Prior to 2001, security guarding in the UK was basically unregulated. Within this unregulated business model, considerable trust and responsibility could be placed in the hands of an untrustworthy security guarding service provider.
There was, however, increasing concern that, in the existing system, undesirable elements of society could enter the guarding arena, and without training or criminal record checks, establish a potentially profitable business.
In order to regulate the guarding sector and at the same time introduce an element of control, the Government introduced the Private Security Industry Act. Within that legislation, several facets of security provision are covered:
– Cash-and-Valuables in Transit
– close protection
– door supervision
– Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
– security guarding
Surprisingly for many of those involved with – and working in – the security sector, the Private Security Industry Act 2001 included proposals for the licensing of security consultants within its remit.
Come February 2006, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) announced a delay to the development of licensing for security consultants until late 2007. In May 2007, the Regulator conducted a consultation exercise looking at whether or not its recommendation to the Home Office should be for a further long term delay. In the event, just 89 responses were received from a wide range of individuals and companies encompassing sole practitioners, private companies and public sector organisations such as the police service.
The majority wanted to defer consideration of licensing until 2010 at the earliest. The main argument supporting this postponement was that there’s little or no evidence of risk to the public from consultants not being regulated.
In view of these findings the Home Office agreed to postpone consideration of the development of licensing for security consultants until at least 2010. Following standard practice, proposals for regulation will then be published for consultation in a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
Review of the professional hierarchy
In an effort to progress licensing, much effort has been expended by others in trying to define the role of the security consultant and in endeavouring to conjure up a consensus for a list of competencies that might designate the role of such an individual.
It’s our belief, however, that we should begin by considering where the security consultant will fit in terms of the professional hierarchy. This will set out the abilities required to become a security consultant, and define how they will be expected to perform that role rather than scratching about in the weeds in terms of the tasks they perform.
From our own knowledge of the nature and standard of work undertaken by security consultants, we believe that professionally we stand shoulder to shoulder alongside chartered surveyors, chartered engineers, accountants, architects and so on. In accepting that premise, any proposals for the regulation of security consultants can be put into perspective.
If security consultants wish to achieve the same professional status as individuals within other professional bodies, they must be prepared to accept the same membership Terms and Conditions as those bodies. In looking for a model for the regulation of the profession, it’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel or look abroad to find something that will suit security consultants. There are many good examples of professional regulation right here in the UK.
Examination of the engineering model
30 years ago, Sir Monty Finniston was asked by the Government to undertake a review of the engineering profession. Published in 1980, The Finniston Report established the Chartered Engineering Institution – now The Engineering Council – and defined three parts to registration which are still maintained to this day.
Those three elements are the educational base, professional development and professional review.
The model for regulating the engineering profession provides a good example of a structure from which we could generate a framework for the regulation of the security consultant. The Engineering Council of the United Kingdom (ECUK) is an organisation set up by Royal Charter to regulate the engineering profession in the UK. The profession is regulated by the ECUK through 36 engineering institutions (in other words, members licensed to place suitably qualified members on the ECUK’s Register of Engineers).
The ECUK achieves this by working through the engineering institutions. Those institutions provide the standard for the assessment of individuals, for the education programmes and the professional development programmes.
The Register of Engineers has three sections: chartered engineer, incorporated engineer and engineering technician. These titles are protected by The Engineering Council’s Royal Charter, and may only be used by registrants. The ECUK’s mission is to set and maintain realistic and internationally recognised standards of professional competence and ethics for engineers, technologists and technicians, and to license competent institutions to promote and uphold the standards.
In 2000, Sir James Hamilton undertook a review of the engineering profession both here in the UK and abroad on the subject of licensing, and concluded the following: “The UK has protection of the titles CEng, IEng and EngTech plus a Register but, apart from some very limited activities, no system of licensing is in place. The question here is whether an extended list of licensed disciplines would enhance the profession (‘enhance’ in this context is taken to include service to the public as well as status).”
Hamilton continued: “The usual argument is that the only effective way to improve the standing of the profession in this country is through a system of licensing with protection of the term ‘engineer’. I have to say that I do not find this line of reasoning persuasive. The analogy drawn with other ‘licensed’ professions such as the medical and veterinary professions seems to me to be invalid – their status does not depend on licensing. Nor do I believe that the status of the engineering profession would be enhanced by such a move. Indeed, the legislative complication could well make things worse.”
Bear in mind that the ECUK is a regulating organisation which works through the professional institutions to set the standards and regulate membership of the Engineering Register.
Licensing and the Private Security Industry Act 2001
The inclusion of security consultants in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 demonstrated a great misunderstanding by those who prepared the Act, particularly in terms of the role of the security consultant.
Security consultants generally work for business clients and, more often than not, are under contract for that work. The role of the consultant is primarily to provide independent security advice to clients and to assist those same clients – again, independently – to implement that advice. Security consultants generally have no direct contact with the public and the public cannot therefore be said to be directly at risk.
The main intent of licensing is given to be to protect the public from risk. This is understandable in terms of security guarding where front line officers have direct contact with members of the public.
Licensing will not regulate the education, training and experience of security consultants. This is more appropriately achieved by membership of a relevant professional organisation. Taking Hamiliton’s view, licensing does not enhance the profession.
Regulation of security professionals
Putting licensing to one side for a moment, there’s no question that regulation would enhance the status of the security profession. Regulation will enable the security professional to demonstrate his or her professional status and operation to a recognised standard. Regulation offers openness and transparency regarding the robustness of that standard, so too confirmation for prospective clients that the person concerned is on the Register of the regulating organisation.
It also allows disciplinary proceedings in the event of a failure in any consultant’s professional capacity.
There are only two necessary requirements for the regulation of security professionals – the protection of the title and the maintenance of a Register of those permitted to use that title.
Security professionals should therefore be setting their sights on regulation being achieved through membership of one of the professional security associations such as the Association of Security Consultants (ASC). The membership requirements of those associations will need to be prescribed and standards set to meet those of the other professional bodies.
Founded in November 1991 as the professional organisation for security consultants, the ASC was one of the prime movers in setting standards for membership. Originally created as a trade organisation to generate work for consultants, it remains a showcase for the benefit of its members.
Revising the requirements for membership
The organisation has continually revisited and revised its requirements for membership in order to satisfy the primary aim – to maintain the highest professional standards among its members – and it’s also a membership requirement that individuals must maintain a personal Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record.
In this regard, the ASC assists members by organising five meetings a year in which businesses in the security world are invited to make presentations concerning current security developments. The meetings are held in central London, are well attended and informative.
Also contributing to CPD points is the Annual Conference – designated Consec – at the RAF Museum in Hendon where distinguished speakers are invited to update members and guests on significant events in the wider security world. In the past, speakers have ranged from Government ministers through to heads of the security services and corporate security specialists.
In addition, details of other security-related CPD seminars are circulated to members to assist with their own CPD.
The ASC is therefore constantly working towards achieving a framework which will create a foundation not only to regulate the profession but also to support its members in their ongoing professional development.
Establishing our credibility as a profession
If we lack the courage or conviction in our own ability to stand alongside the other professions and prove our value, we will fail in this opportunity to establish our credibility as a profession.
If security consultants believe as we do, that they stand alongside the other professions, then we must be prepared to substantiate that bold claim. We cannot expect our clients or our professional colleagues to view us with the same status or regard until we show that we’re prepared to adopt the same criteria as those professions to whom we aspire.
Roy Sutherland is a sirector of Sutherland Roberts Security (SRS) and current chairman of the Association of Security Consultants (ASC)
Chris Roberts is a fellow director of SRS and treasurer of the ASC