Any security guard – and that includes a doorman – with a Security Industry Authority licence will be able to work as a dog handler. That went down badly at a recent seminar. From our Febuary 2005 print magazine.
Charles Wall of Swansea-based security dog trainers A1K9 asked Karen Wilkinson – Development Manager (Competencies) at the SIA – if any security guard with a licence will be able to work with a dog. Karen Wilkinson denied this, arguing that no employer would want to employ such a guard. This did not satisfy Charles Wall, who replied that numerous people could tell employers that they have worked with dogs – though those guards might be rubbish. Was there any additional qualification required to show a licenced guard was a fit and proper person to do a dog handling job? No, Karen Wilkinson admitted; that was down to the employer.
Police concern
At that Sandy Horvath, of Surrey Police, said from the floor that police (bearing in mind that dogs can cause injury) licence their dog team – dog and handler. The Surrey force use the BTEC qualification, which takers can then carry across into private industry. Of the SIA decision not to separate the security guard licence from managing dogs, he said: โI think itโs appalling. I have a real concern – thereโs something missing.โ
Stranglehold
These exchanges prompted Linda Sharpe, Sector Skills Competency Manager at the SIA, to take the floor ahead of being called to talk by event chairman David Roscoe. The question had been whether to licence everyone according to their activity. As the SIA had gone more and more into the process of licensing, such an approach clearly would have strangled the industry, she said. A licence (costing £190) for a specialism such as dog handling would only have allowed the applicant to work in that specialism. Someone could have ended up needing five licences. Rather, the SIA set โcore competenciesโ, a basic level before people could work in security. The licence, she suggested, was to handle criminality first. She admitted that the SIA (working according to the remit of the Private Security Industry Act) will not do what everybody wants, or fast enough. As to whether the authority can set a requirement for a dog handler after the initial bringing in of licences, Linda Sharpe could not set a date.
Transformation
She then started her talk proper – at the Newport, Shropshire, event organised by the National Training Inspectorate for Professional Dog Users on January 13. She began with the by now standard SIA argument for a transformation of Security from, to paraphrase, a poorly-paid, low-image and low-skilled sector – with low margins – to a more stable workforce, with training for all, higher pay, and greater professionalism and profit. Such transformation was bad news for buyers of security, she suggested, because the cost of training and attracting people into the industry will cost more money: โAnd security companies will want to charge more for the services. But if we get it right you the purchasers are going to have new and better commercial opportunities.โ The hope, she added, is that security providers stop selling on price and start to sell on quality of service – that ultimately will lead to greater profitability.โ Responding to some sceptic in the audience, she added: โI can see someone shaking their head, but it [private security] can only go upwards – it cannot go further down.โ She rounded off her spirited advocacy of regulation as what she called โa catalyst for transforming the private security industryโ by saying: โI believe there is great enthusiasm within the security industry for change. I think what we have seen is this great demonstration of wanting to be involved, because consultation groups are always full. They donโt always give us an easy time, but they come and thatโs good. And it [the industry] canโt stay the way it is any longer, it really canโt. You canโt reduce your prices any more. I think this industry is at the rock bottom for what it charges.โ
Second change
She went on to describe what she called a โsecond changeโ, a โvisionโ for raising skills, and giving the industry higher profile and professionalism. In 2005 the SIA is doing labour market research, to see what is the โfootprintโ of the private security industry, and the wider police family, taking in risk assessment, loss prevention, and maybe the security side of retail, hospitality and transport. The only way to move forward with the Governmentโs skills agenda, she suggested, is to know how many work in Security: 300, or 500,000? Carrying on the training theme, she recalled that in 2002 the Government no longer worked through national training organisations (such as SITO) but sector skills councils. Such SSCs were employer-led, Linda Sharpe pointed out. Security does not have one yet, but one could come next year (name as yet undecided).
Gap from starter to manager
Also in the making is what Linda Sharpe called a โskills frameworkโ to cover security peopleโs training from entry to a foundation degree. She spoke of a gap between a basic qualification and a second degree or a MBA programme with a slant to security. In other words, a gap between courses for the starter guard and the manager with a choice of academic degrees.
Training pots
Money makes the world go round, and training too. Linda Sharpe added that the labour market research was important for getting funding from the Learning and Skills Council, to justify security as a priority, and to promote the industry to exam awarding bodies and the Government. She touched on new ways of training: such as workplace coaching, and e-learning; and refresher training for staff reapplying for a three-year licence. She mentioned too private investigators, whose routes to a licence might be varied, maybe including experience; and maybe using a professional register. During questions, she returned to the pressing question of getting cash from public bodies towards staff training. The LSC has underspent this time round, she said, but itโs a case of knocking on the door of your local LSC. There are pots of money around, she said, especially where Employer Training Pilots are running. p
=–==–=
The recent NTIPDU seminar on licensing covered dogs and handlers in particular but the topics – such as training, and the approved contractor scheme – apply to manned guarding in general. Hereโs the debate
Richard Childs, the new chairman of JSIC, with characteristic robustness put down a marker on behalf of Joint Security Industry Council members to raise concerns about the approved contractor scheme. The new ACS draft, he said, will not exercise blue-chip companies because they already do the things the scheme speaks of. Smaller companies will be exercised by it, he went on, not because they are not competent, but because they do not have the infrastructure to โtick all the boxesโ. Provided that smaller companies were reputable, had integrity and were licenced, they should not be unable to become an approved company, he said. If smaller companies could not get access to public sector contracts, it might not be legal, and would be grossly unfair, he added.
Close protection
Close protection is a sector to have its own training – 160 hours (taking four to six weeks) are proposed. What if, as Linda Sharpe said, someone leaves the Metropolitan Police with CP experience, but no qualification? Should the officer still have to do the training? No, she said. But what is the SIA to do, to check on someone from the police or armed forces who has had good CP training? Maybe the SIA will have to check with police. Richard Childs (a former shires chief constable) commented that police training was โnot notoriously goodโ and that police have never been really good at having training externally accredited. As the event heard, the armed forces are in a similar position, the Army seeking to equip its leavers with civilian qualifications for Civvy Street. So it was that the SIA representatives and the security folk in the audience grappled with knotty problems. Both sides were in agreement that all sorts of change was called for, but will take years.
Over lunch, Professional Security chatted with one of the event sponsors, an insurance broker.
Chris Woods, based in Telford, of Country Mutual, was there because a dog handling firm is among the brokerโs clients. He stressed to Professional Security that his firm is not a specialist broker to the security industry; rather it is a specialist commercial broker for varied small and medium firms. Roofing and scaffolding firms have seen the biggest rise in insurance costs – increasing several-fold over the last few years, he suggested. The reason: health and safety issues, particularly working at height. A clause may mean insurance only covers you to work to 10m up – making it a consideration for CCTV installers working at height.
Not least interesting was the starting pistol fired in January for an estimated 125,000 guards to apply for a licence. You have until March 2006 – but get your training in, urged another SIA speaker.
Enforcement date for guard licences sounds a long time away, admitted Karen Wilkinson, Development Manager (Competencies) at the SIA. But she urged applicants to enter the process, by going about training; training centres approved by Edexcel or NOCN-SITO are listed on the SIA website. If you have had bespoke training, from your employer, she suggested approaching an awarding body (such as Edexcel and NOCN) for approval of that training course.
Shelf life
The qualification once gained does not have a time limit, but the three-year licence does have a shelf life. Replying to a question from Nigel Edwards of NASDU from the floor, the SIA confirmed that if you pay £190 to apply for a licence now, it starts running now and not 2006 – a financial incentive to wait until the last minute to hand over your money. That the licence for guards has such a long lead time might mean that police may be less lenient when (after March 20, 2006) coming across security guards without a licence and not complying with the Private Security Act – less lenient compared with door staff, who maybe were given the benefit of the doubt if they could show their application was in the pipeline.
Inevitably, now that licences are coming on stream for various sectors of the private security industry, there are queries. Some are featured in a recent civil service document.
Consultancies sending security staff to work in hot-spots like Iraq have worried (like Control Risks Group, see our November issue) that those contracted staff would not be able to get a SIA licence to work back in the UK, because the criminal record check would not run to such lawless places. The Home Officeโs โpartial regulatory impact assessmentโ published in November offers no succour. It says that where applicants have been based for six continuous months or more overseas in the last five years, they need to provide a criminal record certificate from the country concerned. If itโs a war zone without authorities, the SIA will โexceptionally considerโ written evidence from the likes of the Red Cross and United Nations. โA reference from a private employer will not be sufficient.โ
As for the criminality check, whether an applicant passes depends on whether offences are serious, significant, or minor; and whether it happened less than two, between two and five, or more than five years ago. In borderline cases the SIA proposes a โpointsโ system. If in doubt – and the application fee is non-refundable – you can self-assess if you will pass the criminality test on the SIA website www.the-sia.org.uk
Other points from the document:
Two awarding bodies are authorised to provide the security guard training qualifications required for SIA licensing: Edexcel and NOCN (with SITO). City & Guilds and NCFE plan to come in.
Still no date for when Scotland comes in: itโs expected โin due courseโ.
Estimated numbers of people in private security sectors: guards, 125,000 to 140,000; cash in transit staff, 15,000; close protection operatives, 1,000.
Not only does the SIA stand by its September 2004 decision to let a door manโs licence allow the holder to work as a security guard, it does not rule out other, similar allowances: โThe SIA will take a pragmatic approach when
looking at cross sector entitlements.โ
One such cross-over may be in key-holding, as the SIA is still working out how to licence the key-holder sector, but the document adds: โThe industry estimates that 97pc of key-holders activity is carried out by security guarding companies. Dedicated key holder response companies carry out the remaining 3pc.โ
โProsecution for one or more of the offences created by the Act will be an action of last resort.โ
The SIA has set up, by region, compliance and investigation teams, eventually to number about 50 staff.
While the BSIA has predicted a drastic fall in the number of manned guarding firms, and while the document speaks of โsome rationalisation of the industry in that those who cannot meet the licensing requirements may exit the marketโ, the study does not believe that regulation โwill adversely impact on enough firms to result in a significant reduction in the number of firms competing for customersโ.
