There can be no doubting the sincerity of Baroness Ruth Henig, the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) latest chairman, when she addressed the audience at her own organisation’s conference in Leicester during May (‘The SIA’s Changing Agenda’, SMT, June 2007, pp28-30). I’m sure that, if circumstances allow, the Baroness will do a fine job.
If there were two moments that outshone all others during the day then the first was a question from Ian Paton – head of security for DIY chain Focus, which operates over 250 stores from the north of Scotland to the tip of Cornwall. Then there was the contribution from Brian Kingham, chairman and majority shareholder at the Reliance Security Group.
Speaking of the written word
Ian’s question concerned the ability of non-English speaking individuals to carry out security duties. The answer was typically weak in that Baroness Henig suggested this is an issue that Skills for Security must deal with. In other words: “It’s nothing to do with us, mate”.
Pressed into service, outgoing Skills for Security chief executive Linda Sharpe did state: “This issue is very current at the moment.” Of course it is. It’s happening now!
The issue that no-one was prepared to address – least of all think about – is the problem that surrounds what we are to do with all of those people currently employed (and who have licences) in the security business sector who cannot speak or write in the English language. “How did they pass their SIA tests, then?” A question you might well ask.
Brian Kingham stood up and, not for the first time, criticised those whom he felt had bitten the hand that feeds them. It’s widely acknowledged that, according to Brian, the security industry owes him a great personal debt and that every time someone undercuts one of his company’s tenders they are effectively being disloyal to him.
Indeed, his reference to the industry being his “child” merely served to reinforce the point. Complete and utter tosh. It’s about time that Brian began to be honest with himself. In fact, it’s high time the industry did the same.
Whether or not the security industry wants, deserves or indeed needs regulation is all academic now that it’s here to stay. However, a fundamental question needs to be posed. Isn’t it time that we were honest about what is happening in the industry, and what it is that we want regulation to achieve?
To emphasise the point, let’s look at three areas in succession – namely security duties, training and CCTV.
Security duties examined
Providing security officers to patrol and ‘police’ private areas is not a new idea. It has been going on for years, both inside stores and shopping centres. The expansion of Community Warden schemes can be seen as a natural extension of these duties, and it’s very tempting to believe – having read all the literature produced by the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) and the SIA, for example – that all security officers are performing such duties, and need to be respected as such.
Utter rubbish. Drive around any industrial estate and you will see gatehouses. Inside these airless, toilet-bereft, unfriendly work places you will find someone who’s entrusted to raise and lower a barrier and record a few vehicle movements. Hang around for a while and you will see more officers turning up to provide a guarding service out of hours and, if you’re lucky, you may see a mobile patrol vehicle, too.
That is security in the real world. This is what goes on. It’s not glamorous, it’s low-skilled and not a lot is asked of the operative other than an ability to stay awake and go for a walk now and again with their eyes wide open.
Let’s start being honest now, and admit that security is not all glitz. It is (in part) anti-social, frequently dirty and, more often than not, boring. If we can at least admit this to ourselves then maybe we can start to move forward.
I worked for current BSIA chief executive David Dickinson in ‘the good old days’ at Group 4 when there was a training course for absolutely everything. There’s no doubt that my own three-month induction training programme – I was one of the last to pass through this module – set me up for working in an industry that, it must be said, has been kind to me. However, those days are long gone and we must now face the future.
The question raised by Ian Paton pretty much answers itself. For years, the major security companies have paid lip service to training. The pressure to make sure operatives are qualified and out on shift means that the certificate issued at the end is for attendance rather than ability. Not one of ‘The Big Four’ companies could survive if forced to rely purely on English-speaking operatives. That too is a fact demanding acknowledgement.
Finally, we are now the most watched-over nation in the world. Fact. My industry – our industry – has not uttered one single word on this subject. Professor Martin Gill puts his head above the parapet now and again and talks about the latest studies he – and others – are carrying out, but what of the companies who specify, install and manufacture the equipment? The silence is deafening.
As someone who’s ‘on the inside’, I’m appalled by what I see as the frequent over-specification of CCTV. Is it right that, as professionals, we put unrealistic fears into peoples’ minds in order to strike a deal, or indeed fail to dispel some obvious myths?
If CCTV were the answer to a maiden’s prayer, then we would have the safest streets in the world and commercial crime would be non-existent. Except for that fact that it isn’t.
Asking the CCTV industry to be honest with itself (and its customer base) might be tempting financial suicide. If it is not, though, what credibility can we claim in an industry predicated on honesty and integrity?
Towards professionalism
To Brian Kingham I would say: “The child has left home. Get over it.” To the industry at large I say: “Let’s be honest”. It might be painful at first, but we will never attain the goal of becoming a professional industry if we are not honest with ourselves and our clients.
I remember former Lincolnshire Police chief constable Richard Childs speaking at the launch of the SIA (‘From aspiration springs reality’, SMT, May 2003, pp20-26). He said: “The police service…neither respects nor trusts the private security industry.”
What Richard said hurt a great deal, but it hurt because it was true. Surely now is the time to make him eat his words?