Elements of the Government’s bold attempt to clean up the private sector may be seriously flawed – right down to the very definition of what constitutes a ‘security company’.
The rapid changes which will occur in the security industry over the next five years – engendered by the introduction of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 – will not see any improvement in the standard and performance levels of security officers, who will continue to be poorly paid and unfairly treated.
The main reason for this lies squarely with the end user. In many cases, they place manned security at the bottom of their priorities list. Far too many of them are just looking for a security presence to satisfy their insurance needs. And they will want that security provision at the very lowest price possible.
In the cold light of day, how many directors of security companies are lucky enough to deal with decision makers when formulating a contract? Not many. All-too-often they’re forced to talk terms with secretaries and/or other individuals within the end user organisation who have little or no knowledge of what security is about.
The ‘Contract of Substance’ advocated by The Security Watchdog (SMT, April 2002, pp20-23) is an excellent idea, but it cannot succeed without input from companies prepared to pay a higher rate to their security providers.
Some clients are indeed willing to pay for well-trained, better quality staff who will work reasonable hours. Sadly, though, such clients are few and far between. That situation must change. Given that the police, fire and ambulance services are all looking for quality staff as well, we in the security sector must be able to compete on wages, subsistence for travel and training. Otherwise, there’s only one outcome. Standards will continue to fall.
Licensing in the real world
The Government’s licensing document is seriously flawed. To my mind, it was passed through Parliament in double-quick time to divert the flak from Westminster concerning the rapid increases in incidences of street crime. To exclude in-house security staff, shopping centre security teams and central and local Government security operatives can be construed as nothing but madness.
In addition, no estimated cost savings have been supplied to the industry for those seeking a licence to operate. What will be the necessary criteria for obtaining such a licence? Presumably, a given applicant must satisfy specific requirements on age, physical fitness, character and certification of employment? When considering the latter, licensing of the industry would have been better served by placing the responsibility for issuing those licenses under the control of the police service, NOT the as-yet-uncosted Security Industry Authority.
As things stand, the police service and other law enforcement agencies are solely responsible for recording criminal convictions (and then notifying the newly-established Criminal Records Bureau of their existence). Although the Bureau is up-and-running it will not be fully functional for some time, and will necessarily rely on accurate information being passed from the Police National Computer. Why, then, do we need another tier of Government interference?
The issuing of security licenses could be administered by the police, who at the moment deal with all persons cautioned, arrested and fingerprinted. This information is logged, and would show up immediately when an application is made for a security licence. At the present time such information would not be known to the Criminal Records Bureau until after a given conviction. In many cases, that particular timescale can exceed 12 months.
The appointments of Molly Meacher and John Saunders (both of whom have no prior connection with the private security sector) as chairman and chief executive (respectively) of the Security Industry Authority may appear to be a pro-active move aimed at controlling the industry. However, little thought appears to have been given as to how they might undertake the licensing of some 300,000-plus employees already working in the sector.
There has been far too little discussion with the industry’s real decision makers. Trade organisations are fine to talk to, but they do not run security companies. Nor do they deal directly with the end users of security services.
How many civil servants will be needed to issue, record and update the licenses? And to carry out annual checks by way of ensuring that the holder of a licence remains a ‘fit and proper person’ to be employed within the industry?
The costs of licensing will ultimately have to be borne by the security industry and, thereafter, by the end user. Not to mention the additional costs of implementing the 48-hour working week as from next year in line with the terms and conditions of the Working Time Directive. One thing is for certain: clients will be looking to cut costs.
It’s all about definitions
There’s another problem that seems to have been overlooked. What is the definition of a ‘security company’ or a ‘security officer’? Think about it. If some of the more unscrupulous contractors change their title from ‘security company’ to ‘facilities management company’, and re-name all of their security functions (to reception manager, control room manager and health and safety patrolling officer, etc) will they need to be licensed?
Or have I missed a trick? Does the Government intend new legislation that will cover this easy opt-out route? Surely the object of licensing is to regulate the security industry in order to assist in the prevention of crime and improve the protection of public safety. Companies must be financially sound, and only ‘fit and proper persons’ should be granted a licence to provide security services – thereby helping to reduce criminality in the security industry, and enhance public confidence in the service provided.
To my mind, a clearly defined policy governing the issuing of licenses must preclude unfit persons with criminal convictions. Many countries with licensing standards operate a policy whereby the applicant must not have been convicted of any disqualifying offence within the last decade.
In the main, these licenses are issued by the police, who decide whether a given individual is indeed a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold such a licence. In deciding individual cases, the police will consider the nature of an offence, the penalty awarded, age at the time of the offence and also take into consideration the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance.
Towards a National Vetting Agency
It’s my view that our private security industry would have been better served by using the police service to issue licenses, backed up by a National Security Staff Vetting Agency – who would have played a vitally important role here.
At the present time vetting in the industry – although of vital importance – is not being carried out to a satisfactory standard across the board. Security officers change companies on a regular basis, requiring their new company to vet them in exactly the same way as the last.
Contractors are spending huge amounts of money and man-hours on the vetting process. By using a central agency it would be possible to have every person employed within the security industry fingerprinted, photographed, fully vetted and added to a database. A database which would be accessible to licensed security companies on a round-the-clock basis.
That agency could also be directly linked with the Criminal Records Bureau, thereby alleviating the need for every security company to register in order to access data that’s held by this department.
The security employee would be issued with a licence number and ‘Record of Service’ book containing details of previous employment. It would be the responsibility of the employer to notify the vetting agency of any change to the licence holder’s employment. In the event of dismissal for gross misconduct, or for any other serious disciplinary offences, a record would be made and details transferred should the licence holder apply to another company for employment. In serious cases the licence could be withheld.
History tells us that many companies have not been honest or helpful in the interchange of information, in particular when dismissing staff for dishonesty. The introduction of licensing will not change matters unless it runs in tandem with a central database holding information on undesirables, and where there is a proper vetting policy across the board.
Ousting the criminal fraternity
What’s certain is that a change in the status quo MUST occur. There are too many people with criminal convictions employed in this industry. Individuals who are misfits, timewasters, drunks, racists and liars. Not surprisingly, such individuals have an adverse effect on the majority who are professional and hardworking members . As a result, they should not be granted a licence.
By adopting a strict policy on vetting, with licenses only being granted to those of exemplary character and who have a proven track record, will the security industry enhance its standing within the police service and the wider community?
The Police Reform Bill has outlined the important role that security companies could play in the wider police family (‘Industry supports White Paper on police reform’, News, SMT, January 2002, p7). Various ‘experiments’ are taking place across the UK which may be of great benefit to the community – provided that the legislation is not another piece of Government wisdom solely aimed at obtaining ‘policing on the cheap’.
I would agree with the Police Federation that the police service in general is under-funded, undermanned and undermined, and cannot hope to provide the level of service required by the community. In truth, the degree to which the private security sector might assist is, I believe, very limited indeed.
At the present time I would not like to trust policing of our streets to the private sector without the adequate protection of licensing being strictly enforced by the police service.
Every initiative with which successive Governments have involved themselves has usually ended up in disaster. The National Health Service, transport and education sectors are in a deplorable state. Then there’s the fiasco whereby agreement cannot be reached on funding of our national football stadium.
With this in mind, I’m a firm believer that the security industry should remain free from any Government involvement.
