In the early days of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) it’s fair to say that I was fairly critical of the approach adopted by the Regulator in relation to training.
There were many reasons for my apprehension. One of those reasons was straightforward. I believed that, when the new breed of SIA-compliant training was introduced, with the exception of the introduction of conflict management it was very much a rehash of the (then) current training standards across the industry.
Looking back, that moment represented an opportunity to truly review security training and introduce improved modules – including the introduction of vital elements such as counter-terrorism instruction – for the overall benefit of all security operatives and, indeed, the end customers of their employers.
As we all know, 2009 witnessed another review – this time by a more responsive and approachable Regulator – of the licence-linked qualifications, primarily as a result of the Qualifications Credit Framework (QCF) having been introduced.
This development witnessed Skills for Security writing the QCF units with the input of awarding bodies, the SIA and the (then) QCA.
Physical intervention training for door supervisors
As an individual heavily involved in orchestrating training regimes for the security sector, I wasn’t necessarily happy with the programme content.
Following some heated debates about the introduction of the physical intervention unit for door supervision, which eventually came to pass, I felt this was another opportunity missed: this time in relation to introducing new and more relevant training content for roles within the industry (among them focusing on standards for retail security training, for example).
At the same time, I was delighted with the pragmatism adopted by the SIA (and which I had suggested to the previous regulatory regime was necessary as far back as 2004 in terms of introducing a unitised approach to education).
That’s all in the past, though, and now we are where we are.
However, these were undoubtedly two steps in the right direction towards creating and developing a more professional industry.
Having said that, it’s our responsibility as training professionals to provide best value training and not just look towards minimum effort or standards.
Immaturity pushing the boundaries
It’s at this present juncture I find myself highlighting the fact that the security training market is not a mature one.
Unfortunately, there remain a number of organisations intent on providing what can best be described in public as worse than poor training services way below the necessary standard.
One prime example relates specifically to the delivery of the Level 2 Award in Door Supervision (a programme comprising 38 guided learning hours and including the aforementioned physical intervention unit).
To deliver that in four days is, I would respectfully suggest, pushing both learning and quality requirements far too close to the edge of the envelope. To deliver it in three days – and we all know there are numerous so-called ‘training providers’ doing just that – is totally unacceptable.
Put simply it should not be allowed, and is a prime example of where ‘the God of money’ sits higher up the agenda than standards.
In many cases, the charges for these so-called training courses are between 29% and 65% less than what I would believe is a fair and reasonable price for professional and appropriate instruction.
To my mind, this should really be an area of enforcement that both the SIA and the awarding bodies need to improve upon and action appropriately.
Admittedly, as reported on SMT Online of late there have been some successes in recent months in relation to pinpointing malpractice, with offending centres closed down and, in some cases, prosecuted.
Enforcing quality training
In addition to stronger enforcement by the relevant parties, surely it’s also the responsibility of the industry to question these training providers’ standards and put quality first, particularly in relation to the provision of safety and security solutions offered by security companies?
When recruiting, in many cases employers are looking for those individuals who are already licensed. They pay little or no attention to where the potential employee was trained when taking an ‘informed decision’ as to the quality of the training provided.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating not employing individuals who have been provided with sub-standard training, but it’s the employers’ responsibility to ensure that their members of staff are appropriately trained (and, where necessary, provide additional training to ensure that potential or new employees are up to the standards they expect and accept).
Lately, I’ve read with great interest comments made by Nick Smith – the Regulator’s assistant director of policy and legal – at the recent Annual Conference organised by the Association of University Chief Security Officers (AUCSO), which was held in Bristol.
Smith referred to the SIA’s blueprint for the future and, in particular, to the ability to give “greater commercial flexibility” to registered companies under a new regime of business licensing that will help them “employ and deploy individuals before they are qualified”.
To say that such statements should concern the industry is putting it mildly.
Training and assessment first, site assignments second
I firmly believe that, as part of the ‘fit and proper’ checks for not only business registration but also individual licence badges, individuals should not be deployed into any operational duties without first having undergone knowledge-based training and assessment delivered to the standards in place at that time.
Among the reasons for this are the need to maintain professionalism and public safety.
Also, consideration has to be given to the staff turnover rates within the first six-to-12 months of employment which, I believe, remain far too high.
Our own early research is showing something in the region of 32% staff turnover (this includes every reason as to why an employee would leave the business, such as TUPE, dismissal, redundancy and voluntary departure).
In allowing individuals to be deployed without appropriate training, you are not only creating a number of risks but also – potentially, at least – acting in contravention of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974, most notably with reference to Sections 2 and 4.
If such an approach is adopted by the Security Industry Authority, surely this represents three steps back and a return to the ‘good old, bad old days’?
I do believe that there are more effective ways of providing the licence-linked training, but this approach needs to be taken on an individual basis – or, dare I say it, on the back of a training needs analysis carried out at the recruitment stage to assist the employing company in determining the most effective and appropriate training required for the potential employee.
Potential abuses of the system
Adopting the strategy of employment and deployment hinted at by Nick Smith could create a situation where there will be those individuals who’ll potentially abuse the landscape by continually changing employers before the six-month period ends, thus maybe meaning that they don’t in fact need a licence to practice at all.
Yes, it will be argued that it’s the responsibility of the employing company to manage this situation, but unless there’s strong regulation in terms of giving employers “greater commercial flexibility” it’s all-too-easy to picture potential abuse of the system becoming rife.
It’s for this reason alone that the current mandatory need for knowledge-based training should most certainly remain in place, and without compromise.
Stuart Galloway is senior associate at WSG Associates