It feels like déjà vu only the names of some of the players have changed, said our regular contributor Una Riley, in the January print issue of Professional Security magazine.
Here we are again almost 20 years since first debating the subject of self-regulation and training on behalf of the entire security industry. As a council member of the BSIA and vice-chairman of the SSILB (Systems Security Industry Lead Body) in those early days, like others at the time, I was in the midst of these developments as the industry started to move towards professionalism. The reason why the ILBs were formed was to introduce fit for purpose training (NVQs) on behalf of all industry sectors at the time. However, we were the only industry that had two ILBs! The technical side of the security industry did not want to sit at the same table as the manned guarding sector and vice versa! At that stage many of the national companies (pre-globalisation) did deals that enabled them to focus on their core areas of business. For instance Shorrocks Guards went to Securicor and Securicor Alarms went to Shorrocks. The industry sorted itself out and eventually the two SILBs merged into one. It was also around this time that industry representatives were lobbying for government regulation for the manned guarding sector. So both training and regulation were being debated in parallel.One of the main reasons JSIC (Joint Security Industry Council) was created was for the security sectors to talk to government from under one umbrella organisation. However, each sector wanted its own voice from the Master Locksmiths Association (MLA) to the Association of Security Consultants (ASC). They did not want one trade association to represent them all. The idea was that each of the sectors would nominate a ‘cVIP’ (Communication VIP) representative to talk as an industry expert for their sector. However, the BSIA did not want to be part of an umbrella, they wanted to represent the entire industry.
SITO (Security Industry Training Organisation) was already up and running and had revolutionised training in the manned guarding sector. SITO played a major role in professionalising the industry in what was still a self-regulatory environment. Raising standards, challenging the status quo and championing education had all led to an improvement in sector profile and genuine progress. So now that the issue of self-regulation has returned it has also opened the door for debate on training in a self regulated market. Who better to consult on this subject than the oracle – Ray Clarke former CEO of SITO and now Managing Director of training company SAFE (Security and Facilities Education). I know that Ray is in favour of government regulation for the industry and has probably more insight into the subject of training in the security profession than anyone. I asked for his contribution to the debate.
Ray said: “Prior to the launch of the SIA, Skills for Security (SfS, formerly SITO) had a complete monopoly on nationally recognised entry level qualifications. It provided the trainer-training, the training materials for delivery and partnered both National Open College Network (NOCN) and City and Guilds in delivering qualifications. However, since the launch of the SIA, a wider market for education and training has developed. So whilst SfS initially dominated the market, it now only has 28 per cent of all awards for license to practice qualifications. The SIA opened up a competitive training market in the licensed security industry. The benefits of have been competition are evident in that control has been kept on fees for examinations, training materials and trainer-training. Indeed, trainer-training is now less expensive than it was in 2002. We have also seen innovation in relation to qualifications and training delivery. It has driven improvements in customer service by offering choice. This would not have been achieved without the establishment of the SIA. The risk is that a return to self regulation could undermine this. SfS at present is the SSB (Sector Skills Body) for the entire security market, responsible for standards development and a number of other strategic activities. However, it did not succeed in becoming a fully licensed Sector Skills Council when the former structure of National Training Organisations was abolished in 2002-3. Therefore, it is not subject to the same analysis and requirements concerning its governance and operation as other sector skill councils. At present SfS has links with Skills for Justice (manned services) and Summit Skills (security systems) as conduits for funding elements of its strategic work. The operating model for SfS is largely the one inherited from SITO in 2003, that of a commercially funded strategic body. It is in Worcester and is now the sole tenant of Security House, its landlord being the BSIA. Historically, over 90 per cent of SfS’s income has been derived from commercial sources. However, cuts in funding for sector bodies, such as the removal of Train to Gain, and a rapidly maturing license to practice market has substantially reduced SfS income to a point where it appears to be struggling. The principal concern is that there is no separation between the commercial and strategic activities. Whilst SfS has produced excellent standards, there is unease that its governance and operational model is conflicted. There are other concerns that the organisation is managed by a board of non executive directors appointed by invitation. Board appointments are not publicly advertised, which is unusual for an organisation with a public-facing role. Access to development committees can be criticised as being restricted to organisations that have a favourable disposition towards SfS as the author of standards, and through the exclusion of competitors, SfS has considerable advantage in turning strategic developments into commercial products in advance of competitors.”
I asked how he felt as one of those competitors. “The risk is that strategic development can be influenced by commercial imperatives which can result in competitors and their customers not always convinced when engaging with Skills for Security, that it is an honest broker.” I asked Ray to substantiate. He said: “Our experience suggests that competitors can be excluded from committees and there is a fear of conflation of strategic and commercial interests to target the customer base of competitors.”
Is Skills for Security a commercial or a strategic body? I asked. He replied: “It is apparent that the combination of a strategic sector skills role and commercial activity can lead to significant structural and conflicting issues. The success or failure of the organisation is primarily dependent upon its funding, which in turn is determined by its market share. The question is whether SfS is a strategic body funded by commercial activity or a commercial body masquerading as a strategic body? When commercially funded, a skills body will need to be consistently better than all competitors to maintain its position. In the case of SfS, it appears that 72 per cent of the market, no longer believe this to be the case. The position is that without a near-monopoly or growing market, commercial funding of sector skills arrangements can provide little long term certainty for the strategic body. With a monopoly, the industry itself loses out.”
So how do you see the future, I asked. Ray said: “Over the coming months, a number of critical decisions need to be made about sector skills arrangements in the sector. The future of representational arrangements for the sector skills strategy is closely entwined with the emergence of self regulatory arrangements. The opportunity exists to finally address the obvious conflicts of interest in sector skills arrangements and the issues relating to ongoing funding. The first decision that needs to be made relates to the scope of the sector skills arrangements that need to be established.” What about the systems sector in all of this. We have already witnessed the licensing of operatives within the confines of an alarm receiving or remote monitoring centre?
Ray said: “The argument that the security and fire systems side of the industry should be retained within the framework of the sector skills arrangements for the security industry is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Whilst major systems companies were often divisions of security companies in the 1990s, this is no longer the case. The sophistication of systems, combined with the increasing linkage with data and communications over IP and integration with building management systems place greater technical demands on sector skills arrangements. The rapid growth of the FSA (Fire and Security Association) which does not recognise SfS attests to major changes in the industry. Measured by ownership, technology, technical standards, market and skills; the development of sector skills strategy clearly belongs with Summit Skills, the skills council for the building services engineering sector. Stefan Hay the head of the Fire and Security Association has gone on the record to say the result of transferring the systems standards will be to increase access to educational opportunity to employers and employees, and improve the speed and relevance of training and qualification development. The emergence of a restructured and smaller strategic body, focused purely on sector skills strategy as part of the self regulatory arrangements for the industry is a distinct possibility. The Home Office decision to support the development of self regulation in the sector provides the security industry with the opportunity to re-think its approach. Are there parts of the industry that would be better served in different sector skills arrangements, do we wish to secure the competitive approach that has emerged for education in the industry and the inherent benefits that that brings, do we believe that governance of any organisation leading sector skills development in the industry need to be open and conform to best practice. If the answer to these questions is yes, then we need to make sure that predictable and consistent funding is made available and spent wisely. If the answer is no, then some of the advances that have been made as a result of regulation will have been lost.”
