The Security Industry Authority has said no to an accommodation with a possible rival to the SIA-approval scheme for guarding companies.
A letter from SIA chief executive Mike Wilson to Peter Jones, of Business Crime Direct (BCD) at Liverpool chamber of commerce, was in response to a document about the chamber’s proposed ‘security firm quality mark’. Mike Wilson spoke at the chamber’s security firms forum in December; his letter was discussed at the next, February meeting, attended by Professional Security. The letter denied that small firms, particularly with less than two years of records, found it difficult to gain approved contractor status (ACS). Mike Wilson pointed to SIA figures that of the (400-odd) ACS companies, many are small or even micro (with fewer than ten staff). He argued also that the quality mark would be more likely to hinder facilitate profession to SIA; and that in his view the quality mark would ‘curtail opportunities for Liverpool companies to compete on the national stage. Security is a national business, and an increasing number of Government, local authority and commercial enterprises recognise ACS as the pre-eminent standard in the business … Membership of a largely unrecognised local security scheme is unlikely to increase competitive advantage.’
Later, Peter Jones repeated to Professional Security his view that a chamber quality mark would be a ‘stepping stone’ to ACS. The forum is considering its response to the SIA. One factor may be Liverpool City Council: whether it would recognise the quality mark. It is among councils that requires its security contractors to have ACS. In other words, forum members would like local government to tender to ‘local firms for local jobs’; and the chamber would want to see a benefit for a quality mark, before offering it. The December forum heard the ‘kite mark’ might cost a firm £500, including chamber membership.
As background; when Merseyside Police began Operation Seahog in 2006, against criminality around guarding of construction sites, the force asked local authorities to use the planning laws to make ACS membership compulsory. Developers would be denied planning permission unless they agreed to use only ACS firms for security. The chmaber took legal advice, that that was illegal, accepted by police. Some guarding firms on Merseyside felt dismay that they were being tarred with the Seahog brush. Around the table at the February meeting, guarding views on ACS was mixed. One guarding company of 20 people reported that a two-day assessment (by ISOQAR) cost £2700, and £2000 besides for consultants for the firm’s second year inspection; plus running costs for a consultant to come in. In short, ACS was an expense for a small company. The firm was not finding clients specifically saying they chose the company because of its ACS. Besides the benefit of an approved firm being able to employ a percentage of guards applying for but awaiting a licence, from April an ACS company can only employ another ACS company as a sub-contractor. A second, former, ACS company agreed about the expense and trouble of getting ACS, and could not see the benefit. Site agents were not interested in ACS, it was claimed, and had to have it explained to them. The agents’ reaction was that it would mean the guarding would cost them more, because it has cost the security company. Other companies around the table were using the SIA workbook towards applying for ACS, and were advised to carry on. One opinion was that, in practice, guarding start-ups would not be able to get guarding work, which would stymie a new business, which made it tantamount to a cartel. Also raised at the table was that the Silver Fox scheme, offered by The Security Watchdog, is a quality control on guarding contractors.
Paul Chase, chairman of Wirral-based CPL Training has done development work for the quality mark on behalf of the chamber. Peter Jones, a former senior Merseyside Police man, runs BCD to offer security and crime prevention advice and training to businesses, for instance in the night-time economy. Offered at the forum for example were cost price ear-pieces for door staff for door staff to listen hands-free to a pubwatch radio. The chamber forum is attended by guarding and door staff managers, and police licensing officers and others to do with the manned guarding in the region.
Other topics
Voices around the table continued to cast doubt on SIA claims that the authority normally takes six weeks for a licence to be processed. The forum heard that the SIA website home page still says ‘processing is currently taking six to nine weeks due to the recent implementation of new systems at the SIA and the residual effect of local industrial action by postal workers in Liverpool’, which ended in October 2007. The meeting heard of a case of the SIA taking four weeks to process a licence application cheque; and of cases of licence applications taking 14 or 16 weeks. Another grumble was that the ‘register of revoked and suspended licence holders’, of more than 8000 names, only allows you to go in one direction, 20 names at a time, alphabetically from A. So if the surname you are looking for is ‘Young’, you have to click hundreds of times. (The SIA website, checked the day after the forum, said: "We realise it takes a long time to page through all the entries. We are working on some new features to make this easier as soon as we can.") And as for those door supervisers unable to work, in financial difficulties, even, because they cannot work a door while they are waiting for their (renewed) badge, advice was to pay by credit card; so that if you want to chase the SIA over loss of earnings, there is consumer credit law.
The forum also heard that a taxi marshal scheme is to run further, to Easter, at city centre taxi ranks. Impact Security provided the first, midwinter taxi marshals.
