By Justin Bentley
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
This is the end of the page
Skip to [ Story Content and jump story attachments ]
Click on images
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Main Page Content:
SIA remains "unanswerable to the industry"
18 Feb 09
In the wake of articles published on SMT Online and Infologue.com, IPSA chief executive Justin Bentley offers some strong views about the Regulator’s recent performance.
Last month, Infologue.com’s Editor Bobby Logue raised an important question when requesting the Regulator to release the critical Delivery Review for public consumption. The document that, at least in part, had resulted in the departure of (then) Security Industry Authority (SIA) chief executive Mike Wilson.
At a recent meeting convened by the International Professional Security Association (IPSA), members brought up the lack of openness of the SIA and requested the International Council to publicise their concerns.
The SIA, of course, has since released two documents scripted by itself – a summary of the Delivery Review and a document outlining progress made to date against some of the criticisms. What we still haven’t seen is the original document.
Is there something to hide?
What is it that the Regulator and/or the Home Office is refusing to tell us all? Why was it decided by the Board that the best course of action was to force out the chief executive within days of receiving the report?
Was Mike Wilson considered by the Board to be so ineffective that he wasn’t to be given the chance of rectifying the highlighted problems?
Surely many of the issues raised actually relate to management practices put in place from Day One?
Looking through the released documents, some items are of no surprise. There are a number of criticisms about working with Stakeholders and enforcement – areas in which the Regulator had begun improvements last year, and those have continued since November.
For a body which has added countless levels of administrative burden to the industry, and instigated an inspection scheme which strays far away from quality of service delivery, it appears that the Regulator itself has been lacking in numerous areas of Best Practice.
What’s going to be done about the situation?
While it’s nice to hear that some people have now been moved from temporary to permanent contracts and will receive appraisals (once a third party contractor has been appointed for this), what we want to know more about is the failings that have occurred in service delivery – and, more importantly, what will be done about them.
At the present time, we still have:
- Call Centre staff that give out incorrect advice (which, in certain cases, could lead to a person unwittingly committing a criminal offence). Just how difficult is it to grasp the fact that a security dog handler is also a security officer?
- No clear escalation procedure for the more difficult queries channelled through the Call Centre. If it isn’t on the script, say: “I will call you back”... and then don’t bother
- Application forms being rejected for small reasons that a phone call could clarify. It’s far easier to post everything back to the applicant, irrespective of the fact this delays them obtaining their licence by a week and possibly prevents them from working during that period. How about some customer service? Even Licence Dispensation Notices (LDNs) do not help here, as the application has not been accepted.
- Applications that, for no obvious reason, become “stuck in the system”. Mavis falling ill or taking a holiday while the application is sat on her desk shouldn’t be a reason to prevent somebody from working.
The Regulator is supposed to be transparent
We have to accept the SIA. We don’t have a choice. The Regulator is the sole provider of the licenses required by law for security staff to work in this industry.
As a Government-appointed body, the SIA is supposed to be transparent. We want to know that they’re aware of problems still in the system, and we want to know what they will be doing to improve their procedures.
Don’t misunderstand me. The SIA has already significantly improved on the initial systems set in motion, but there’s still room for improvement. The industry (and the SIA’s end customers, the Stakeholders) wish to be a part of the journey, not simply taken along for a ride.
Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup
Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:
Readers' comments
Maybe its time to hand the licensing back to the local authorities, then it will be easier to deal with any queries and the benefit of a local point of contact for meetings to discuss problems has got to be beneficial.
Justin Bentley and Mick Lee both provide views of the ACS which show that, even after a number of years of operation, that there are still fundamental issues. Only this week I had cause to refute information provided to staff within my company regarding licence renewal by a charming, but unsure, call-centre operator. Lack of training or the fact that some lack knowledge of the industry to which they serve and give advice?
Increasing temporary staff to meet the increased demand in this licence period (which was expected) and then decreasing again as demand drops off makes business sense, but does not help those on the ground. Promising to respond to my queries and then not getting back within 48 hours is the same old story.
A comment made that if in doubt the SIA will send a letter to the Security Officer confirming information, thus delaying the process by 3 weeks, does not help those in the ACS let alone those not in it. What it does do is make the SIA KPI's fit the bill a little more conveniently perchance?
Whilst the SIA send out the NSI, BSI and others to check us, who is checking them. Recent evidence suggests a few non-conformancies.
But lets be clear, the industry has moved a tadge forward, maybe not as fast as one would like, but it has. Some are complying with the standards set to meet the ACS, whilst others employ the quick-fix. Buying a manual and documents to meet the requirements of the work-book, but not actually doing much to actually follow it and abide by criteria set, is more common than one would think.
Directors are, in some cases using sharp business practices, straight from the Gordon Brown book of fiscal management, and lets not forget our lords and masters have not exactly shown us the light when it comes to being whiter than white.
The criminals and those of ill-repute were not going to go away just because of licensing and lets not kid ourselves by pretending none have got ACS accreditation (shadow directors etc).
Security businesses are being rocked by the credit crunch, with clients extending payment periods, cutting back on staff, or moving to electronic systems, handy when police response is based on grading and the one officer on duty (except PCSO's of course).
We are in a period of uncertainty and as security is as usual the grudge purchase, the future of the industry as we know it is going to change, like the High Street. Crime spikes are already occurring in areas as the criminals seek more funds (but Jacqui tells us crime is still going down) and as the recession gets worse those security companies that provide a good cost-effective service will possibly be in demand as the threats / incidents increase.
There again it is often the case that the cost and the risks do not always correlate and we therefore get the call after an event. Whether it is to an ACS company or not, the SIA has done little to show the ACS is the cream of the crop, and its recent debacles have done the industry some damage.
Hiding findings (allegedly) and doubts about the reasoning behind change in key personnel does little to inspire either.
The SIA still get the vote for what they are trying to achieve, but not necessarily for how they are doing it. Keeping the industry out of the key roles and filling it with those who have other experiences was possibly another mistake perchance (ask the banks).
"As a Government-appointed body, the SIA is supposed to be transparent."
Surely, this is a contradiction in terms? Since when has anything this government undertaken been transparent?
If by adding ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy they can maintain tighter central control while at the same time make a shedload of money, why is anyone surprised?
It is very difficult to expect transparency from an organisation that will not even advise its own physical address, what did you expect?
I administrate a website that deals with emails containing cctv images for private circulation within a sector that sometimes need editing due to size (bmp - jpg etc) .
According to the SIA, i need to have licence if i view these images.
All this because it was mentioned that the images were emailed out and despite the email address not actually being mine, the account holder sometimes needs my help.