Security Management Today (SMT): What are the biggest issues you’re facing as an events organisation?
Mark Harding (MH): The past five years have witnessed rapid change in the industry. The Government has introduced much-needed legislation, and there is a desire from within our sector to improve standards. Showsec has been actively involved in driving those changes forward independently, through education and as part of the UK Crowd Management Association (UKCMA). On a company level, achieving Investors in People in 2005 represented a significant milestone for us.
At the outset of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) failed to recognise the event industry as a sector significantly affected by the changes. After a lengthy period of campaigning, largely by the UKCMA, we are finally beginning to achieve the level of recognition that’s required for the industry. We now have a good dialogue with the SIA, and we’re working hard to achieve the same goals. Voluntary initiatives such as the SIA’s Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) can work effectively for all those involved.
Another issue for the events sector has been the disparate range of training courses, qualifications and awarding bodies offering varied products over the past 20 years.
At Showsec, one way we’re trying to tackle this problem is by becoming a Stakeholder in those qualifications, ensuring that they are relevant to the industry, of a high quality, achievable and practical to implement. We’ve made significant contributions to Buckinghamshire New University (BNU)’s crowd management foundation degree course, providing study material, expertise, sponsorship and tuition.
By the end of 2009, 16 of our managers will have completed the course, many of them moving onto additional further education.
At Showsec, we believe in education for all. Our commitment is already in line with Government policy. Every steward and SIA-licensed member of staff must acquire a Level 2 qualification through the company training scheme. That’s some commitment. In 2007, we delivered nearly 3,000 Level 2 qualifications, driving industry standards to a new level.
SMT: There has been a furore over the football stewarding situation and the exemption of Premiership in-house teams from Government licensing. What are your views on this, Mark?
MH: Licensing and regulation in the football sector is still a significant issue for us. There’s an uneven playing field, if you’ll pardon the pun, between contract security companies like ourselves and in-house teams.
The Football Association has been granted exemption from SIA licensing by introducing a comparable scheme of training (CEMS). With different qualifications and training required to carry out what is essentially the same function, no-one benefits. Clubs and commercial entities have to operate or administer two totally different schemes.
The second exemption is for in-house security operatives. In-house employees providing a security service don’t have to be vetted or licensed. That may undermine the growing confidence created by legislation. Realistically, someone can be rejected by a commercial enterprise because they don’t qualify for a licence, but can then decide to go elsewhere and take up the same role as an in-house employee.
The current situation has created a dual system that, to my mind, benefits nobody. The SIA fought hard against the exemption, and we supported its views. It was extremely disappointing that the scheme could be made exempt for a minority.
Nearly 250,000 SIA licences have been granted and, as far as I’m aware, less than 5,000 CEMS awarded in over two years. It can be argued that exemption was a mistake for all concerned. Those in-house staff who acquire the alternative CEMS qualification are unable to work as security personnel outside of their sporting environment.
For us to deliver an individual to work as a security operative inside a football club, we have to provide two qualifications.
The criteria operated by some clubs and their sub-contractors is that operatives only need to pass an interview and complete the first part of a Health and Safety training course before they can go on duty under supervision. They subsequently have a period of over 12 months to achieve a qualification.
It’s clear that there are varying standards of training in the football sector. It would be interesting for football to demonstrate the success of its training schemes in a league table. Football should not only be made accountable, but be proud of any achievements. Again, the football sector may be unwittingly accommodating individuals who would not be licensed by the SIA through this alternative system.
On a separate issue, I believe that all stewards should be licensed. Let’s make the entire industry clean. The basis for licensing is to strengthen public confidence, safeguard its members and make them feel safer.
SMT: Why did you initially decide to join the SIA’s Approved Contractor Scheme, and what has the process involved from your perspective as a company?
MH: The ACS was introduced as a voluntary initiative by the SIA, inviting companies to sign up to a closely monitored programme of business standards and ethics which ensure financial and operational Best Practice and transparency at every level. In principal, it’s an idea that Showsec has always supported. We took the view that this scheme could only increase the level of professionalism in the industry, and we very much want to improve standards and work with official bodies.
In conjunction with other standards, such as Investors in People, ACS accreditation is a valuable asset. Our clients are assured that we are delivering high quality industry standards.
The ACS requires significant investment and, in the longer term, we believe there will be commercial benefits deriving from it.
SMT: What difficulties have you had with the ACS thus far?
MH: SIA licensing is a relatively young scheme, and it would be fair to say that the Regulator has limited resources coupled with high commercial and public expectations.
At the outset, there was a lack of consultation with the industry. The SIA is working hard to resolve the deficiency, an example of which is the recent consultation on the April 2008 ACS sub-contracting policy. This policy was intended to promote ACS companies, at the same time protecting the public from receiving an inferior service.
Our experience of sub-contracting is that standards are generally lower, and that there is a lack of ownership of work. Showsec uses sub-contracting only as a last resort. Our 2007 sub-contracting outlay was only 5.6% of turnover.
The bulk of sub-contracting occurs for three reasons: to meet the short-term needs of rapid growth, during peak periods of work and where we have limited resources in a specific region of the UK.
Official figures show that there’s a shortage of SIA-licensed staff to fulfil the needs of the market. We raised this issue with the Regulator and received a positive response. The SIA has implemented a number of practical exemptions to its 2008 policy, including where companies are sub-contracting to self-employed operatives or where sub-contracted labour is under the direct supervision of the main contractor.
The fact that the SIA has listened to the expertise within the UKCMA is hugely encouraging for the future of the sector.
SMT: Has ACS registration been beneficial for you and, if so, in what ways?
MH: Being an ACS company should give us a competitive advantage over non-accredited companies. There’s a dual responsibility for both the SIA and members of the scheme to make event organisers and local authorities aware of its existence and value.
It’s also important to understand that the scheme is not all-encompassing. Companies are ACS-approved for individual functions, not for all security services.
The more forward-thinking local authorities like Manchester City Council have bought into the idea of the ACS. However, there are many security contracts within local authorities which still don’t stipulate ACS membership.
SMT: Another separate but related issue is the recent increase in cost for individual licences. There’s now going to be an annual review. If the cost keeps on rising – and it might – how will contractors be able to offer any additional value in line with this?
MH: Of course, some of the costs of licensing have been passed on. I would argue that companies like Showsec (and other UKCMA members) now provide added value through additional training.
Showsec is accredited to the NCFE for stewarding and the BIIAB for licence training. Both deliver Level 2 qualifications.
Our stewards and security personnel are trained on an equal basis. Achieving a qualification is the foundation for carrying out the job. Development and training doesn’t end there, though.
Yes, we do find ourselves facing up to licensing costs rising, added to which is the cost of adhering to the industry ‘gold standard’ in the form of the ACS. However, once the ACS begins to be more widely understood among our customers, we – and other ACS registered companies – will hopefully begin to see the commercial benefit of operating to the highest possible levels. Customers will be able to see the added value in terms of a more accountable, transparent service over which they have more direct influence.
I feel we will also begin to see the benefits from the regulation when local authorities add-in ACS as a necessary element of their tender documents.
While the 2007 licence increase exceeded the level of inflation, it didn’t prevent our employees from renewing.
Ultimately, I’m comfortable with helping to fund the SIA if it fulfils its intended role.
SMT: There has been a clamour in the guarding sector for rigorous enforcement of licensing and the ACS. What about targeted checking and inspection? Is it evident in the events sector, Mark?
MH: Yes. We have been monitored, and that’s more than fair. We are – and will continue to be – co-operative in every case. Legitimate companies shouldn’t fear investigation.
We are continuously improving our systems, and making them more robust. We strive to get things right. The SIA’s ability to monitor its systems is still constrained by its own Human Resources situation. Investigation staff are limited to the number of operational days they can complete. There are not enough SIA staff to cover the whole of the UK.
The Regulator has actively encouraged whistle-blowing of companies and operatives working illegally, and the UKCMA fully supports that system. Indeed, we will continue to back the SIA in any way we can.
The SIA has been very positive in its approach to enforcement, preferring to educate and enforce rather than rely on immediate prosecution.
SMT: Many guarding companies are taking on operatives for whom English is not their first language. Do you employ such staff and, if so, what do you do in terms of training and upskilling?
MH: This is a very topical issue. We have robust procedures in place to deal with this matter, and we’ve been very stringent about checking visas and their expiry dates.
Matt Wray (MW): Being able to speak English is essential from a Health and Safety point of view. Communication is one of the key tools of a safe event, and an operative who couldn’t understand emergency instructions would be an obvious liability. For every six applications we receive, we employ only one person.
Showsec has a robust training procedure in place for crowd management and security functions, and our interviewers understand that. While extending opportunities in all areas, they must establish an applicant’s basic competencies are in line with essential abilities, and that their legal status is in order. If someone cannot communicate in person to the general public or over a radio system, we wouldn’t take them on.
The UK Asylum Seekers’ Council provides free courses in English through access colleges. We would direct individuals there and then welcome a further application from them when they have learned to converse in English.
MH: We’re not trying to exclude people, but those we employ must pass all the standards required for the role.
MW: It doesn’t matter what qualifications someone may or may not hold when they apply. Showsec as a company doesn’t rely on anything else as a ‘stamp of approval’ – not even the SIA licence. The individual concerned has to be assessed and deemed good enough to work for us.
We have copies of all the appropriate visas so that we can check peoples’ validity and legitimacy. We have copies of everything. We are not given automatic updates if visas change, and must source the specimen copies ourselves direct from the Home Office.
Debbie Atherton (DA): Increasingly, many of the clients we work for want to audit our systems for themselves, which we allow them to do. They’ll look at personnel files for proof of eligibility to work in the UK.
MW: Our bespoke IT system manages the whole process. We add dates to show when visas lapse. Work will not be given out to anyone unless their visas are valid. That protects the company and the individual.
SMT: What are the prime concerns for you, Debbie, as the head of HR at such a high profile and well-respected event security and crowd management company?
DA: Securing the volume of suitable people we need is my department’s primary role. The standards we operate to mean that we have to put in a great deal of hard work to hire a single suitable member of staff. Everyone is fully trained before they’re allowed on site.
It’s a pretty intensive process. In London and Manchester, for example, we’re dealing with many foreign nationals, which in itself presents us with quite a challenge.
MH: We have experienced a skills shortage in terms of junior operational management to run our venues. In the past, candidates have ’emerged’ from the marketplace. The problem is there’s no generic outlet that teaches people how to run venues.
Many of our staff join us by looking for a job in the events sector as a secondary income. We take people from a wide range of backgrounds, offer them opportunities and encourage their personal development. Our objective is to retain the staff following significant investment in them, but also to develop their skills and offer genuine career paths within the industry.
SMT: Is there not a need, then, for some kind of college or university that could act as a Centre of Excellence?
MH: As a company, we are significantly involved in the development of the crowd management degree at Buckingham New University (BNU). However, it’s aimed at higher education. To this end, our management team has devised many new concepts in career development within the industry.
We are also thrilled with the development of our new Showsec Academy which opens next month. It will offer specially-tailored vocational training and development courses to potential operational executives. We are seeking to recruit personnel with a positive attitude and a desire to succeed within the industry. We’ll create good opportunities for the right people.
It’s important for employees to fully understand the customer-focused ethos of the company. Our primary goal is customer satisfaction, underpinned by a strong but fair security policy enforcement.
DA: Management skills are an essential quality in our recruits. We have a two-day leadership course in place. On occasion, we’ll employ managers who have not risen through the ranks but come from outside the company. That’s rare, but it does happen.
We have set out a transparent and cohesive training programme using an array of external and internal courses. The event industry is too diverse, with too many different skills requirements for one entity to deliver all training and education.
SMT: How important is training and development at Showsec, and for the events industry in general?
MH: It’s fundamental. We place continuous emphasis on progressive training and make a substantial investment in it.
About four years ago we took a strategic decision to upskill the workforce and make training and career development the best in the industry. We are constantly seeking industry-related qualifications that underpin a structured career path for our employees, and that means a structured approach to qualifications. This will bring about benefits to the industry, to the public and to individual workers themselves.
When we embark on this journey, we must always be mindful that we need to take other companies with us. That’s one of the reasons why I became chairman of the UK Crowd Management Association (‘Harding outlines future priorities for UKCMA’, News Update, SMT, November 2007, p13). We must continually encourage new members to join and other organisations to achieve the necessary standards.
The UKCMA wants to see a standardisation of training. We have made good progress in achieving a consensus among UKCMA members in specialist areas of industry work. BNU has played a key role in authenticating the course and providing certification.
We are working with BNU to represent the academic element of the crowd management sector. The UKCMA would encourage approaches from all educational institutions which can support the industry. We’re not limited to one supplier. We wish to find a range of avenues that will bring a value to our staff and raise standards of professionalism throughout the events sector.
SMT: Is the degree in crowd management from BNU now seen as the benchmark?
MH: As far as operational managers are concerned, the answer is very definitely ‘Yes’, but within the industry we supply more than just a crowd management solution. With the Academy, we want to kick-start the whole progressive educational route, incorporating a multitude of qualifications and competencies.
Of our 28 operational managers, 22 now hold a degree. Not all of those qualifications are industry-related, but this demonstrates our desire to change the events industry. It’s a fantastic achievement, but we’re not just looking for the academic member of staff. The most important element is that they are competent in their role and have a really positive attitude.
We are so customer-focused now, looking for a combined long-term relationship with our clients. We aim to be service partners rather than a contractor. Clients have recognised this change in service provision. They too are seeking commercial recognition and a vibrant flexible attitude from us, with a firm focus on them as the buyer and end user. We all recognise the need for ‘guaranteeing’ returning customers at venues. We are an intrinsic partner in making sure that happens.
SMT: Looking further afield, do you borrow any ideas from your compatriots in Europe, or indeed look to export your own?
MH: We have carried out significant work abroad, and transported our expertise to several European countries. Recent consultations in Germany, Denmark, Portugal and Romania are examples of how far our ‘product’ reaches.
The UK events industry should continue to open its ideas to a wider range of operational procedures and systems. It would be misguided to assume that the UK is the best in the world. We can all take ideas from our European cousins.
There will always be a need to look at improvements to systems, consider knowledge transfer and reassess customer service.