The SIA-Changing Agenda conference should not be about looking back, Security Industry Authority chairman Baroness Ruth Henig told the Leicester event.
While the SIA and indeed other speakers sought to look to the next stage of licensing, there had to be some air-clearing first. <br><br>A listening regulator was promised by Ruth Henig. "We have been listening very hard to what the industry has been saying over the past few months; I know that some of you have expressed the wish of a national stake-holder panel through which to resume a constructive strategic dialogue with the SIA." While she didn’t offer exactly that, she made it plain she wanted more dialogue than before, maybe at other consultation events around the country. The SIA has asked the Home Office to expand the regulator’s board to include a place ‘for an individual with significant experience in the private security industry or has extensive knowledge of it’. She hoped the Home Office would agree in the next month, and the SIA board could go ahead later this year. <br><br>As for how the authority engages with the industry, she suggested that the SIA is effective at operational level: "But you have told us pretty clearly and many of you have told me personally since January that we have been much less successful at a strategic level." She called this a matter of urgency, recalling the stakeholder advisory committee. (As Professional Security reported in January 2005, the committee was hailed when formed in 2003 as a forum, with contract guarding and other security heavyweight members, yet it seldom met in 2004 before it was disbanded in November 2004. The suspicion then was that its members were telling the SIA things the authority did not want to hear.) Ruth Henig detailed the obstacles to such a forum – what she called the ‘bewildering’ range of representative bodies, and diverse security sectors, which could make for an unwieldy body with a seat for all. She suggested real or virtual networks contributing to SIA policy. <br><br>A lot has been achieved in a short time, she told the University of Leicester conference, run by Prof Martin Gill’s Perpetuity. "Are there things that we at the SIA need to do differently, or better? If there are, I am sure you will tell us soon enough what they are," she told the audience, largely of guarding providers with a smattering of trainers, security managers and inspectorates such as NSI and SSAIB. Leicester-born and bred, she described herself as a ‘mature entrant into the world of licensing’ and ‘the new kid on the block’. She stressed: "Our journey has to be a collaborative one; we have to travel in step with the private security industry and alongside the stake-holders and partners." She reminded the audience why regulation was introduced four years ago, arguing that the main aim was to contribute to public protection and crime reduction; to stimulate change and improvement within private security, to eliminate the ‘criminal element’ in the industry. "Now four years on it has to be said there are still challenges that have to be tackled. There’s still cut-throat bidding over contracts; I have been made very aware of that. There are wafer-thin margins; hours are long; and working conditions in some parts of the industry are far from ideal." She pointed however to successes, such as 335,000 SIA-approved security qualifications, many held by people who never had any qualifications. There have been 210,000 licences, and 354 approved companies. She said there was a lot of evidence that regulation has fostered trust between private security and police; she gave examples of Torbay and Paignton street patrols by SIA-badged staff to combat car crime; and British Transport Police schemes to safeguard travellers. "That seems to me evidence that today’s private security industry is a very different animal; healthier and more confident." <br><br>But she admitted there was another side of the coin: ‘headaches in trying to lay foundations of licences’. She said that the major problem had been estimating the size of the sectors to be licenced; information from the security industry in the early days was sparse or inaccurate, hardly surprising from an industry previously unregulated, she added. The SIA faced a lower licensable population than expected, ‘which of course led to tremendous financial problems for the SIA and in turn that led to extremely difficult relations with the Home Office. I think I can say with some confidence that figures are more accurate, although there is disagreement on the annual rate of churn in the industry." She stressed that the SIA was running as tight a ship as possible, now sharing offices with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. <br><br>She said that last year there were many periods when levels of customer service were well below the performance targets set by the SIA board: "I stand here and say we have to do much better." She promised significant change, particularly in call centre operations. She left enforcement to a later SIA speaker, acting chief exec Andy Drane. <br>While she did speak of balancing the public purpose of regulation with the commercial implications’ like the previous three SIA chairs she stressed the SIA ‘vision’, to reduce crime, disorder and fear of crime, ‘by helping to drive up standards in the industry. She spoke of wanting to learn, ‘even more than we have, from stake-holders, and improve our planning process. We want to understand the commercial and business environment in which people work …’ <br><br>Ruth Henig moved on to what she called ‘brass tacks’. First: "We need to challenge what is perceived as our lack of engagement with some specific sectors and the view, rightly or wrongly, that our engagement activity is targeted pretty exclusively at the major suppliers in the manned guarding sector with little attention paid to small operators and those not represented by the BSIA. We want to make the case that this is not the case and as a priority we at the SIA want to encourage small businesses and specific sectors to engage with us." She noted that of the 354 approved firms, 107 were defined as small or micro, with fewer than 25 employees. Second: she wanted to stress that there was a level playing field on enforcement. <br><br>On in-house officers getting a licence, she proposed a think-tank. Also to be looked at: integration of some licences, such as CCTV operators and guards. On training qualification malpractice, she said the majority of allegations were unsubstantiated, but where there was malpractice, there was co-operation from awarding bodies, and sharing of information. "We understand a need to challenge the perception that training malpractice is rife and not adequately dealt with, and we will ensure that we communicate effectively with awarding bodies and continue to build on our strong partnership with Skills for Security to ensure there is rigour." Specifically, she agreed there was a need ‘to revisit arrangements’ so that whistle-blowers got feed-back so they felt reporting was worthwhile. Summing up, she felt we should all celebrate successful licensing and approved contractor scheme – but it’s only a beginning. <br><br>Among questions from the floor, former policeman now MD of Cougar Monitoring Mike Holder spoke of an upsurge in theft of CCTV equipment from sites, adding that it was time to consider licensing those who install security equipment. Jean Lee of Strata Security asked if it was discrimination, that contract and in-house officers might have the same job description, yet the contract one was asked for £245 for a licence while the in-house one was not necessarily trained. Ruth Henig answered that trying to get ministers to look at legislation that they passed ‘reasonably recently’ was not necessarily easy: “That is why if we want to do this there has to be a compelling case; we have to get as much evidence that there is an issue that really undermines public protection. It won’t be a straight-forward matter, in my experience.” Another ex-policeman Trevor Williams, Association of British Investigators vice-president, raised the delay in a licence for private investigators: “I don’t think the SIA has any idea how many strings to the bow the PI has got.” Ruth Henig passed the question to Andy Drane, who suggested that the delay last year was due to ‘resources’. Public consultation about licences for private investigators is in August. <br><br>Andy Drane as head of operations at the SIA argued that the regulator was getting the balance right on enforcement.<br><br>Earlier Baroness Henig said that in her first three months many had said to her that there was too much enforcement; others, that there was not enough. Andy Drane said that even the sternest critics acknowledge that most who need a licence have one: “Something has worked and I think we need to recognise that is something we have all achieved.” He did concede that the SIA was not very effective in saying how it was operating, adding that it might not have been fair to identify individuals and companies. Thousands of sites and 200,000 people were to be regulated; the SIA had just over 100 people, half deployed on securing compliance, a ‘tiny’ number compared with the scale of the challenge. Hence dilemmas. While investigators would seek to visit the ‘good people not bad people’, some in the industry may miss the contact they had with the SIA in the early days. Drane called prosecution ‘hugely expensive and time-consuming and not always with a guarantee of success’. He hailed joint work with police and others such as the Border and Immigration Agency. He reported hearing concerns over the last six months that the SIA was picking on ‘easy targets’, not prosecuting enough, and not acting on information. When investigating the SIA will give the caution, that people might find intimidating, but it’s only done because of the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) 2001 whereby offences are criminal. Andy Drane spoke of a balance between formal and informal enforcement, most intervention and success being informal, ranging from conversation and advice to written warnings (as of April, 350 by the SIA, but more than 3000 by police) and improvement notices (37 so far, most in manned guarding, 20 to firms with more than 100 staff. That is, Drane denied the SIA was not ‘man enough’ to take on the larger companies). More than 300 licences have been revoked; and there have been two criminal convictions, others to come. Alongside that informal-formal spectrum, Drane described a range of offending behaviour, from the extreme of strong links to organised crime (such as the Merseyside protection rackets, targets for Merseyside Police’s Operation Seahog, and the Asset Recovery Agency) to ‘systematic continued non-compliance’ to ‘speculative non-compliance’ and ‘unintentional non-compliance’ to full compliance. Most SIA action was aimed at directors and managers, the ones deciding whether to employ licenced staff. He ended by stressing that ‘you should trust the proportionality of the SIA’: “I have been disappointed by a few in the industry who sought to excuse offending and thought they shouldn’t receive our attention in the same way as other people. And people tried to deflect our attention away from systematic offending by questioning our priorities. There is no such thing as acceptable offending.” <br><br>Arguably the audience got their money’s worth most when former chief constable Richard Childs and SIA vice-chairman Robin Dahlberg argued against and for the proposition, ‘regulation has generated a positive change in the security sector’. <br><br>Richard Childs began saying he was getting a bit tired of the rose-tinted approach and went on to ‘a catalogue of negatives’: “The SIA has been going four years and there are lots and lots of things still that it said it would change that it hasn’t changed and have actually got worse.” He accused the SIA of a ‘profound deafness’ to criticism and unwillingness to change, failure to openly consult, and bureaucratic systems as complex and expensive as possible, without basing what it does on any independent or empirical evidence. He claimed the ACS has ‘limited if any credibility’ on standards and companies joined purely to have licence dispensations. “And of course there is no empirical evidence to say the ACS despite huge costs is actually achieving anything at all, and that is something that should be looked at sooner rather than later. Margins are lower than ever, he added. <br><br>Robin Dahlberg responded to this onslaught by agreeing with much of it – on declining margins, for instance. He did not see how the industry could make the margins it does and expect to go forward: “The problem is; I am not running your business for you.” He went on that guarding MDs in confidence asked about their plans, said they were going to expand their business; that is, compete on price. “By the way, not one single manager over the last year has said their intention is to raise margin.” Companies with the lowest turnover of staff were those who paid for staff training and licences, maybe with the proviso that if officers left they had to repay. SIA failure to consult was a legitimate concern, he added. Why was it not compulsory for public bodies to use ACS companies? Richard asked. Dahlberg replied: “And that’s a real problem. It is certainly not for lack of will at the Home Office.” The Treasury wanting value for money is the stumbling block. The SIA will continue to campaign to make public bodies aware of the benefits of using ACS suppliers. Childs was astonished by the three-year vacuum in stake-holder representation. Dahlberg admitted: “It was a mistake not to have a more effective engagement strategy … a second big issue is: we have been quite good at dealing with the manned guarding sector. We have had real trouble engaging with the door supervisers. The other big, big issue for us is, we have not been good in engaging with those who don’t want to engage with us in London. There is life outside the M25.” When Dahlberg spoke of difficulty in analysing the characteristics of the industry – how many leave and enter overall – Childs countered by asking if there was really no brain on the planet to do a piece of empirical research. And when Childs asked for ‘some simple things’ such as multiple licence applications, and use of the internet for applying, Dahlberg replied that the SIA had sought to get licences out of the door rather than tinker with the system, in case of collapse. Childs returned to user lack of trust in the SIA; the feeling that the regulator talked to a few, and had ground to make up. Dahlberg: “I agree with you actually.” He added: “We need to speak with one voice to influence Government policy and come up with a coherent way to raise standards. You have to trust us and we have to trust you. It is our responsibility to take the first step.” Next. Childs asked why the SIA was reluctant to act on training – returning to guards unable to speak English. Dahlberg recalled that the SIA did discuss whether to require English: “We recognised there were a large number of migrants working in the industry and our objective was to avoid making a lot of them unemployed.” The idea was to give funding for those who needed coaching and training if English was not their major language: “Clearly this hasn’t happened as well as it ought to.” <br><br>Continuing his bravura remarks, Childs recalled the SIA lost the (political) battle over licences for sports ground stewards, and the Home Office was sitting on the fence about licences for in-house guards; why was the SIA inept at managing the Home Office? Dahlberg referred to the splitting of the Home Office into the new Ministry of Justice and the resignation of Home Secretary John Reid. Dahlberg said the Home Office attitude to the SIA had been transformed over the last year, the degree of co-operation and respect much greater: “We need to recognise that we are working within a very large and sophisticated Government organisation with many pressing issues. And I am not always the most pressing.” <br><br>Childs asked rhetorically; if you are in a hole, you stop digging. Dahlberg replied that as a former chief constable he would understand that you didn’t wait until you got rid of burglars before you took on other things. “The licensing system is now performing the way it was originally supposed to. It isn’t good enough because it doesn’t provide the kind of feed-back primarily to businesses that you need to run your business.” For example, you cannot make one call and ask about multiple applications. This will be addressed. The SIA has only two revenue streams: the ACS (about 10 per cent) and licences (90pc). Both should run on a break-even basis, the Treasury said. “We actually did look very carefully at raising the licence incrementally, earlier, but for a variety of reasons it never happened.” Later, he admitted that the SIA has been too inwardly focused: “We have been too preoccupied with just trying to make the damn licensing system issue a licence.” As a last sign of the free debate of the day, both men hoped for more such events; Dahlberg recalled the ‘stunning’ range of stake-holders at the April 2003 launch event of the SIA at Westminster, adding that the SIA had to engage with small groups which have been disenfranchised. While Childs ended by seeing a new regime that had everything to play for, Dahlberg mused: “I have to say the ride has been pretty bumpy and with hindsight I wish we had looked at the map before we set out. However, we are at a juncture. We need your engagement with us to work on these issues.” <br><br>After a liberating to and fro over the recent past, Assistant Chief Constable Peter Davies of Lincolnshire Police gave an ACPO view. <br><br>He’s the chiefs of police’s association ‘lead’ man on the security industry and community safety accreditation schemes. Briefly, CSAS under the Police Reform Act allows police forces to accredit guard forces, private or council or hospital and so on. In April, Professional Security reported guards at the University of Surrey were so accredited, with extra powers. ACC Davies spoke of ‘some visionary security companies involved in these schemes’, yet the total of accredited persons is 1000, and ‘a relatively small number of those are from the security industry’. He did give examples of such community safety work: in Hertfordshire, Parkguard; and the Cribbs Causeway commercial park near Bristol. While this may be not as widespread as Davies would like, he did stress that such reassurance work, largely by PCSOs was part of policing, to counter fear of crime. “Has licensing made the security industry better? I think so,” he said. “It’s a lot easier for me to sell to my colleagues the benefits of using the security industry as a partner in the post-licensing era than previously.” <br><br>Shorter speeches came from veteran Labour MP and father (or godfather) of security regulation Bruce George; and Brian Kingham, founder of Reliance Security. <br><br>While Brian Kingham was courteous, paying tribute to SIA chairmen and Bruce George, and drily humourous – ‘it’s a great pleasure to see so many competitors here’ – he got across his points, as a citizen against too much government interference, and as a man of commerce, seeing in regulation ‘the possibility of making this a more constructive and a more orderly industry’. Using a story about Voltaire to make the point that a guarding company did not want to make an enemy of the regulator, yet he pointed to the obvious dangers of unlicenced security officers in large numbers, unnecessary bureaucratic processes, an ‘apparent absence of controls over the cost of licensing’, ‘and finally there is deep concern about what I describe as regulation creep’. That in-house officers are not licensed is ‘very much resented’ and ‘hopelessly unfair’. As for April’s rise to £245 in the price of a licence application, Brian Kingham said: “I wish we could put up our charges by 30 per cent in one year. A huge amount of increase; it is quite clearly wrong that the SIA should be in a position to do that. Where is the dynamic for improvement of processes, improving the whole manner in which they work, to drive out inefficiency, to drive in innovation and change, if prices can be put up like that?” <br><br>Bruce George too praised Ruth Henig, calling her speech ‘brilliant and disarming’, a ‘pre-emptive strike against critics’. He turned back to the 2001 Act as the ‘source of almost all the problems confronting the SIA’. He called the PSIA ‘a grossly defective piece of legislation’. As a depressing sign of the indifference to private security, he said he was the only scrutinising MP with the slightest knowledge of the security industry. Bruce George said he told Charles Clarke (then the junior Home Office minister who took the PSIA through the Commons) that the bill was ‘crap’; Clarke’s response was, ‘this is the only bill you are going to get’. Bruce George added that Clarke was correct, because after 9-11 the Home Office was taken up with counter-terrorism. As Bruce George drily remarked, there was a ‘target-rich environment’ to criticise. He went for ministers who acquiesced to what civil servants drafted. Omissions included in-house officers. As for consultant licences being put off to 2010, George said: “I would have thought consultants giving duff advice a very serious complaint,” that is, salesmen purporting to be consultants. Investigators need to be licenced, he added, calling many honest, but many ‘totally crooked’. And he called for alarm and lock installer licences.
