The SIA is making a fatal mistake if they think clients are going to pick up the bill, warns John Legge, Managing Director of Whitehall Security in a controversial, personal view.
Whilst most of the professional security companies agree with licensing, it is not a demand requested by the customer, and is perceived at yet another Government tax on business. The job of the security officer is to protect the assets of the company, their staff, and clients. Many security officers working in central London have been employed on one site for a number of years and give a personal service, providing services outside the remit of security. Long gone are the days of the night watchman: many security officers perform non-security functions working client’s computer systems, telephones, reception, fax rooms just to name a few.
<br><br>
A large percentage of security officers have no professional qualifications; other than attending a three-day induction course, and on site training. With no criminal convictions, or vocational qualifications but with years of experience of the client’s needs, I would expect him to receive a license from day one. Our clients certainly would, and if he were refused a license then, the job title would be changed making a license unnecessary. This scenario will no doubt apply to many employed within the industry; little thought has been given by the SIA in how they will tackle this type of problem. It is my opinion that the licensing of the manned guarding sector should be not be rushed, but structured and only introduced when everything is in place. The training has to be in line with the client needs, and beneficial to that business.
<br><br>
Security staff currently working in the Industry should be allowed to apply to the SIA at least nine months prior to licensing, and be given confirmation by the Criminal Records Bureau, that they are free of convictions. This will enable us to satisfy ourselves that one part of the criteria has been covered well in advance, the fee should be affordable, and refundable in the event of a License being declined.
<br><br>
The SIA has stated that licenses will take 10 to 16 days to be approved, and that staff would not be allowed to work on any assignment. This is unworkable and needs to be changed. No applicant is going to wait around for that length of time; we are dealing with ordinary people at the lower end of the job market; they have families to feed and the SIA would need an army of auditors to carry out checks. Ideally the applicant should be allowed to complete his induction training, on-site training, and work as unlicensed until his license is approved. Most people will not apply for a license knowing it will be turned down due to a past history. The fiasco created by the CRB in vetting the NHS, and teaching cannot be allowed when dealing with the Licensing of 126,000 employees in the security industry. How up to date are the records? The Soham Murder Case highlights numerous faults in the system.
<br><br>
Procurement managers in the private sector are not interested in funding the licensing of security staff, as pointed out to me by one large blue chip company. To quote: ‘the SIA is yet another section of the civil service spending tax-payers ‘money’. I have to tell you that the SIA is being wrongly advised if they think the end users and security companies will pay. The money is just not there. I am all for raising standards and getting rid of the dross within our Industry but to achieve this the SIA has to communicate with the buyers who will determined whether licensing will succeed; or maybe this needs to be funded solely by central Government. This is highly unlikely seeing that they are still content to award contracts to the cheapest bidder (œ9 an hour), to train, pay wages, National Insurance, sickness, holidays and all the other outgoings and make a profit.
