We at Skills for Security were both saddened and perplexed at the anonymous letter from ‘A Trainer’ (‘Wake up to the truth’, Letters To The Editor, SMT, October 2008, pp13-14).
If only he or she had brought their concerns to us directly we would gladly have discussed each of the queries and allegations made. However, for reasons that are somewhat unclear, he or she chose instead to use the pages of your journal – and a cloak of anonymity – to air their dissatisfaction, leaving us no alternative but to communicate our reply through the same medium.
Let’s take each of the points in order. ‘A Trainer’ states that: “Skills for Security doesn’t seem to have any official status”. In fact, we are the industry’s acknowledged skills body – part of the Skills for Business Network of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and Sector Skills Bodies (SSB), and recognised by HM Government, the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Learning and Skills Council and other Government departments and agencies.
Earn income
The reason we are “not listed as an official Sector Skills Council” is because we are not one. As a Sector Skills Body we, along with the other 20 SSBs, have to earn our operating income rather than relying solely upon the taxpayer to fund us. Conversely, SSCs depend upon the public purse to pay their bills. Both types of organisation have the same remit – to improve standards and skills across the industries for which they are responsible.
Like all SSBs, Skills for Security has been set up by the industry as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. In other words, we have no shareholders to whom we would have to pay dividends. Any surpluses we make after the bills are taken care of are simply reinvested to pay for lobbying, marketing and advisory activities on behalf of the industry and for the development of new products and services. Although we don’t receive public funding to run the organisation, because of our official recognition we are able to bid for Government funding for specific projects that benefit employers. These include the production of National Occupational Standards, research into the industry and its needs, forecasting skills gaps and shortages and designing qualifications, apprenticeship frameworks and career pathways. All are free and publicly available for employers to use.
Greater accountability
The writer claims that Skills for Security is “not accountable to the industry, only its Board of Directors”. We would argue that we have greater accountability and legitimacy because we were created by our industry, not the Government, and either live or die by our ability to meet its needs. Members of our Board are, for the most part, representatives of the industry and the people who work in it. In addition, we consult with industry employers through 40 formal consultation meetings every year – something that no SSC does.
The claim that our Board is made up mainly of BSIA members or staff is true, though only just. Our Board consists of 15 people (seven of whom work for non-BSIA companies) who give their services voluntarily. As the BSIA represents 70% of the industry, it’s perhaps hardly surprising that some of its member companies are represented. Only one member of the BSIA’s staff sits on our Board, and that’s the Association’s chief executive.
The statement that we are self-financing through the sale of training courses, Basic Job Training packs and “other stuff” is quite correct. How else does ‘A Trainer’ suggest that we should be financed – by placing a levy on the industry, as some SSCs do? Or from his or her own taxes, perhaps?
Wide range of services
Our income-generating activities enable us to carry out the wide range of free services we provide for the industry across the UK. These include information channels (telephone and e-mail enquiry team, web site, newsletters and a free magazine), employer engagement through a network of consultation groups, dialogue with the industry Regulator and Government departments, representing the industry on various committees, liaison with universities, awarding bodies and funding agencies to ensure that the sector’s needs are understood and catered for and promoting the industry as a career opportunity.
The claim that we “charge lots of money” for our conferences is simply untrue. When compared to the charges made for similar industry events, our conferences offer extremely good value for money. If we didn’t charge, how would we pay for them? Or perhaps ‘A Trainer’ would prefer that we staged them in a Scout hut to reduce the fees?
‘A Trainer’ goes on to complain that the speakers at our two National Conferences this year are our “pals” from BSIA member companies and the Regulator. He or she selectively lists a number of individuals who meet these criteria, but conveniently omits all of the non-BSIA or SIA participants who are, in fact, the majority. The fact that our Oxford event at the Williams F1 Conference Centre was not only fully-booked four weeks before it took place but also generated a significant waiting list of people wishing to book tells us that we chose speakers the industry wants to hear.
Impartial inspection
‘A Trainer’ describes as “just nuts” the fact that we offer course accreditation services endorsing training designed and delivered by others. This scheme is one way in which employers may judge the quality of training before they buy, since all of the accredited programmes are subject to rigorous and impartial inspection before they’re endorsed.
Over 50 courses are available to employers through this scheme courtesy of providers such as Perpetuity Training, ARC Training International and the Police National Search Centre – are they all “nuts”?
The letter from ‘A Trainer’ concludes with an attack on your journal, SMT, for giving Skills for Security a “competitive advantage over other training providers”. In fact, we are not in competition with training providers. Training providers educate front line staff. We train the trainers. We then make available products which trainers might then choose to deploy.
We actually create business for training providers by identifying skills gaps, stimulating demand for training and securing funding which encourages employers to increase the amount of training they provide. This can be ably demonstrated by our Security Practitioner and apprenticeship programmes. In both cases, our negotiations have secured significant funding so that the cost to employers and candidates is neutral.
Administration service
Skills for Security doesn’t actually provide the training associated with these schemes, but offers employers a cost-free administration service that deals with the funding arrangements and manages the training that’s delivered by training providers. It’s important to note that we are entirely inclusive in wanting to work with providers, the only condition being that they’re quality providers who will deliver an excellent service to the industry’s many and varied employers.
We compete with no-one in our role as the skills and standards setting body for the private security industry – there is only one. The support of Security Management Today, the industry’s leaders and organisations such as the Trade Associations, The Security Institute and The Worshipful Company of Security Professionals is support we work hard to earn, and it acknowledges the good we do for the industry.
‘A Trainer’ really has nothing to fear from Skills for Security (and we are intrigued to know what he or she is frightened of). We are open, identifiable, accountable and truthful – qualities, in fact, which ‘A Trainer’ might well aspire towards.