Now in its second year, the Joint Security Industry Council’s (JSIC) corporate Security Forum is fast-becoming a ‘must attend’ event for discerning security professionals. One need only glance at the 2001 speaker and delegate lists if proof of its importance were needed. BSIA chairman David Cowden, Lincolnshire Constabulary chief constable Richard Childs, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and the NSI’s Ian Sanderson all took time out to air their views at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster.
Despite the fact that Home Office minister Charles Clarke failed to deliver his scheduled keynote address (Parliament had just dissolved, thus Clarke felt it would have been inappropriate to air his views), 100 delegates filed through Broad Sanctuary to hear thoughtful presentations on the Private Security Industry Act, the developing relationship between public policing and the private security sector and, last but not least, the private security industry’s export potential.
Workshops following on from each morning presentation accounted for most of the afternoon, with a ‘washing up’ session to discuss the major points raised in each. And there were several points to be mulled over.
Opening the proceedings, JSIC chief executive Mike Welply stressed that the industry needs to create and focus on a lone, formal forum if it is to have its rightful say in the creation of the new Security Industry Authority (SIA). Many observers feel that JSIC, itself an umbrella organisation for the industry, is in an ideal position to act as that body.
“The Private Security Industry Act gives the industry a perfect opportunity to raise standards, and better its image among the public at large,” commented Welply. “Improving the private security sector’s image may not be the difficult task we all think it is. After all, there are many factions of society that do not consent to the police or police intervention, but those same individuals have much less trouble in consenting to private security personnel.”
These sentiments were echoed by Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, the current JSIC president, who effectively stood in for Charles Clarke when it came to the keynote speech. “The business of security is a burgeoning one, and in light of this the Government is desperate to do away with the private security sector’s ‘cowboy’ element,” stressed Lord Mackenzie. “The effects of the Act will take time to filter through and, by necessity, we must all recognise that it’s limited in scope.”
That said, Lord Mackenzie is convinced that we now have the building block to create a security industry that will be nothing less than “a role model for the rest of the world. However, if that is going to happen,” he added, “private security officers will have to be accountable to members of the public.” Quite right. And there’ll have to be a well-thought out public complaints procedure to boot.
The first major presentation was delivered by BSIA chairman David Cowden. “We’ve only seen the end of the beginning so far as industry regulation is concerned,” stated Cowden. “The drivers behind the regulation, namely the police, members of Parliament, academics and various elements in the private security sector will all have their part to play in implementing the Act’s main points.”
Cowden recognises that the vexed issue of in-house guards not being subject to licensing must be addressed in the future, and is also aware that any meaningful raising of standards will indeed come at a cost.
What of those contract security companies who feel that this associated cost might overshadow the benefits? “They can rest assured that the BSIA will campaign to keep costs at a minimum,” said Cowden. “For their part, the manned security companies now have the perfect opportunity to take stock, and really scrutinise how they operate.”
Policing the private sector
In an impassioned speech, chief constable Richard Childs of the Lincolnshire Constabulary set forth his views on the public policing-private security industry partnership.
Childs yearns for an even more professional workforce in the private security sector, one that would command greater trust from the UK’s 43 police forces. “Security companies will have to be transparent. They must be answerable to criticism,” he said.
Childs is keen that any security companies who fail to toe the line when it comes to licensing must be brought to book, at the same time recognising that “credibility will not be conferred overnight.”
He also urged the private security sector to consider the provision of services in specific areas where public funding does not exist. Childs is adamant that funding for the provision of public services by the security firms “must not come out of police budgets”.
Opportunities for export
In the light of the recent benchmarking study (sponsored by Trade Partners UK) into the security industry’s export potential, can this be further developed so as to enhance ALL sectors of the industry, including systems manufacturers and service providers? That was the question which David Warren addressed in the final presentation of the morning. Warren, himself a business group director at Trade Partners, stressed that he has invested much time in talking to representatives from the security industry. “What we are trying to do is underpin the industry’s competitiveness by providing information on overseas markets and special projects, as well as advice and assurances on any new ventures,” said Warren.
“We also want to help with any lobbying that may be needed from the industry’s various trade bodies when it comes to the acceptance of British firms operating and trading overseas.” A laudable objective.
The Act in perspective
Led by David Cowden and Graham Titcombe of the Home Office (and foremost member of the Private Security Industry Bill team), the workshop devoted to the new legislation produced a heated debate.
Bruce Woodcock of the IIS wanted to know why in-house security officers, locksmiths and alarm installers had been left out of the legislation. “The security industry doesn’t recognise borders, it transgresses them,” said Woodcock. “There’s a real danger here that businesses will sidestep licensing by sending the security function back down the in-house road, rather than contracting it out.”
Terry Scriven, chief verifier for City & Guilds, added that the SIA must be independent, “but that doesn’t square with the fact that many of its potential members will be manufacturers. It will be a sad day if, 18 months on from now, we are no better off in terms of raising the industry’s stakes.”
Stefan Hay of SITO, the industry’s NTO, added: “Other companies are coming into the training arena. They are good, and are narrowing the gap with SITO, but it does mean there’s no coherent opinion out there.” Many delegates called for SITO to dig deep, and make sure it’s at the heart of forthcoming SIA plans for any future training programmes.
What about the manned security sector? Philip Barber, group security manager at the Birmingham NEC, voiced a concern of many end users. “At the NEC we get contractors on site providing low cost security to exhibitors. They are not ISI-registered. This compromises overall on-site security, which is my responsibility. We have to find a way around this type of practice with the new legislation.”
Richard Flenley, group security manager at Canary Wharf, suggested that a blueprint for the SIA can be found in the aviation sector. “The Airport Officers’ Association oversees and upholds regulation in that sector,” said Flenley. “It runs committees which represent the sector’s views to Government. This means that the Government will not be forced into trying to pass legislation that, commercially at any rate, is impossible to implement.”
Overall, delegates attending the workshop agreed that in-house guards must be included in the legislation sooner rather than later. Licenses must not be granted solely on the basis of integrity and, as such, minimum training standards should be laid down.
In addition, many felt that whoever heads up the SIA should be given a set term of office “to keep ideas fresh”, while the Authority itself ought to work in tandem with a management committee. An advisory committee, if you like.
Working together in tackling crime
Reporting back on the public policing-private security industry debate, workshop leader Richard Childs identified the main points for carrying that relationship forward. The security industry, said Childs, “has to sell itself more professionally. This may require something of a repackaging job so that the industry itself can work far more closely with the police and local authorities alike.”
Delegates rounded on the fact that there must be a uniform set of standards for the manned security sector, agreed in consultation with ACPO. There has to be what Richard Childs referred to as a “two-way feedback” if closer ties are to be developed. “This might even extend to operatives from both sectors dividing their working time between the two,” he added. “The end result will be a greater understanding.”
“Ultimately, the private security sector must look at forming one body with which we can deal effectively and efficiently,” continued Childs. “In line with this, we must look at developing a list of national security protocols.” Closing the Forum, Lord Mackenzie urged all parties to do their level best in helping to make the Private Security Industry Act really work in practice.
“We train police officers and security guards, but we are also guilty of bean counting at the same time. We should all spend time talking to eachother, listening to eachothers’ problems,” stated Lord Mackenzie, “and then do something to solve them in the longer term. This new Act of Parliament should be the first legislative step towards allowing that to happen.” Watch this space…
