First of all, I’d like to thank all of you who took the time to comment on my first blog. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and I’m delighted that what I had to say provided food for thought.
While most of the country is feeling the post-Olympic blues, the security sector was perhaps unique in experiencing the doldrums before a single race had been run. The fall-out from the G4S problems is still very much with us, and now we must turn our attention to repairing the industry’s damaged reputation.
There’s no denying that we must all learn some serious lessons from this unfortunate experience. However, I’m concerned – and even a little bit angry – about the kind of nonsense that’s being spouted from senior Government officials about using outsourced security in the public sector in future.
Just two weeks ago the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said: “It does make you think again about the use of private companies in certain situations.”
The kind of ignorance shown in this comment does neither himself or us any favours at all. Private security is a thriving business sector that employs over 380,000 professional and licensed operatives, with tens of thousands of additional people employed in support, management, consulting, installation, technical and engineering roles – all contributing to a GB pound 5.3 billion industry turnover.
Professionalism “should not be in doubt”
The professionalism of this industry should not be in doubt. For the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, to state that: “G4S were literally hiring people and expecting to deploy them three days later” is beyond the pale.
Had Mr Hammond done his homework and stuck to the facts, rather than simply constructing a media-friendly soundbite, he would have known that this simply could not have happened.
For a start, the mandatory training required to obtain a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence takes four days to complete. Since it first came into force in 2004, this licensing system has done a great deal to regulate who can and, just as importantly, who cannot become a security operative. There are no shortcuts, either, and only SIA-endorsed qualifications are valid for SIA licensing requirements.
This process also involves a stringent vetting procedure. Every person has to undergo a full Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check, with some having to obtain additional security clearances.
Employers must comply with BS 7858, which sets the standard for the security screening of staff and states that individuals must have five years of traceable employment history. Any gaps must be accounted for, and those that cannot comply with this – or any other – requirement will not be able to obtain a licence.
Favourites for the Gold medal
Criticising the private security industry is not yet an Olympic sport in itself but, if it were, Messrs Hunt and Hammond would be favourites for Gold. They have failed to recognise the excellent job that thousands of professional security operatives do every day in both the public and private sectors – regularly performing acts of heroism that fall under the radar.
Although there was an understandable focus on the Olympic Park, much of the immediate vicinity (including the nearby Westfield Shopping Centre) was successfully protected and safeguarded by private security firms without any reported incidents.
The suggestion that the G4S incident highlights the inability of private security firms to rise to the challenge of servicing major events smacks of desperation and is being used to distract attention away from the real issue: that of how security services are procured.
Even now there are some public sector contracts on the horizon where the scale of the projects is so large that it means only one or two companies have the financial and physical resources to undertake the work.
A system whereby one company is left to service a contract like London 2012 is flawed, and I firmly believe that a syndicated arrangement should be implemented for any similar event in the future.
While the troops that stepped in have, quite rightly, been praised for their actions over the last few weeks, to pitch the private and military models against each other – as the defence secretary has seen fit to do – makes little sense.
The lean management model suits the vast majority of clients’ circumstances and, even though private security guarding firms have been slammed for their supposed inability to provide a contingency plan, the simple fact is that they can… but it comes at a cost – just as bringing in the military did.
What to do about the tarnished image?
When all’s said and done, we are still left with the issue of what to do about the industry’s tarnished image.
My suggestion is for private sector security companies to join forces and approach the issue in a co-ordinated way, by identifying the key messages that need to be communicated.
This would be best served under the auspices of a trade body spearheading an education and PR-based campaign that could dispel any myths and highlight the professionalism we know full well exists among us.
What do you think?
Peter Webster is CEO of Corps Security
*This blog originally appears on the dedicated website Corps Thinking
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
