The SIA sets the record straight on training

11 Jul 07

In the June edition of Security Management Today (SMT) (‘SIA enforcement: too hard or too soft?’), I sought to put the record straight on the enforcement of regulation in respect of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, deal with misunderstandings and explain what we are doing as an organisation. This time around, I’m aiming to do the same thing – but with the emphasis on training.

In the wake of recent conversations and events, I am fully aware of some confusion and concerns regarding the training and qualifications currently required to gain a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence. On reflection, maybe some messages from us – or indeed our qualifications partners – have not been as clear and unequivocal as they might.

Comments I hear range from concerns that the training needed to obtain a licence isn’t sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the job at hand, with employers having to supplement it, through to claims that widespread abuse of the system is occurring (leading to qualifications being fraudulently obtained).

There are reports that people with SIA-specified qualifications cannot read, write in or speak English, which brings into question not only the competence of the operative to carry out their role, but also raise legitimate concerns about how they obtained their qualification in the first place. Such issues need to be addressed.

Purpose of licensing

The licensing of people carrying out many roles in the private security industry is compulsory, its key function being to protect members of the public. It helps to ensure that only people considered to be ‘fit and proper persons’ carry out these important roles, and that they have a basic level of competence in order to do so. To put it another way, unsuitable and incompetent security operatives are a potential threat to the public – that is the justification for the Government to intervene with regulation.

We first published our Competency for Licensing Strategy in April 2003, and it was last updated in September 2004. We have always made it clear that the training required to obtain a licence is not necessarily all that’s needed to carry out every security operative’s role. To suggest otherwise would represent a huge challenge for operatives, with so many different security roles, sites, assignments and circumstances. Arguably, it would also exceed the justification for Government intervention.

The SIA has worked closely with industry to ensure that its specifications reflect a meaningful level of achievement, without setting the bar so high that it becomes an unjustified intervention in business or prohibitively expensive. This approach has enabled regulation to happen within a framework of industry-led, Government-approved qualifications aimed at Level 2.

Had we taken a different approach, and insisted on training and qualifications that reflect every possible aspect of the duties of those employed in the industry, we would have run the risk of people receiving too much training irrelevant to their role or assignment, or having to develop a wide range of separate qualifications for the equally wide range of different security roles. As it is, we have five different manned guarding qualifications and licences, which some people think is too many.

Several practitioners who have been involved in our work over the last four years will recall from the early discussions that it could have been as high as 25 or 30, so in real terms we’ve all done well to bring the number down!

The right skills

The SIA has always stressed that competencies for licensing are not the only way to raise standards. Given the limits of what can be achieved through compulsory training, this surely makes sense. It has always been – and remains – the responsibility of the employer to ensure that every individual has the right skills for each assignment they are given. That is why we have made this responsibility a key element of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).

The ACS standard requires that the contractor develops and implements plans to ensure that its people are suitably trained, developed and cared for. Contractors must demonstrate that staff are trained and developed to deliver customer satisfaction and added value to an agreed standard. More specifically, there are nine out of 89 indicators (10%) that address training – one requires assignment-specific training as well as that demanded by the Regulator for the SIA licence.

We also believe that, because of our status as a Regulator, the drive for increasing skills and competencies should not come from the SIA but from the sector skills body, Skills for Security, a key strategic partner that has our strong support.

I’ve outlined our current position on skills and competencies, then, but I’m aware that there are different views on how this agenda should be taken forward – and what the role of the SIA should be.

I’m sure this will be a significant theme over the coming months and years during our discussions with strategic Stakeholders.

A qualifications framework

Right from the beginning, we adopted the view that we should build on and exploit existing industry qualifications and the well-established system for qualifications development and delivery in the UK. It didn’t make sense – and would have been poor practise – to do otherwise. By working within the existing qualifications frameworks we have been able to contribute to the overall effort to ‘up-skill’ the nation’s security workforce.

The qualifications regulatory authorities are responsible for the regulation of those organisations (known as awarding bodies) that can award Government-approved qualifications. We set the competency standards and specifications for the training and qualifications that are required to qualify someone for an SIA licence. The awarding bodies design their qualifications to meet that specification and, before they can offer it, need to gain accreditation from the qualifications regulatory authorities and endorsement from ourselves as the SIA.

The awarding bodies approve training and assessment centres for the delivery of the qualifications, ensure delivery of the training and assessment to the SIA specification and deal with any malpractice issues.

Malpractice in the training arena

By the end of May 2007, over 340,000 SIA-specified qualifications had been awarded. There are 34 individually accredited qualifications given by seven awarding bodies who oversee thousands of training and assessment centres.

Inevitably, then, there is a risk of training malpractice and some individual qualifications being fraudulently obtained. That applies to all qualifications in all industries and all situations. What matters most is how widespread this is, and how effectively the problem is addressed.

Ensuring the validity of qualifications is the responsibility of the awarding bodies and the qualifications regulatory authorities. They have the processes, resources and skills to do so. They also have quality control measures in place to prevent malpractice. This includes training centre approval visits, assessment inspections, monitoring activities, statistical analysis of results and risk assessments. This process is audited by the qualifications regulatory authorities.

While not our responsibility, we are acutely aware that any doubt about an SIA licence holder’s qualification damages our reputation and the perceived value of the licence itself. The awarding bodies fully understand this and, not surprisingly, are most keen to protect their own reputations.

The SIA enjoys an excellent relationship with the qualifications regulatory authorities, the awarding bodies and Skills for Security in addressing this shared problem. We routinely exchange information to ensure that alleged malpractice is investigated and, where necessary, dealt with and prevented. To that end, we meet on a regular basis in order to assess and manage this threat.

Not all allegations or perceptions of malpractice are well-founded, however. Sometimes, for instance, there are misunderstandings about legitimate full or partial exemptions. Although we encourage people who harbour concerns to raise them with the awarding bodies, sometimes they target us directly instead. Of the 49 malpractice allegations raised with us over the past year, six (in other words 12%) were found to be substantiated. We know that the awarding bodies have received about 100 allegations, of which just under 30% were substantiated. Training centre approval has been withdrawn or suspended in nine cases, while investigations or corrective action is being undertaken in many others.

Our current view on the matter is that training or assessment malpractice is no more prevalent in the security industry than in other situations and, where it can be identified and substantiated, it is then addressed robustly.

Communication in English

At the recent SIA/Perpetuity Group-organised conference on 9 May, entitled ‘The Changing Agenda', one customer of a security guarding supplier raised concerns about officers provided to him who could not communicate in English. He questioned how they could have gained their qualification legitimately if this is the case.

Writing recently in another security trade publication, the same questioner said: "Surely the least you can expect of a guard is that they can speak, read and write in adequate English so as to complete reports and give evidence, challenge people or inform you of what is happening in an emergency situation?”

Communication in English, both oral and written, is very much an integral requirement of the SIA competencies for licensing. If someone holds an SIA-specified qualification and cannot communicate in basic English then that’s a strong indicator – but not necessarily concrete proof – of training malpractice.

An inability to communicate in English could have Health and Safety implications for the individual and others in the workplace, and would prevent that operative from carrying out crucial elements of their role. This would undermine the major purpose of licensing.

This doesn’t mean that people whose first language isn’t English have to be perfectly fluent, but they should have a basic ability to communicate effectively. It’s also appropriate that training centres direct people with weaknesses in English language communications skills towards additional learning for effective training and assessment.

Going back to that conference, the questioner wasn’t answered as unequivocally as he could have been, and I hope I’ve put that right in this article. In a sense, though, the best answer came from the audience when someone shouted: “Change your supplier!”

Suppliers and end users

I’ve outlined what we – and our qualifications partners – are doing about training malpractice, but suppliers and customers must have a responsibility here, too. Surely a sensible supplier doesn’t just accept a qualification as the only factor in deciding whether to employ (and then deploy) an individual? They also have a responsibility to ensure that they’re fit for the specific assignment and the needs of the customer.

Clients who accept the provision of security personnel not able to meet their security needs are failing in their responsibility to protect their premises, stock, employees and customers.

Customers can gain additional reassurances by choosing to procure from a member of the ACS. The ACS accreditation mark enables purchasers of private security services to distinguish between potential suppliers and select one (or more) committed to providing personnel trained specifically for the assignment on which they are deployed.

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine