Brian Sims (SMT Online): Looking back on March 2002, David, when you became chief executive of the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), what do you feel were the major issues at the time, and how well do you feel the Association has dealt with them since?
David Dickinson: It’s very interesting to go back to that moment, Brian, and pose a few questions. ‘Where were we as a Trade Association?’… ‘What was the prevailing situation in the security industry?’… ‘Did that situation sit well with the image of what we wanted the industry to be?’
At that particular time, we didn’t really know what the regulatory regime in the shape of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) was going to look like. We didn’t know who the personalities within the Regulator were going to be. All we knew was that, for many years, so many of us had been wanting to promote regulation of the industry because, as Jorgen Philip Sorensen said 30 years before, the fortunes of the security guarding sector – and, indeed, the security industry in general – are far too important to be left to market forces alone.
I know that comment offends some purists. I once voiced it to Digby Jones when he was director-general at the Confederation of British Industry, and he gave me the impression he was quite offended.
You cannot be totally capitalistic about such matters. If we’re going to be an industry that delivers robust security and the right levels of reassurance to members of the public, then that public has a right to expect some degree of transparency and accountability. Back in 2002, that’s what we were hoping would come out of regulation.
Let’s remember that, in many cases, people back then were only completing two days’ Basic Job Training. Some weren’t even doing that. There was no clear indication of what road the Security Industry Training Organisation (SITO) would follow. All we knew was that SITO would cease to be an Industry Training Organisation, and was busily looking to establish a role for itself as a Sector Skills Council.
The belief held by some was that this status could only be achieved by the security sector joining forces with the cleaning industry and/or the parking sector. Quite rightly, the real thinkers and strategists in the industry viewed that theory as a bad one because, if brought to fruition, it would have diluted the uniqueness of what it was we were as an industry and, more importantly, what the security industry aspired to be.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): In the early days, one of your major tasks was to forge key working relationships with numerous factions. For you, which of those dialogues has been the most important?
David Dickinson: At the outset, I firmly believed the most important relationship the BSIA had to forge would be with the Regulator. We absolutely had to be sure that our voice would be heard by Government in a responsive and co-operative way.
It was an amazing period, because [then SIA chief executive] John Saunders and I quickly discovered that we shared a number of objectives for this industry. Here was a man with whom you could do business on all kinds of levels. A pragmatist who, if necessary, was actually quite prepared to frighten the Government machine in order to establish the regulatory framework he believed was the right one for the future.
I can vividly recall some of John’s phrases. ‘The present business model is not sustainable’… ‘Margins cannot go on being cut, and the market cannot go on forcing down prices’. John’s was a very consistent message.
By the middle of 2002, we’d established a clear understanding of where the BSIA fitted into the grand scheme of things, and just how much it could offer in terms of resources to bring into being a realistic and sensible regulatory framework. Unfortunately, the Private Security Industry Act was flawed in many ways.
The thing I regret most is that, back in 2000 and 2001, we weren’t more successful in persuading Government ministers to listen to the concerns of the thinkers in the industry because it’s clear now that companies should have been regulated. It’s also evident there should be some connection between the employee and the employer in terms of licences. We must also be honest and state that leaving the in-house security operation outside the scope of regulation was a mistake.
The problem is that once you recognise these points it can be a long and drawn out process to change matters, largely because of the ongoing commitment to Better Regulation.
I’ve written to ministers and suggested that regulation can be seen in two guises. There’s good regulation that’s for the benefit of everyone, and there’s regulation that merely imposes burdens. What we have is good regulation with a capital G. I believe that, in Vernon Coaker, we had – and continue to have – a minister who would listen to and act upon the genuine beliefs of people in the industry.
Although we’re now well into the regulatory phase, we may well see the outstanding issues I’ve mentioned here put right.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): Of those outstanding issues, which do you think should be of paramount importance on the Government’s agenda, David?
David Dickinson: The most serious issue in my view is the compulsory registration of companies carrying out licensable activities. Look at the number of fly-by-night operations still around and still doing business. That’s a tragedy in itself, but the real tragedy is the fact that it’s names you and I will recognise, Brian, who’ll give such companies contracts to operate.
We viewed the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) as an opportunity, but the problem with a voluntary scheme is that it’s only applicable to the people who do volunteer. That said, there has to be a commercial advantage to volunteering. The advantage was going to be Licence Dispensation Notices. The second and most important advantage should be – and yet isn’t, in my view – that the ACS becomes a clear differentiator between one way of doing business and another.
It must also be difficult to become ACS registered. That’s not about whether you’re a small or large company, rather it’s about whether you’re good or bad at service provision. Caring or not caring. Are you genuinely professional or guilty of cutting corners when it suits?
In my opinion, the SIA simply must make the ACS more robust and, at the same time, transparent. We recognise the problems the Regulator is having in view of the Government’s stance on Better Regulation, but the scheme has to be a real differentiator or it will fail. Today, it’s at a crossroads. At the moment, it might look to some as though the ACS is all about having as many companies jumping over the bar as possible. The promise of embedding British Standards doesn’t appear – at the present time, anyway – to be on the agenda.
The best regimes are a mixture of assessment and inspection. I can see a way of making it possible for companies to have their inspection and assessment as a joint event, which would not only save them time and money but also make the ACS far more robust.
Then there’ll be a case for going to Government departments and saying: ‘Ministers are saying you must support this initiative, and spend public money in the wisest possible way. That means using companies who have voluntarily agreed to go the extra mile.’ That most definitely needs to happen.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): If you had to pick one pivotal moment of your time at the helm, David, what would it be?
David Dickinson: That’s easy. It would have to be the moment when the Council of the BSIA, with total altruism, agreed to gift SITO its assets and some seed corn finance for the new skills body Skills for Security. I believe that particular decision has been vindicated time and time and time again.
We were lucky that Linda Sharpe was able to serve so very diligently as interim chief executive. Linda set the guidelines for the new skills and training body. Now, I have the greatest admiration for what David Greer is doing. David brings a wonderful combination of Government knowledge and business acumen to the role, and a real commitment to the right values and the tasks at hand. It’s plainly obvious David is building a tremendous team around him, and I firmly believe Skills for Security will go on to do great things.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): There has been a suggestion by three Sector Skills Councils about, in effect, splitting the security industry into three when it comes to skills training. What’s your take on that?
David Dickinson: It’s a crazy notion at a time when all the talk is about the integration of security solutions and the need for one voice. Let’s be clear about this. The industry has a perfectly sensible case for having its own sector skills body, and for the Skills Commission to recognise that body and work with it.
Nobody – but nobody – I’ve talked to can see any sense in lumping security guarding in with facilities management, for example, or Cash-in-Transit with facilities management. It’s a total nonsense. Both the BSIA and Skills for Security will fight any such proposition tooth and nail. We believe the future of our industry lies in having a strong and fully-integrated skills approach.
The commitment employers have shown towards that approach these past five years has been enormous. Companies spend in excess of GB pound 90 million every year on training. Not Government money, but the industry’s own money. Skills for Security generates income by delivering what people want, and does so very successfully, too. It’s a not-for-profit organisation, and there’s an absolute commitment from the Board to reinvest any surpluses the following year.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): Before the ACS came into being, there was a feeling that BSIA membership was a guarantor of companies’ robustness and ‘ability to do the job’ when it came to selection during tender. Now that the ACS is here, some of those companies are questioning why they should pay into two organisations.
David Dickinson: People were writing us off post-regulation, suggesting that the BSIA was no longer relevant. As the ACS ‘badge’ was to be the guarantor of work, some companies questioned why they needed the BSIA badge of membership as well.
All I can say is that if anyone joined the BSIA just to try and win guarding contracts that perhaps wasn’t the best approach or reason for doing so and, as a result, they probably didn’t realise the major benefits of membership.
Fortunately, plenty of our members offer strong and cohesive support to the Association and one another. One of the great things about the BSIA is that when members come together to discuss important issues, they leave their company hats at the door. The other great strength, of course, is that we operate on a One Member, One Vote basis. The BSIA really is a genuine democracy.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): The other – and, frankly, tiresome – accusation continually levelled at the BSIA is that it’s a Big Boys’ Club. How do you react to that, David?
David Dickinson: In truth, 80% of our members are SMEs. The Big Boys are there, and we’re very proud of that fact, but they have the same vote as the smaller companies and that’s as it should be. Some of our best supporters are the smaller companies who’ve grown with time.
In the end, companies that deliver what they promise to the client will be successful. Those who don’t will fail. That’s an absolute certainty, and has nothing to do with the breadth and scope of an organisation.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): Back in 2001, there were quite a few companies – and notable individuals – suggesting that neither SITO nor the BSIA were properly representing the interests of the electronic side of the industry, particularly in terms of training. If that was the case, do you feel this issue has since been addressed?
David Dickinson: Those who have left the BSIA’s Security Systems Section and then proceeded to make all kinds of mischief would like to believe that we don’t represent them. Well we do. We represent them on Euralarm, on the ACPO Liaison Committee, the British Standards Committees and the European Standards Committees.
Our commitment to members within the Security Systems Section equals our commitment to the rest of the BSIA Sections. Much of what is done for the electronics and technology side of the industry is very detailed and technical. It doesn’t make headlines, but people can rest assured that it does make sense and make a difference.
Much of what we do involves quiet diplomacy behind the scenes. I was ‘attacked’ by two Editors of other journals for not speaking out about the SIA’s supposed involvement in the illegal working problem. I wrote to both and said to them that if they’d properly understood the complexity of what was going on they wouldn’t have said what they did.
I read the interview in Security Management Today in which you spoke with Steve Kimber [chairman] and Stefan Hay [head] of the Fire and Security Association. I’m saddened beyond belief at the continued sniping from someone like Steve who has nearly ten years’ experience and involvement with the higher Councils of the BSIA.
After Steve left the BSIA he started to say he felt we didn’t have either the financial or human resources to make a difference for the electronics side of the industry. As a long-standing Council member he never once raised the issue, so what he’s saying now would seem to be an attempt at damaging the reputation of an Association of which he was proud to be a member for so many years.
Is that helping cohesion in the industry at a time when integration is the overriding priority? No, it isn’t. Surely he can let bygones be bygones? Let me say that I express these sentiments more in sorrow than in anger.
Returning to the illegal workers situation, what was crucial was that we solved the problem and didn’t just look to score points. There were a lot of complex issues involved. I think the fact that the BSIA is now able to talk to ministers directly and on a regular basis is an indication of the success of the policies we’ve followed.
Nobody emerged from the illegal worker revelations with clean hands. What we had to do was demonstrate a responsible and co-operative approach. That is what we did. Megaphone diplomacy might make the news, but it doesn’t engender satisfactory relationships.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): The rebranding of the BSIA and the move away from Security House to Kirkham House were fairly bold statements of intent, David. Do you think they’ve paid dividends for the Association?
David Dickinson: I said in the 40th Anniversary publication you expertly produced for us, Brian, that some people were talking about our demise a tad prematurely when in fact we’re only just coming into middle age.
It was important people realised there’s still a freshness in the organisation and lots of new ideas. Oddly enough, I was leafing through a publication and saw our old logo next to the SIA’s. I thought ours looked tired, so that’s why we rebranded.
To be honest, the Kirkham House move suited everyone. We had to make a statement about the future, and at the same time leave Skills for Security to function as an independent body. It’s worked out well for all of us.
We had a little concern members might think we were spending their money unwisely on having nice new offices, but not one has said we shouldn’t have done this. Those who’ve visited Kirkham House have all said: ‘This is more like it’, and that this is what we should be all about.
Kirkham House is a demonstration of a forward-thinking, confident organisation. We now have decent meeting and conference facilities. It also shows our partner organisations that we’re a substantial business with a real purpose and a solid future.
Another good decision we’ve made in recent times was to appoint David Evans to really begin a serious and productive involvement with planning for the 2012 Olympic Games. That’s going to pay huge dividends.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): Looking back, David, what do you feel has been your biggest achievement as chief executive and the most important imprint made by the BSIA as a Trade Association?
David Dickinson: For the BSIA, it has to be the willingness of Council and members to embrace the future of Skills for Security and recognise the advantage that move would give to our industry in general, and how much more inclusive it would make the skills body. That was key. We wouldn’t have had Skills if the BSIA Council and members hadn’t agreed to the move.
Then again, the prevailing attitude wasn’t that surprising. As you know, the BSIA has a history of letting organisations it has founded and fostered go off and become independent. The National Security Inspectorate is an excellent case in point.
On a personal level, when I was interviewed for the job I made it clear I wouldn’t be sitting at a desk all day and merely administering the organisation. ‘If you choose me,’ I said, ‘I’ll be out there banging the drum’.
We were going into a most critical period when the vital relationship for the BSIA would be with the Regulator and the Government. With the team around me, we have changed the perception of Government and others of the value of the BSIA and what our members actually do.
For example, back in 2002 we started off talking about the wider policing family. That phrase was first coined in public at a seminar in Bristol on 11 November 2003. That phrase has now become currency. My contribution to its development might be the fact there’s now a much improved relationship with ACPO. The success of the Cash-in-Transit initiatives like Operation SaferCash have also been real milestones. It’s a team effort.
Brian Sims (SMT Online): In closing, David, are you happy that the Association will now drive forward with purpose?
David Dickinson: There’s a very broad church within the BSIA, and inevitably some competing interests. Managing those interests such that we have a cohesion in what we are doing has been quite a challenge, but one which I have relished every step of the way.
As I now hand over the baton to John Bates, I must say that I think the decision on who to appoint as my successor is – and will prove to be – a very wise one. Inevitably, there was strong competition for this job and, as you’d expect, a rigorous selection process. This has brought us the very best man for the job. I leave the organisation with good heart and in safe hands.
Let me say this too, Brian. I have greatly admired the way in which you have taken such a robust stance in your editorials over the years. You are an essential and pivotal element in this industry. SMT has been the most robust, foremost and highly respected print journal in the sector, and that respect now carries over into SMT Online.
The quality and clarity of your reporting is why the BSIA bestowed its Chairman’s Award upon you in 2005. Keep up the good work.
SMT Online will soon be publishing the industry’s first in-depth interview with John Bates, David’s successor as BSIA chief executive. Watch this space…
