19.01 hours on Friday 9 February 1996 is a time and date that will live long in the memory for white collar professionals on the Canary Wharf estate – London Docklands’ architectural and commercial homage to 1990’s Corporate America. An IRA bomb ripped through the heart of South Quay, just a stone’s throw from the famed Canary Wharf tower (otherwise known as One Canada Square), killing and maiming innocent people. Many of the area’s striking office blocks were reduced to little more than glass-strewn shells.
Given such a backdrop, it’s clear that managing security on the 85-acre Canary Wharf estate is no small undertaking. Located two-and-a-half miles to the east of the City of London in the heart of Docklands, it serves a daily commuter population of 35,000 people – a population that’s set to more than double over the next four years. In terms of security provision, then, that could be interpreted as little short of a logistical nightmare.
To date, the development comprises no fewer than 13 different office buildings (spanning Canada Square, Cabot Square, Westferry Circus, the North and South Colonnades and Columbus Courtyard), a retail centre, conference and banqueting centre (the aptly-named Cabot Hall), various car parks and, necessarily, the Docklands Light Railway and newly-opened Jubilee Line stations.
Newer buildings include the Citibank hq, as well as the HSBC hq under construction just to the east of One Canada Square. Other major tenants include Credit Suisse First Boston (see ‘Credit control’, SMT, May 2000, pp28-32) and Barclays Capital.
Richard Flenley was approached to join the Canary Wharf management team as Group Security Manager back in the autumn of 1998. “This was both a surprise and a delight,” says Flenley. Overseeing security for the entire Canary Wharf estate, this erudite professional is responsible not only for the overall security of the estate, but also for providing salient advice to tenants concerning aspects of their own individual building security. He’s also taken on the vital mantle of Business Continuity Manager for the Canary Wharf Group.
Flenley’s credentials for the job had to be spot on. And they were. He joined the police service in 1964 and, over the next 33 years, worked in most sectors of the policing ‘business’ – holding command positions for the last two decades of his service.
For the most part, Richard was employed by the Sussex Constabulary, where he ‘cut his teeth’ on anti-terrorist management problems (including security issues ensuing from the 1984 IRA bombing of the Conservative Party Conference at Brighton’s Grand Hotel). He then worked on security issues at Gatwick Airport.
On top of that, Flenley spent time working with the Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the MoD in advisory roles both at home and abroad.
Having been awarded the Queen’s Police Medal in 1996 for distinguished service, Richard then served on various Government committees, advising on policing issues and, once again, the area of counter-terrorism.
Canary Wharf security in context
The estate boasts its own CCTV Control Centre that monitors a vast number of cameras. Very necessary given the primacy of Canary Wharf as a target for terrorism.
“Only last week we had to deal with six bomb threat calls and an attempted security breach at The New York Bank by animal rights activists,” states Flenley. “Although there’s a relatively low crime rate in the area, the site is very much akin to an airport without the aircraft in terms of the range and type of security-related problems it generates.” An interesting analogy – but how do you manage such a scenario? “We adopt a low profile, subtle form of security operation,” adds Flenley, whose in-house team numbers in excess of 200 ‘conventional’ security officers – and a technical operations unit – among its ranks. “Having said that, we can’t afford any complacency. As the site grows it will inevitably attract interest from petty criminals, just like any other commercial operation.” Selecting security officers to work as part of the Canary Wharf team is a rigorous process to say the very least. Arguably, it’s nothing less than a ‘blueprint’ to which other outfits should adhere. The process, developed in partnership with specialist recruitment concern SSR, takes three months in all – beginning with adverts in the national press, followed by telephone interviews, attendance at assessment centres, psychometric testing and traditional vetting.
After that there’s a six-month probationary period with monthly assessments. This process results in as few as a dozen people being selected from every 1,000 applicants.
“The probation period includes the need to successfully complete Basic Job Training, Professional Guard, first aid and local Borough door supervision courses,” adds Flenley. “Thereafter, the officers are actively encouraged to follow continuous professional development. Canary Wharf Management Ltd will meet the total cost of any extra-curricular study, and offers pay increases and bonuses.” The Security Department itself is a member of SITO and registered as a City & Guilds Examination Centre. It also boasts its own NVQ trainers, assessors and verifiers.
Leaving nothing to chance, Flenley brings in specialists to offer advice and training on bomb threat awareness, major incident planning, first aid, customer awareness, CCTV monitoring and basic supervisory skills.
Crucially, Flenley’s operation is also at the forefront of an apprenticeship scheme to attract local youngsters into becoming security officers. Devised in conjunction with Robert John (an advisor on strategic issues to Canary Wharf Group plc) and Bill Pitt (the Group’s training co-ordinator), the aim is to take on between nine and 12 new recruits aged 19-21 for a two-year training programme that will qualify them to NVQ Level 2.
The whole initiative has been enabled by Skillsmatch, a joint venture between Canary Wharf Group plc and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. “After their two-year programme is complete, the apprentices will then be subject to the regular training and development programmes of the ‘ordinary’ security officers,” asserts Flenley.
Proof that Canary Wharf Group’s general guard training policy is working is evidenced by the fact that no less than five of Flenley’s officer team are currently studying for Masters degrees by way of distance learning.
On a national level, Canary Wharf is leading the field in actively seeking to recruit women into the security industry. In the past, the company has joined forces with SITO on recruitment drives (at IFSEC 1999, to be exact), but that particular venture experienced limited success. So how has the Canary Wharf Group’s security team navigated its way around the industry’s macho image? “For a start, we’re endeavouring to employ women as officers on a part-time basis. In addition, the reception staff at a number of our buildings are all women,” says Richard Flenley. “In the latter case, they operate as part of the security team, and receive at least some of the training that goes with that.” Flenley is the first to admit that his team is lacking in sheer numbers when it comes to female supervisors and managers. “We are focusing on that at the moment,” he adds. “Perhaps what the industry needs to do is devise a fast-track career path for women.” Clearly, the message here is very much ‘watch this space for further developments’.
The in-house equation
Taking security issues in a wider context, one wonders what Richard Flenley’s views might be with respect to the Private Security Industry Bill – and its likely effects on in-house security teams.
“Thankfully, the current Government has found time to push through the Bill,” he says. “There’s no doubt that it’s a controversial document for our industry, but it’s one that’s driven by common demand.” Flenley is openly glad that “maverick individuals and cowboys” should now disappear, but rounds on what he feels is a missed opportunity.
“I’m very disappointed that in-house guards aren’t included in the licensing plans,” he adds mournfully. “I suspect that’s down to the cost and administration of what will be a difficult Bill to implement in any case, but it does leave in-house team managers like myself in a vulnerable position. We mustn’t become the repository for ‘excluded’ individuals.” As far as Flenley’s concerned, the onus is very much on the manager to set the standards for his or her team to follow. “The ways in which we recruit, train and retain our staff, and meet our customers’ expectations are all-important. In-house teams will be in the spotlight when this Bill is passed, and the responsibility will rest squarely with managers to maintain the highest standards possible. The Private Security Industry Bill is not a panacea to end all ills, but it is very much a keystone.” Part of the problem as far as recruitment is concerned, of course, is that managers are very often forced to pick would-be security officers from the ‘unskilled’ portion of the labour market, and the subsequent training and development of those individuals within the industry is sometimes patchy.
“There’s a distinct lack of a defined lateral and vertical career path,” suggests Flenley. “We should be attracting school and college leavers and university graduates at the earliest possible opportunity. Another problem is that there’s no defined pay structure, with a consequence that contract guarding companies pay between the minimum wage and as high as GB pound 9 an hour depending on the prestige of the contract. It’s not surprising that we fail to attract people with wide-ranging skills who are committed to a long-term career in the industry.”
Educating the customer base
Flenley is at pains to point out an even bigger problem that’s still to be solved. “By and large, the security industry’s customer base will not pay for skills and professionalism,” states Flenley. “The Bill will drive-up on-costs to the end user even more, but that’s the way it has to be. Client education is the key here. The full effects of the Bill will not be felt for some time to come, but we must put the right structures in place now if both our clients and ourselves are to reap the dividends.” When it comes to the industry at large, Flenley is upbeat about the official launch of the National Security Inspectorate. “Some people feel threatened by the ‘merger’ of the ISI and NACOSS. They shouldn’t. It’s a sound consolidation that would have had to have taken place in the next five-to-ten years in any case. There’s a good deal of overlap between the two bodies, so it makes sense.” He’s also bullish about the ongoing and fast-developing role of the Joint Security Industry Council (JSIC), on whose management committee he serves.
“JSIC is finally being viewed as the focal point through which the industry can engage Government, and vice versa,” adds Flenley. “That’s the way forward, although we don’t want a situation where any one professional body has primacy over its neighbours. That would be counter-productive.”
The police and the private sector
A vexed question for many at the present time surrounds the relationship between the police and the private security sector. Having spent a third of a century in the employ of Her Majesty’s police, Richard Flenley is well placed to comment – particularly with respect to Home Secretary Jack Straw’s desire to see contract guards assuming at least part of the role of ‘bobbies on the beat’.
“Changes in society over the last 20 years or so have meant that there are many areas of law enforcement which the police cannot hope to resource,” states Flenley. “There’s no Government that would possibly countenance, say, a doubling of police force numbers. We have to live with that. Those at senior levels in the UK police forces are recognising that some aspects of the job can be contracted out, as long as there’s strict monitoring and the police retain overall control and accountability.” In Flenley’s eyes the police service is now a highly-focused operation, one that’s very costly to maintain. “The breadth of training and skills is such that, in order to be truly effective, the police service has to be focused,” stresses Flenley. “They are rightly divesting themselves of burdensome responsibilities that take up too much time and resources.” Ultimately, the industry ought to be aware that – in the medium term, at least – it will be approached by Government to take on some of those responsibilities that were once very much the police’s domain.
“The security sector should be positioning itself now to meet that demand,” adds Flenley. “We can help allay the fears of the public and the police by showing them that we can do a good job. Such a guarding stream would also add revenue to the industry’s coffers.” At the end of the day, believes Flenley, there’s no such thing as 100% security.
“What managers must do is ‘risk assess’, then work out a suitable strategy for their site. True, it’s not a precise science, but what’s completely unforgivable is to fail to recognise any threat or risk and have no contingency plans in place.” Now there speaks a voice of experience.
