SMT Online Editor's View: The SIA – A Baseline Review

03 Feb 10

At the start of this particular New Year, we must all hope that UK plc is finally going to benefit from a few ‘quick win’ pick-me-ups as the nation slowly but surely snakes its way out of deep recession (and depression).

Sure enough, the economy does seem to be breaking free of despond – if only by the slightest of margins – while house prices, we’re told, are back in the ascendancy.

In the security world, plenty of companies have hit the 2010 ground running. There’s a lot of positivity going on, which is great to see and hear.

Maybe – just maybe – Broken Britain is finally witnessing the application of a few much-needed Elastoplasts.

Some things never change, though. Proposed cuts in defence spending are ruffling the feathers of our gallant Army’s top brass, the MPs apparently continue to rake it in, The City bankers’ radars are once again fixed on personal gain and greed and life sentences for murderers aren’t worth a gavel. C’est La Vie.

Oh yes. Lest I forget that, as of yesterday morning, the Government is now being accused of “institutional inertia” in respect of the counter-terror effort.

Given the startling revelation that some terrorists are now fully prepared to endure explosive devices being sewn inside their bodies in order to escape detection at airport x-ray machines, inertia is one state of affairs we absolutely cannot afford to promulgate.

Speaking of defence-related issues, hasn’t it been an education watching all of the nervous squirming going on in front of the Chilcot Iraq War Inquiry Panel?

Last Friday, Tony Blair spent six tortuous hours informing Sir John and Co that, if he could turn the clocks back, he’d make the same decisions and take the same actions all over again in relation to the Iraq conflict. He’s obviously not in step with those members of our society who think the Government’s trajectory realised this nation’s worst foreign policy disaster of all time.

Post-Chilcot Inquiry report

While unashamedly continuing to digress for a second, the fact is that Saddam Hussein and his cronies ought to have been ‘removed from office’ at the first time of asking.

If memory serves correctly, the initial Persian Gulf War witnessed then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher willing that scenario to be played out. As The Iron Lady remarked, it was “no time to go wobbly”, but George Bush Senior and his administration appeared to ‘bottle it’ on the grounds that any such course of action would have fractured the political coalition.

In an ecologically-focused era, wasn’t the unforgettable, apocalyptic vision of so many oil wells being set alight in Kuwait sufficient justification for removal of The Tyrant, never mind all the abhorrent reports of genocide and torture in his own domain?

It’s possible to focus on myriad reasons why we went to war this time around, but one suspects George W Bush may have been trying to atone for what several commentators still believe to be his father’s error of judgement.

As was the case two decades ago, I wanted to see Hussein deposed every bit as much as the next correct-thinking man and woman, but there are ways and means of doing things.

Acting on what has been commonly termed a dodgy dossier through which you can allegedly drive a coach and horses – and still have room to spare – isn’t one of them.

When it finally appears in black and white, the post-Inquiry Chilcot Report will most certainly make for both extensive and fascinating reading.

In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare scripted the immortal line: “The truth will out”. I certainly hope so, but whether or not that truth is enough to salve the gnawing pain felt by so many families who’ve lost their loved ones in a costly conflict – a battle that was unnecessary, as it should have been won in 1991 – is quite another matter entirely.

Back in the here and now, a new missive on the work of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) makes for equally interesting scrutiny.

It’s a document compiled by Martin Smith – professor of politics – and Dr Adam White, Smith’s research associate in the highly respected Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield.

White is fast gaining a name for himself in private security circles, having spoken so eloquently, passionately and in such a forthright manner at the SIAs 2009 Stakeholder Conference.

Exercising a little patience

In truth, the good Doctor carried out much of the face-to-face research for this new 90-page report entitled ‘The Security Industry Authority: A Baseline Review’.

It was ‘put to bed’ last October and received by the SIA in November, with the Regulator using that interim period between then and now to compose a concise response for simultaneous publication.

Surprisingly, there have been no press statements about the report. No pointers on the SIA’s Home Page, either. None of the fanfare associated with the National Audit Office’s report on the Regulator. Nor that which marked the launch of the recent Better Regulation Executive document.

On this basis alone, I thought I’d take a look at the contents. Could the lack of promotion perhaps stem from an initial observation that White and Smith’s publication places far more emphasis on the industry’s views of regulation to date rather than the SIA’s own beliefs? Has it hit a few raw nerves?

Either way, a public airing of – and commentary on – the key findings is most definitely warranted.

According to White and Smith, private sector security providers are divided over the extent to which the SIA has succeeded in reducing criminality through the administration and enforcement of its licensing system. One third of providers surveyed believe that criminality has been reduced, one third were undecided and the final 33.3% came to the conclusion that criminality has not been reduced.

The academics refer to ‘hidden criminality’ and ‘loophole criminality’. The SIA believes the latter phrase to be “misleading” as it’s a term that suggests loopholes can be found in the legislation when, from the Regulator’s perspective, this is very definitely not the case.

The SIA responds that it has “approaches” in place “to address this issue” and tackle, for example, those individuals who proffer misleading job titles when applying for a licence. What, exactly, are these “approaches”, though? I for one wouldn’t mind seeing them spelt out.

There’s also a significant conflict between the providers’ expectation that the SIA should pursue a strong and active enforcement strategy and what the SIA can actually accomplish within the somewhat restrictive context of the better regulation and political agendas, its own limited legal powers and, indeed, ongoing resource constraints.

For certain, the Regulator must – and surely will – grasp the opportunities presented by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act.

The majority of solutions providers suggest that the SIA has at least gone some way towards raising standards to an acceptable minimum level across the industry, primarily through the competency requirements, the criminal record checks and – to a slightly lesser extent – by way of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), more of which anon.

Concerns over current competency requirements

However, there are fairly deep-set concerns that, in certain instances, the competency requirements have been set too low and that some training organisations are running sub-standard training courses.

Last October, I was summarily shot down in public forum for saying something along these lines at the Skills for Security National Conference.

In the wake of Panorama and comments now made in this University of Sheffield report, surely there’s no smoke without fire?

The Regulator replies to White and Smith’s assertion that it should work more closely with training providers to stamp out any malpractice by referring to both sides of the proverbial training coin.

One centres on the management of allegations alluding to training malpractice. In short, nothing less than cheating by dishonest providers to earn certificates for those not deserving of them.

The other concerns whether or not the training meted out is really ‘fit for purpose’ in the first instance.

There are assurances from 90 High Holborn that “every allegation of malpractice is investigated”, either by the Awarding Bodies or the relevant qualifications monitor. Remember, it’s not the SIA’s remit to act on training shenanigans. That’s a job for third parties.

Statistics fed to the SIA, we are told, suggest that training malpractice is not rife. OfQual certainly isn’t concerned, opining that there’s “no more training malpractice in the security sector than in any other”.

Fine, but I’m always slightly wary about sweeping generalisations of this nature. Some concrete proof would be preferable.

As the SIA rightly states, any incidence of malpractice whatsoever is worrying. Indeed so. To my mind, all guilty parties must be found, brought to book and never allowed to sully the security sector’s doorstep ever again.

Is the current training good enough? Well, we’re looking at a four-day Basic Job Training package including a broad-brush overview (because that’s all it can possibly be in one day) of conflict management.

As I’ve said many times before, we’re miles away from the exemplar Scandinavian model and, I’m told, also lagging far behind the States. Put simply, the core training regimen in the UK has to be increased.

One of White and Smith’s recommendations is as follows: “The SIA should continue to closely review the relationship between the training standards written in to the competency requirement and the responsibilities of private security officers with a view to actively reconciling any disjuncture emerging between the two.”

The Regulator has, of course, instigated changes to licence-linked training and rightly makes a big play of that fact in its response to White and Smith.

Steering Groups, Expert Working Groups and a public consultation are all referenced. There was extensive input from the industry in all of this, don’t forget. All bases covered, then.

Objectives of the Approved Contractor Scheme

White and Smith point to “notable tensions” about what the objective of the ACS ought to be. While many service providers feel – as I do – that the ACS should be an ‘elite club’ for between 100 and 200 top-end companies, several SIA staff members believe that the scheme has to be more of a ‘baseline club’ which steers as many companies as possible towards a set of basic standards.

As a buyer, whom would you rather be seeing at procurement time? Five contractors at the top of their game, or five who just about managed to jump the regulatory fence?

I’m really looking forward to The Security Institutes next Members Evening in London on 10 February when VSG chairman Bill Muskin and ACS assistant director Andrew Shephard will be going head-to-head on the ACS and ‘The Differentiation Agenda’. That promises to be some discussion.

White and Smith tell us that, based on interviews with the industry, the SIA should consider making both the ACS self-assessment and inspection processes a tad more rigorous.

It’s now on record that the fast-track method for approval is being phased-out this coming May. In the meantime, any organisation approved in this way must subject itself to independent assessment within six months of their approval having been granted.

The SIA’s response to White and Smith? “The ACS is not a minimum standard, but neither is it an elite standard”. What is it, then? More importantly, what should it be?

To use current business parlance, perhaps some kind of Clarity Contract is in order here so that we all know where the ACS truly sits in the grand scheme of things.

According to several private sector security providers, there’s evidence to suggest that regulation has increased opportunities for companies to expand their operations, and that it has provided slightly clearer career structures – and marginally better wages – for private security officers.

That view is counterbalanced by other providers’ belief that regulation has, on average, caused a reduction in company profit margins while at the same time serving to increase staff turnover.

Moving away from the ‘grudge purchase’

Furthermore, White and Smith note that the grudge purchase ‘culture’ which has undoubtedly inhibited the industry’s overall development for many years is still very evident post-regulation. You can lead the purchaser to water, it seems, but you cannot make him or her drink from the well.

Amazingly, there are still plenty of end users who either don’t know about regulation or choose to ignore it, maybe because it doesn’t sit well with their employer’s tactical agenda.

As I’ve said before, that’s not the fault of the Regulator. There have been plenty of Corporate Updates and discussion forums on top of the Stakeholder Conferences.

Alas, the insurance community has been backward in coming forward on this matter. All we’ve had since the Regulator took office is a brief statement agreed between the SIA and the Association of British Insurers whereby the latter would ‘recommend’ to its members that they only afford cover to those clients embracing regulation and employing ACS-listed outfits.

To be honest, recommending something of this nature isn’t good enough. There’s a word in the Oxford English Dictionary. That word is mandatory. How about we start using it in this sector?

The Wider Policing Family

White and Smith tell us that both the providers and the police service offer some evidence that working relationships between private security personnel and police officers are showing signs of improvement, with the number of partnership schemes increasing slightly and channels of communication improving to some degree.

However, it also seems to be the perception that respect for private sector security providers among members of the police service has not been enhanced to any great degree as a consequence of regulation.

It remains glaringly apparent that some policing practitioners still lack confidence in contracted security. Inevitably, this is a limiting factor in terms of the development of working relationships between private sector security personnel and their policing cousins.

Dare I say it, but the senior Boys in Blue should spend less time ingratiating themselves with politicians and the political landscape and a little more on supporting a willing private security sector that’s desperately trying to sit – without discomfort – at the same law enforcement table.

Until next time...

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