and chief executive (John Saunders) an opportunity to ‘meet the industry’ and hear its practitioners’ concerns, and to broaden the private sector debate by encompassing the Police Reform Bill – and its concept of widening the accepted police family.
Last time around (‘Council of voices’, SMT, August 2002, pp28-29), Security Management Today examined the morning presentations offered at the QEII Conference Centre in London’s Westminster. The subject matter contained therein was debated in the post-luncheon session in three separate and well-attended workshops, the main points of which are distilled here.
The Security Industry Authority
Not surprisingly, an interesting debate ensued in the Westminster Suite regarding the Security Industry Authority (SIA), its formation and likely operation. Chaired by John Saunders, two main themes were distilled here – rounding on security licensing and enforcement.
In terms of pure licensing matters, there was an at times heated discussion about whether security licences for officers should be issued by local authorities. SITO’s executive director (designate) Stefan Hay referred to the fact that, early on, all the talk had been about using the DVLA model. Jane Fraser (of Fraser Security Services) countered that this would be too slow. “We should regionalise the licensing process,” said Fraser, “so that local security companies and the local authorities know what is happening and when.”
Fraser’s opinion was endorsed by Joe Mann – former head of trading standards and licensing at the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – who suggested that effective licensing “starts with the local authorities”. There was widespread audience agreement here.
On the other hand, if responsibility for licensing were to be delegated out from a central body – namely the SIA – then it’s possible that soundness and consistency of decision-making would be diluted.
It was felt that the SIA would need to make a decision on this issue pretty quickly, taking full account of the security industry sub-sector to be licensed. It was made clear by John Saunders that licences will be personal to the individuals in whose name they are issued, and would indeed be transferable from job to job. “It will be a given individual’s responsibility to ensure that a licence is obtained and its validity maintained,” stressed the SIA chief executive.
Several issues were raised in the general discussion. These included questions of personal identification, impersonation and validation of licensing documentation. When asked by John Saunders about how fast the licensing process would need to work in practice, The Corps’ commercial director Patrick Dealtry only had one comment to make. “The simple answer is quickly and cheaply,” said Dealtry. “A 48-hour turnaround would be ideal”. Peter Jones of the International Institute of Security concurred with Dealtry’s assertion. “Issuance should be within days, not weeks,” he suggested. Stefan Hay added that licensing must be arranged to take account of managers and supervisors as well as security officers.
Importantly, John Saunders hinted that the SIA would be thinking long and hard about the suggestion that powers should be obtained to close down companies which don’t conform to the provisions of the Act.
Terry O’Neil – md of The Security Watchdog – added: “What punishments will be meted out to those security companies that flout the law? The industry will be keen to see what the SIA does about this. Surely a substantial fine would do the job?” A question on the lips of many, no doubt, is whether or not a ‘whistle blowing’ policy will be adopted as part of the SIA’s proposed enforcement strategy. The response from John Saunders was in the affirmative.
“The approved contractors’ registration scheme has to be mandatory and not voluntary,” added Jane Fraser. “The guarding market is over-saturated, and that would address the problem”. Much applause for Fraser’s stance tells its own story.
Rules of enforcement
On enforcement matters, questions covered the Working Time Directive, the use of inspectorates, checking against sources other than the Criminal Records Bureau, the rationalisation of the security industry and international aspects. The general feeling in the audience was that existing inspectorates – in particular the National Security Inspectorate – should be used by the SIA, but on the day the possibility of this Home Office sub-division considering the formation of its own inspection operation wasn’t ruled out.
How are the inspectorates going to be supported by other agencies? How will they work alongside local authorities? What support will they receive from the police? Would the police be vested with a special enforcement role beyond normal policing? These were some of the poignant questions raised in debate.
Whatever form inspections do take, everyone in the Westminster Suite concurred that the chosen inspectorate(s) must exhibit a sound knowledge of the industry.
The fact that licensing for in-house personnel has thus far been neglected rankled with many in the audience. “The issue of in-house regulation is a hot potato indeed, but it must be handled and handled properly,” argued Philip Barber, group security manager at the NEC in Birmingham.
SMT remembers when the Act was first launched as a Bill to be set before Parliament. Back then, when challenged as to why in-house teams were not included, Graham Titcombe – leader of the Implementation Team – suggested that there was a desire “not to add another layer of bureaucracy”. Not a good enough argument then, and it certainly isn’t good enough now. In-house teams simply MUST be subject to the same terms and conditions of licensing as their partners in the private sector.
Policing A New Century The second workshop at this year’s JSIC Security Forum considered the likely effects of the Police Reform Bill, and in particular its potential impact on the private security industry. In essence, the ensuing discussion – chaired by chief constable Richard Childs of the Lincolnshire Constabulary – was all about how we might convert theory into practice. The Trafford Park Guardsafe scheme was held up as an example of good practice here.
The Trafford Park initiative (‘On Guard’, SMT, December 2001, pp20-24) is a partnership between security firms (around 100) working for various companies on the Trafford Park industrial and retail estate in Manchester, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. By October 2000, the estate was averaging 36 commercial burglaries each month, but that figure has now dropped to nine thanks to Guardsafe and its major driver from the private sector, Noble Security (News, SMT, May 2002, pp14-15).
Now, there are licensed security staff undertaking co-ordinated patrolling on the Park, and passing their information on to the police. Proof that the two can work in harmony.
Presenting the conclusions from this workshop, PC Nigel Brown (of GMP) suggested that if private security personnel are to perform well and enhance their status as part of a wider police family, a reasonable amount of training will be required that boasts police input (as is the case with the Guardsafe scheme).
“The more the officers on Trafford Park have been subjected to training, the more training they’ve wanted to undertake,” added Brown.
Personnel taking part in the Trafford Park scheme are trained by Noble Security, vetted through the Criminal Records Bureau system and accredited by way of the local authority. When all contracted security officers are licensed towards the end of 2004, however, the SIA will need to consider a national set of criteria for licensing. Even if (as we’ve seen) those criteria are devolved to local authorities.
Time for a culture change
Delegates who attended the ‘Policing A New Century’ workshop also felt that there needs to be a greater degree of awareness and interest about licensing within the industry. “By and large, the security industry is sitting back and waiting for the SIA to make a series of announcements and decisions concerning licensing and regulation,” added PC Brown. “The security industry has to start playing its part in trying to drive the regulation through, and in making sure it’s a success for all.”
In broad terms, the feeling persists that the private security sector needs to market itself and its services that little bit better, and truly sell itself to the public at large.
“There has to be a culture change,” said PC Brown, “whereupon local communities are educated to accept the fact that, in future, not everything to do with the preservation of law and order will fall into the police service’s lap.”
PC Brown added: “Similarly, that change must also manifest itself in the private security industry, such that personnel are far better trained and qualified to do their job. In this way, they can then live up to the expectations of the public in those areas where they’ll be undertaking tasks previously carried out by police officers.”
A suggestion was made that training should carry on for between seven and 13 weeks such that we might begin to compete with the high standards laid down by the Nordic states.
While a number of schemes similar to that at Trafford Park are being trialled in a localised form across the country, the feeling at the JSIC Forum was that there needs to be some form of ‘security baron’ to co-ordinate all of this activity. “Perhaps the security industry needs to consider setting up an independent body tasked with driving through local implementation of licensing in conjunction with central Government, the police service and local authorities,” commented PC Brown.
“One suspects the major players in the guarding industry don’t really want regulation, as it will flush out things they don’t want flushed out,” added Richard Childs.
“Until now, ACPO has only had one strategy for dealing with the private sector,” countered Richard Flenley, group security manager for the Canary Wharf Group plc. “They wouldn’t talk to the industry unless it was regulated. Well now it will be, so what happens next should be very interesting indeed. I suspect that ACPO is going to be a little bit embarrassed about its prior stance now.”
IT security after the Act
Held in the Shelley Room and chaired by Dr Andrew Rathmell (of the Information Assurance Advisory Council), the workshop on IT security post the Act considered three major themes: is there a threat, where are the boundary lines to be drawn and what standards need to be in place? In recent times, information and data security has certainly risen on the Boardroom agenda, the latest DTi survey showing that 73% of blue chip companies questioned rate it as their highest security priority. “At present there’s a very real threat to information security. A threat that can only increase as the amount of information increases. The only way to counter or contain that threat is to apply a security system that inspires trust and engenders a degree of confidence,” said Andrew Rathmell.
If some form of licensing is chosen as the right path to take for the IT sector, then in the longer term the feeling was that this would have to embrace the vendors and providers of IT services and hardware, as well as encompassing all in-house personnel.
Where, though, should the boundary lines be drawn on criminality, and between an IT consultant and a physical security consultant? The first of these questions really needs to be tackled by the SIA, while the boundary between IT and physical security consultants is difficult to determine.
With this in mind, the general feeling was that consultants should either be all-in or all-out in a licensing and regulation system.
On standards and criteria, one conclusion was that there should be a universal criminality check through the Criminal Records Bureau for all consultants, advisors, vendors and providers as soon as possible to cover the issue of ‘trustworthiness’.
Competence criteria were also discussed. It was recommended that a model used by the British Computer Society and the Security Institute could be developed for consultants. This involves an interview by peers, which takes account of academic qualifications, experience, training undertaken and those societies and professional bodies belonged to in order to build up a complete picture on which to assess overall competence.
A second recommendation related to professional indemnity insurance. Most reputable consultants already have this, of course, because they could be held accountable for their actions at some stage. It was the workshop’s view that it should be made a prerequisite for operation in the industry. That said, such insurance will need to be priced at an affordable level.
If this year’s JSIC Security Forum told us anything, it’s that Molly Meacher, John Saunders and their colleagues at the Home Office have much work to do in the months and years ahead. And they’ll need all the help they can muster from our industry if they’re to succeed in their laudable objectives.
