The Perpetuity Group-organised ‘SIA: The Changing Agenda’ Conference was played out before a mixed audience comprising end users, guarding contractors, door supervisor and stewarding service providers, members of the police service, training suppliers and certification/Trade Association delegates.
A plethora of key issues were discussed – among them the scope of licensing, the increasing costs involved and the extent of industry-Regulator consultation, together with regulatory enforcement and compliance strategy… just some of the topics that, at times, were hotly debated.
Indeed, few punches were pulled on the day, in turn placing some of the speakers under close scrutiny. While a generally good natured event framed by fair and balanced debate, it was also clear from a number of comments – particularly during the question and answer sessions – that frustration with the SIA has, in some quarters, reached new heights. A danger that the Authority’s recently appointed chairman, Baroness Ruth Henig, sought to defuse in her refreshing Keynote Address (reproduced in June’s edition of SMT: ‘The SIA’s Changing Agenda’).
The Baroness has recently presided over the publication of the Regulator’s Corporate and Business Plan for 2007-2008 through to 2009-2010 . Among its commitments is a revised Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. “The priorities outlined in our Corporate and Business Plan, together with our Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, point the direction pretty clearly in which we believe we need to travel in the next three or four years,” commented the Baroness.
For Baroness Henig, the road ahead is paved with collaboration – the SIA’s journey, stated the Baroness, “must be a collaborative one, to be travelled in step with the private security industry, and alongside all of its key Stakeholders and partners. The SIA needs to become – and to be recognised as – not only a first class Regulator but also a valued and respected strategic partner to Government and its agencies, to the industry and its representative bodies, training organisations, the police service and a plethora of other public sector bodies.”
Closer working relationships
Baroness Henig noted that regulation has “engendered trust and fostered a closer working relationship” between the police service and the private security sector.
On the other side of the coin, Baroness Henig conceded that the SIA has faced some tricky challenges in trying to lay the foundations for licensing.
Continuing her frank appraisal of the past four years, Henig turned to the central issue of communication and engagement with the industry, leading individuals and representative bodies within it, strategic partners and Stakeholders in general.
The SIA, she suggested, had engaged successfully and very effectively at operational level – through personal contacts and with individual sectors – about specific issues.
“However, you have told us pretty clearly that we have been less successful at a strategic level. Earlier efforts to develop a national Stakeholder Advisory Committee failed (it was disbanded in late 2004) and therefore, as a matter of urgency, we need to address the gap which has opened up as a result.”
Wrapping up her oration, the Baroness returned to the theme of consultative engagement, stating that while there has been lobbying for a national Stakeholder Advisory Committee through which to resume a constructive strategic dialogue with the SIA, the Regulator “wants to try a range of alternative strategies, and we most certainly don’t want to rule anything out if it could be useful in achieving our common aims.”
Females in the workforce
Responding to a number of subsequent questions from the audience, Baroness Henig was first asked by Dorset Police Inspector Pete Meteau to comment on the under-representation of women in night-time security work (particularly the door supervision sector). The Baroness told Meteau there are signs that female participation in this area is increasing, partly helped by the flexibility of hours in this line of work which may prove an attractive proposition for women in the years ahead.
Next up, end user Ian Paton – head of security at Focus DIY – quizzed the SIA chairman about the fundamental need for security officers to be able to read, write in and speak English. “If they cannot converse in the English language, would you consider that to be malpractice as a result of poor training?”
In response, Baroness Henig deftly passed this query on to the outgoing chief executive at Skills for Security, Linda Sharpe, who was sitting in the audience. Sharpe replied that the training body is currently working on this issue with the awarding bodies. “Those who cannot read or write in English should not be allowed on a licensing course,” commented Sharpe, “partly because this raises important Health and Safety and other communications issues”.
Fielding a separate question from Jean Lee of Strata Security (who described the discriminatory position whereby a contract security officer is now being asked to pay GB pound 245 for a licence whereas their in-house counterpart may not even be trained to the same standard and pays nothing), Baroness Henig replied: “If this is a real problem we clearly need to revisit the legislation. That is not necessarily an easy thing to convince ministers and the Home Office about, since this is an area of the law that was passed relatively recently. We need to ensure we have evidence of any problem and a clear basis for a review before raising it with the Government.”
Queries concerning the licensing of private investigators, a topic raised by two delegates, were passed on to the SIA’s acting chief executive Andy Drane, who replied that the SIA is waiting for the Home Office to provide the go-ahead for publishing proposals.
A public consultation period is scheduled to commence in August.
Choosing the right partners
Next to the podium was BSIA chief executive David Dickinson. For regulation to be a success, asserted Dickinson, it’s vitally important that “the industry works together” and that “the right partners are chosen.”
Dickinson called for relevant sector bodies to work together for the benefit of the industry as a whole, describing the coming months as “a pivotal moment” when it “will be necessary to recognise the real value of security provision.”
Dickinson continued: “It’s clear that the SIA has been listening. Hugely positive developments are emerging from this engagement dialogue. Much has been achieved, but a good many more issues remain to be addressed. Now is the time to recognise the real value of security provision. The market is very different from even five years ago. We as an industry should now take our place among the public, private and police providers in protecting UK plc.”
Reviewing the voluntary staff training efforts of companies in the era prior to licensing, Dickinson noted that arrangements by certain firms were sometimes better – but then again so were gross margins.
“With net profits the way they are, it’s high time we addressed the industry’s business model. We have the legislation, regulation and the SIA, but the only people that can change the industry are its practitioners. The SIA cannot do this on our behalf.”
In tackling this issue, he added, the BSIA will work with anyone and everyone who shares its beliefs and standards. The Association has never protected narrow interests, and nor should it. “A complaint I sometimes receive from members is that our activities protect non-members, too. My argument is that, if we are going to change our industry, everyone must take part in that process. There is now an opportunity, as perhaps never before, to draw together strategic organisations including the SIA, the BSIA, ASIS International’s UK Chapter 208, the International Professional Security Association, the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers, Skills for Security, The Security Institute and many others.”
Dickinson continued: “While there are different approaches and different remits involved here, there are also surely some common goals. The SIA’s new Stakeholder Engagement Strategy should play a big part in helping to realise the end goal. We must go forward together. Let’s put an end to the sterile debate about whether public or private security is better and start instead with the things we can all agree upon. To be frank, we should all be prepared to surrender a bit of sovereignty for the greater good.”
In calling for the opening up of genuine dialogue with customers, Dickinson asserted forcefully that clients have responsibilities here. He lamented: “Scandalously, there are major financial institutions in the UK whose security officers are paid the minimum wage.”
In conclusion, Dickinson stated: “Together, we can recognise what security is and means, and work collectively to ensure that supply and market needs meet in a meaningful sense. We can create a sector resource that is professional, responsive and, most importantly, valued.”
Answering questions from the floor, Dickinson fielded a comment from Stuart Lowden of Wilson James, who pointed out that some players in the industry clearly don’t want anything to change – regulation or not. “We cannot go on exploiting people who see the industry as their only hope of employment,” countered Dickinson. “The industry must change because the market wants it to. Going back to my point about companies’ own responsibilities, many are taking significant risks with their present security and Health and Safety arrangements. Regrettably, it may take a disaster in order for things to change.”
The Regulator’s acting chief executive Andy Drane then talked about SIA enforcement on the back of two official reports (Hampton and McCrory). Security Management Today carried Drane’s arguments in the May edition (‘SIA enforcement: too hard or too soft?’).
Regulation: creating positive change
One of the day’s real highlights was an intriguing head-to-head encounter between former Lincolnshire Police chief constable Richard Childs of the Community Safety Consultancy and Robin Dahlberg, vice-chairman of the Regulator. Billed as a debate between them to address the assertion that: ‘Regulation has generated a positive change in the security sector’, the session was chaired by the SIA’s previous chairman, Peter Hermitage.
Kicking off in characteristically challenging mode, Childs remarked that it was time to take off the rose-tinted spectacles and ‘talk turkey’. “Factors including image, reputation, quality of service, public reputation and commercial potential were what licensing was supposed to be all about. However, the SIA has been in operation for four years now and things are not good. What faith can anyone have that anything is going to change?”
Childs moved to detail the reasons why he feels so strongly on this issue. First, he described the SIA as having “a belief in bureaucracy, and making systems as complex as possible without empirical evidence underpinning what it does. There is an attitude of near contempt for those who work in the industry. The SIA has systematically exhibited a profound deafness to criticisms and there is a failure to openly and comprehensively consult. The Regulator prefers to talk to a select few and issue edicts instead of engaging with the wider security community for fear that it might hear things it doesn’t want to. Moreover, until today – which is a little late – there has been no proper Stakeholder engagement.”
Childs continued: “There’s still no professional career path within the industry, and wage rates for staff remain low. Margins are little better than before, while contracts change hands with probably increased frequency because clients still buy on price and do not value individual licensing. The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) has little credibility in terms of raising standards. Companies are joining so that they can employ and deploy officers without licences, not because it gives them a quality edge or offers value for money.
“Security companies are self-certifying themselves for the ACS when they are below the required standard. For now, the SIA is maintaining the Fast Track approvals route, although it said this would go, effectively undermining those who have worked and invested properly to achieve ACS status.”
The onslaught didn’t end there. “There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the ACS has achieved anything in terms of raising standards, as the hoops it imposes on companies have been erected and maintained on highly dubious evidential ground about what could and should be achieved,” said Childs. “Moreover, there’s not enough licensing enforcement being carried out. Why are there only 16 enforcement officers in place instead of the 40 promised?
“On that note, the SIA’s numbers are consistently wrong. The Regulator hikes up its charges without meaningful consultation or understanding of the consequential effects on businesses. There’s absolutely no trade-off in terms of improved quality of service.”
A response from the Regulator
Given the unenviable task of responding to this wide-ranging critique, Robin Dahlberg disarmingly agreed with many of Childs’ points. He noted, for example, that contract margins often appear so low as to be commercially unviable.
However, he stressed that it’s not the SIA’s job to run the industry’s businesses for them and, despite the advent of licensing, security contractors must continue to compete on price as part of their expansion strategies.
“By the way,” exclaimed Dahlberg, “over the past year not one single guarding company manager has said to us that their intention is to raise their margins. Yet it seems to me that offering customers a more sophisticated solution, rather than simply providing labour, is likely to lead to greater margins.”
Replying to Childs’ remark that (former SIA chief executive) John Saunders’ familiar phrase about ‘transforming’ the industry is one that the Authority does not use anymore, Dahlberg stated: “We have to be realistic. We can do a number of things, but we need to speak with one voice to influence Government policy and devise a coherent plan for raising standards. Collectively, we can transform this industry.”
Dahlberg added that he concurred with Childs’ observation that the new Stakeholder Engagement Strategy had been too long – three years, in fact – in the making: “It was a mistake not to have introduced this sooner.” Dahlberg also conceded that, although the SIA has been pretty successful in dealing with the security guarding sector, it has been notably less effective when engaging with door supervisors.
Dahlberg took on the chin Childs’ remark that the SIA is “a Regulator that is so feared people are frightened to stand up and criticise it to its face”. Childs polemically followed up by stating that: “For a body that effectively taxes the industry, why should it not introduce practical improvements such as multiple licence applications and the ability to file these online? In other words, changes that would make the regulation service better?”
Building trust, raising standards
Dahlberg countered that the SIA “does need to rebuild trust in order to come up with a coherent way of raising standards”. In this context, he grasped the opportunity of responding to another of Childs’ commentaries, namely the question of why it is not possible for ACS membership to be a compulsory element within security guarding tenders sought by public authorities. “This is a real problem because, at present, the Treasury only insists on them seeking value for money.”
Turning to training, Childs was again on the offensive, asking why the Regulator did not flex its muscles on issues such as requiring English language skills for contract security officers. “We took the view that we should require English for reasons including Health and Safety and general communication with the public,” Dahlberg answered. “However, we also recognise that there are a large number of migrant workers in the industry, and we wanted to avoid rendering many of them unemployed. The intention was that if individuals were identified as requiring tuition they would be given the appropriate training, but clearly this has not worked out as well as it should have done.”
On a linked subject, Dahlberg was able to counter Childs’ question concerning the Regulator’s political position in relation to the topic of licences for sports stadium stewards, as well as that of licensing for in-house operatives. “The Home Office’s attitude towards the SIA has been perceptibly transformed over the past year. The delay over licensing of private investigators was a Home Office resource issue.”
Dahlberg provided an interesting insight into the SIA’s income stream when he divulged that this comprises just two sources: the ACS, which accounts for some 10%, with licences supplying the other 90% of revenue – income which the Treasury believes should jointly comprise a self-financing combination.
Winding up the debate in a more optimistic frame of mind, Childs said: “I’ve been encouraged by what I’ve heard today. There does seem to be a sense of change happening, and we can look forward with some optimism to the future.”
For his part, Dahlberg admitted: “The ride towards regulation has been pretty bumpy at times since 2003 and, with hindsight, I wish we’d looked at the map a little more before setting off on our journey. That said, I’m quite pleased with what’s been achieved. We now need to look forward to the next phase.”
Having acted impartially throughout, session chairman Peter Hermitage then invited delegates to take part in a ‘straw poll’ in relation to what they had heard from both speakers – in the form of an audible cheer. To both speaker’s credit, the volume of audience response was fairly well matched. Richard Childs signed off with the charitable – and accurate – comment that Robin Dahlberg had been very game to take the stage and the flak!
Making security more competitive
Professor Martin Gill – director of Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International – briefed delegates on the ways in which he feels regulation can render the security sector more competitive (buoyed by the findings of ongoing studies undertaken as part of the three-year Security Research Initiative).
Most of the end users Gill has interviewed thus far are unimpressed with their security services provider(s), noting that they continue to undercut each other by competing on price. It remains far from obvious to clients what kind of added value the contracted-in security service is offering. “It’s not good enough for providers to say: ‘We protect your assets’. There must be a more sophisticated message and a more detailed explanation of what tasks are being carried out on behalf of the client.”
Gill concluded his delivery: “Security should be at the heart of the organisation, but in many cases it’s being marginalised. It can – and should – be helping to improve business performance and profitability.”
