ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

The private security industry is now in a period of transition and, provided that the process is well led and properly managed, 'security' is likely to be offering an alternative career in competition to the police service. Indeed, this is already happening... While police officers are gaining academic qualifications in law and criminology, security managers are gaining theirs in security management.

Much depends, of course, on the willingness of senior police officers to allow the security industry – in its widest context – to be their equal, firmest and most reliable ally.

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) will be a key player in the industry's future but, in my opinion, the indications thus far are that its development plans for the private sector follow a rather predictable path of crime prevention.

That is if SIA chair Molly Meacher's vision – "To create a framework for the private security industry that will attain an international reputation for quality of service and professionalism" – is correct. Good stuff, and exactly what the security industry needs to protect its clients' people and property.

In addition, Molly talks about "an industry that makes a significant contribution to reducing crime, disorder and the fear of crime". In other words 'crime prevention', or whatever the latest Home Office buzz phrase may be.

I'm not too sure how this statement squares with security consultants and corporate security managers, most of whom are not engaged in crime prevention but are instead employed "to protect the people, information and property of the employer or client against loss, unauthorised disclosure and/or damage". This might well encompass industrial espionage (which, as I'm sure Molly is all-too-well aware, is not a crime).

To be honest, I have to express some disappointment at this last statement, because I had hoped that the SIA might bring some much-needed new blood into 'security'.

The structure of the Board
Let's now turn our attentions to the SIA Board, as announced in last month's Security Management Today ('Board and Stakeholder Committee join the SIA', News Update, p7). According to the SIA's 'At-a-Glance' Notice Board, Molly Meacher has a wide-ranging knowledge of police matters which, apparently, is of direct relevance to the private security industry's role within Home Secretary David Blunkett's 'extended police family'. Whatever that is. Maybe Molly would care to explain?

Lincolnshire Police chief constable Richard Childs is the ACPO representative on the SIA Board. His rather restricted views on security have already been challenged, but in any case why should ACPO be represented here? If it is that concerned about the development of 'security', should it not also be represented on the SIA Stakeholder Advisory Committee?

Robin Dahlberg appears to be a sound choice. Peter Hermitage is yet another Board member with a police background, noticeably in training. Why is this? Two birds could have been killed with one proverbial stone by appointing a lone police officer.

The SIA will be a key player in the industry’s future but, in my opinion, the indications thus far are that its development (and the plans it appears to harbour for the private sector) follows a rather predictable path of crime prevention

Then there's Brendan O'Friel, formerly of HM Prison Service. Mmm. I wonder if that appointment has been made because Molly Meacher seems to have a preference for police and prison service training?

Then there's Bruce Warman, an employment specialist and another good choice.

Thus we are faced with three SIA Board members heavily influenced by their experiences with the police service, and one boasting a lengthy period with HM Prison Service – but none from the military or Royal Air Force who train their recruits in a more pure version of security than any constabulary.

And where is the security management representation to balance the law enforcement expertise? Why not include an academic such as Professor Martin Gill, who has a good breadth of knowledge of the security culture, and has been extensively involved in security education for many years?

Compare the SIA's structure with that of the all-new NHS Counter-Fraud Service and Security Management Board, which was formed in April. Although the Counter-Fraud Service was the existing legal entity, NHS security managers were appointed to the Board and, that being the case, should be able to contribute to the debate on the future of NHS security. Let's hope so!

Is the representation right?
A foil that's available to the SIA is the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and, although this is full of high-powered and experienced security managers covering a wide range of organisations and bodies, it lacks credibility because its representation is insufficiently wide. For instance, there's no-one to voice concerns on behalf of the public sector, and yet hospitals and local authorities are responsible for large car parks, for example, in which wheel clamping is an issue.

It seems to me that there are too many business corporations represented. The Joint Security Industry Council may claim that it's representative, but let's at least have a wider contribution.

The cynics out there might suggest that the SIA is under instruction from the Government (or, as is more likely the case, ACPO) in terms of which future direction the industry should take. Either that or Molly Meacher has 'joined' the security sector with her own preconceived conclusions.

What exactly is this 'extended police family', anyway? And why has there not been real and lengthy debate on its direct relevance to the security industry?

One of the prime functions of the SIA should be to introduce fresh blood into the security industry, but here we see the same tired old rationale of a statutory body with a heavy bias towards the police service. The inevitable consequence of this ‘e

I for one am certainly suspicious of the 'police family' concept. Why? For many years, senior police officers have criticised the security industry and resisted moves to improve security alliances unless it has been on their own terms. And until an opportunity arises when the gamekeepers turn poachers and, all-of-a-sudden, become experts in the field of security sitting on Authority, editorial and organisational Boards.

Introducing some fresh blood
One of the prime functions of the SIA should be to introduce fresh blood into the security industry, but here we see the same tired old rationale of a statutory body with a heavy bias towards the police service. The inevitable consequence of this 'evolution' will be a security industry leaning towards law enforcement as the police service devolves more and more of its responsibilities to the security sector.

I see no problem with this, as long as it releases more police officers from their desks and sends them out on to the streets.

This thing we call 'security' must be allowed to develop its own culture, and do so as an equal partner. It is to the 'security family' that I'm most receptive. I have been involved with security in one function or another for over 30 years now. That career spans military protective security, time spent with the defence industry, then briefly as a security business development manager, on to the courier sector and now at the NHS. Where the 'police family' wants to sell me police officers to tackle crime!

On top of that, I also have sufficient judicial experience as a JP, and the necessary academic qualifications to be a Fellow of the Security Institute. There are others like me who deal with the police and HM Prison Service and are suitably unimpressed with the leadership, management and culture. They also believe we, as managers, have much to offer the security industry in the years to come.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. I'm not a 'doubting Thomas', but rather a security practitioner keen to see the existing 'security family' of security officers, security managers, security technology and the interfacing strands of the employer and client develop in a natural fashion.

This huge wealth of experience and knowledge is already strong, covers vast tracts of the country abandoned by the police and is gaining respect and trust almost daily due to visibility, training, willingness and experience.

True, security companies need considerable encouragement to improve their performance, ideally sooner rather than later, but this requires security practitioners in security companies as opposed to accountants.

If the SIA is going to have wider credibility, then it needs to be more radical and prepared to guide a fertile, imaginative and talented industry in developing its existing culture, training and operational strands to suit public and commercial needs – for it is the client who pays the bill.

Security is not about law enforcement financed by the Home Office or local authorities. As the word itself implies, security is all about protection. The SIA Board needs to be less representative of the great and good of 'professional' Board members, instead making more use of those individuals who are prepared to challenge perceptions and then subsequently develop the maturity of the security family still further.