Licensing and regulation represent a major change for our ‘Dinosaur’ industry and, along the way, we were bound to be frustrated at some of the decisions being taken. That said, let us not lose sight of the fact that we will all look back in five years’ time and smile – knowing we could have done it better, but realising that massive strides have been taken.
My first ‘hands on’ involvement with regulation came after an invite to the Security Industry Authority’s offices back in April 2003. I was a ‘Stakeholder representative’, and the team assembled at 50 Broadway was trying to gain agreement on the minimum training requirements for security guarding.
I must admit that I lost the vote on this one, as I could not – and still cannot – reconcile the need to disrupt the industry so much all for the sake of one day’s training in conflict management. I was trying to argue – if that is indeed the correct word to use – that really all we needed was a solid platform of basic training on which our employees could build.
At the time I used the driving licence analogy. You pass, drive your car and go on to enhance your skills in further categories that are more specialised (as and when needed).
Delivery on 20 March 2006
I also signed on the dotted line – as did many others – to deliver licensing at my company ahead of the agreed enforcement date of Monday 20 March 2006. We managed to educate virtually every one of our clients to support us in our aim from the word ‘Go’.
The procedure for achieving a licence was very intensive. First, there was the requirement for the individual to apply for the Application Form in the first place. That then moved forward to bulk applications submitted by companies on behalf of the employees.
Then the examination papers had to be sent away for independent marking and verification. That caused a delay as we waited patiently for the NOCN number.
Of course, all of the original identification documents had to be sent with the Application Form and, in some cases, those documents couldn’t be more than three months old. This procedure caused a great deal of upset when people needed to access their Passport, for example, in order to go on holiday.
A level of understanding
The process has not been perfect but we are getting there. I had some productive meetings with the SIA representatives and I fully understood their position. The procedures in place could have been streamlined (for example, why were the Application Forms not made available in the public domain as they are for Passports and driving licences? They carry no confidential detail until completed).
Another complication along the way has been the interpretation of the CCTV licence that ‘opened the gates’ to all staff that proactively monitor a CCTV system in a public area. Where did that little chain of thought come from, I wondered, because I certainly believed in the first instance that the CCTV licence was introduced as a category to cover those staff who did not fit any other group?
Now, there are many officers and operatives with two licences. It’s then that you begin to wonder as to whether or not the CCTV training should have been part of the basic job programme and, perhaps, was a touch more important than conflict management (bearing in mind that over 90% of all security staff operate CCTV equipment in its varying guises).
One licence, two licences… any more?
Then, just as we all thought it was safe to venture out, we had the 2003 Licensing Act foisted upon us. The officers with two licences were readying themselves to be rolled out for a third. Some commentators argue that Shopping Centre staff should have been given a door supervisors’ licence in the first place, then the security licence would be obsolete.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, so it is, but does the title ‘door supervisor’ really portray the role of the modern day Shopping Centre customer services operator? I think not.
Did we intend for staff to be multi-licensed on Day One? If we did, perhaps this should have been made clear because it certainly never sat flush with the original concept of categorising the security functions. Also, it would have made the profiling, training and application procedure for members of staff so much more focused towards their myriad of duties that’s so often referred to these days as multi-tasking.
As an industry we are probably to blame for that situation having arisen. We are not good at communicating and working together. It’s also arguable that the British Security Industry Association could have taken a more questionable stance at the time on some of the key issues. Perhaps the Trade Association could have been more influential as the ‘voice of the industry’?
The most surprising element of it all?
If you were to ask me what I find to be the most surprising element of the whole licensing scenario, I would say that we had a golden opportunity to register companies on a mandatory basis.
The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) has taken us – voluntarily – down that route. Those who didn’t make the grade or didn’t apply are pretty much dead in the water, or should be.
The danger with not making the ACS mandatory is that Joe Bloggs can start up a company and, as long as he holds a non-front line licence he’ll be able to recruit licensed staff and deploy them. He may not have any infrastructure at his company, and not comply with any standards laid down by the ACS, but he’ll be operating legally. This situation still worries me, and allows for operators with small overheads to carry on servicing the cheaper end of the market.
How will they maintain their business? By poaching staff who are licensed, that’s how.
What next for the industry?
At the end of the day, the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is the best piece of legislation ever to impinge on our industry. The security guarding market is being dragged kicking and screaming from the Dark Ages. And not before time, either.
Now, through the continued education of the police and the public at large, we might be able to lose the ‘brazier’ image so sadly portrayed at every opportunity by the national media and the not-so-educated police officer (I can say that with some authority as an ex-policeman myself).
Those are my innermost thoughts on the matter. They can all be shot down and maybe they will, but remember that I’m onside and passionate regarding the future prosperity of our staff and the industry at large.
