星空传媒

While all those within our industry agreed on the sentiments underpinning regulation, its subsequent execution has been somewhat questionable.

Yes, we needed a rigorous mechanism to check any past criminality among security officers and, yes, we also needed the basic competency levels set. The communication and conflict management extension to the previous Basic Job Training standard also represents a positive brainwave.

Certainly, these two areas have become so vital in the daily role of any officer. As a consequence of additional training here, I have seen far more confident and well-equipped operatives on duty. Conflict management training - most notably the Maybo course which I have attended - has taught our officers how to read body language and deal with the problem before it arises rather than after the event. A much more desirable approach.

The Approved Contractor Scheme

What I'm uncomfortable with is the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), which appears to be a voluntary scheme made mandatory by poor processes and procedures.

Throughout my own career, I have both given and received clear instructions. "I would like an officer or store detective in XYZ store for 48 hours per week". Simple. Job done. Now, customers are beginning to ask me: "Are you ACS verified? Are all of your officers licensed?"

It is hard to explain to clients who are not of our industry that the ACS is a voluntary scheme which has only just been finalised.

Like many other security providers, Lodge Service is obliged to apply for ACS status in order to use officers while licence applications are being processed. This gives the ACS an unfair competitive advantage against the likes of the National Security Inspectorate and The Security Watchdog. At the very least, those two organisations would provide their members with support, and have operated a grading system within which companies might graduate if they feel so inclined.

At 拢20 per member of staff (plus the admin fees), the ACS is expensive, monopolistic, effectively mandatory and limited in scope.

鈥楩all-out' of labour

In terms of licensing, we at Lodge Service bought into the training in 2005 and cleared that quickly. Of our 400 staff, only ten are unable to provide the necessary criminality status as their home countries cannot produce the necessary documentation. Initially, predictions suggested that there would be a huge 鈥榝all-out' of labour from the industry due to this occurrence, but from our experience that has not been the case.

We have not attained ACS listing as yet - we are being inspected by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) in early April - so the ability for us to deploy on site 15% of our staff whose licence applications are 鈥榠n progress' is not available. There will always be new applicants joining us from within the industry and from outside of the sector. Some may have licences. For others, we will be awaiting their licence from the SIA.

Our options are simple. Not to use staff who don't yet possess a licence, send them home, pay them for the days and weeks they are off work and neglect to provide our customers with on-site security. That would equate to lost revenue and impact on a bottom line already eroded by the entire SIA regulation process.

Alternatively, we could use the staff on the basis that everyone else is in the same boat because the SIA is sitting on their applications, but that would risk fines and possible imprisonment for my directors.

Licensing for security officers should have been delayed until the backlog of applications was cleared. 20 March ought to have remained the cut-off date, but with 1 May as the effective date in terms of on-site deployment

Frankly, neither option is that attractive. We are of the firm opinion that the Regulator will be harsh with those companies who are not actively tackling the subject. I speak with the perspective of an operator - one who is wise in retrospect but, admittedly, ignorant of all the internal workings at the SIA.

The ACS should have been a mandatory scheme launched way before individual officer licensing with automatic qualification - or 鈥榩assporting' - for companies with BS 7499, BS 7858 and other third party-recognised quality status, and at a lower cost. Sadly, the passporting idea does not appear to have been thoroughly investigated. As a consequence, it will only become effective so far down the line as to be irrelevant (since companies will have addressed the issue by then).

What should have happened

Licensing for security officers should have been delayed until the backlog of applications was cleared. 20 March ought to have remained the cut-off date, but with 1 May as the effective date in terms of on-site deployment.

In addition, all licences issued should have started on 20 March, not the prior date when applications were submitted. This would have avoided companies holding back on their applications to increase time before expiry.

What about staff grading? There does not appear to be any scope built-in to licensing for a given member of staff to be recognised as exceeding the standard...

Aside from conflict management, there was an opportunity with licensing to extend training to include additional key areas such as customer service, arrest procedures, search techniques and First Aid (to name but a few). As we begin to see a far more prominent role for security staff across the whole community, the public is surely entitled to expect our industry to supply operatives who, as a bare minimum, display knowledge and confidence in these and many other relevant areas?

The training itself could simply be applied across, say, a three, six or even 12-month period. Only at the end of the programme - and if the individual concerned has reached the required levels - would he or she be rewarded with a full licence (or perhaps there could be a class of licence dependent on the levels achieved). This process would not be too dissimilar to the two year's probation a new police officer is required to serve.

The road to professionalism

Our industry has disappointed its public on so many levels for so many years that another 12 months to really roll out some meaningful development for all concerned would surely have been an investment worth making?

I have successfully assisted two businesses through the ISO 9001 procedures, but have recently found myself chasing what appeared to be an elusive and imaginary goal prior to the final announcements on the ACS.

Regulation and licensing is certainly a step in the right direction - albeit slightly more of a stumble than a positive and decisive move.