星空传媒

Security Management Today (SMT): We have heard on the grapevine that First Security has been 鈥� and continues to be 鈥� something of a pioneer in tackling licensing and regulation, Jonathan. What has been your experience of the whole process to date?

Jonathan Levine (JL): 鈥淎s a company, we involved Security Industry Authority (SIA) chief executive John Saunders and (then) chairman Molly Meacher right from the outset in what we were doing to meet the terms and conditions of licensing and regulation. We have taken it very seriously, engaging all of our customers 鈥� both existing and potential 鈥� at an early stage.

鈥淚 also sat on the Core Competencies Group with the other major company managing directors. For all of the meetings that were held, either I went along or a senior member of my team attended in my place.

鈥淭his year alone, we鈥檝e invested a further 拢140,000 in our Human Resources operation. Much of that is to cover licensing administrators that are coming in to support the data we have accumulated. At the present time I have 147 training days lined up. Virtually 30% of the workforce is already trained to accommodate the licensing process. We鈥檝e been using City University as one of our training centres, and that has worked out well.鈥�

SMT: What about the logistics of all this, Jonathan? How have you coped with all of the necessary administration procedures, for example?

JL: 鈥淩egulation is proving to be a massive logistical exercise. We have monthly meetings involving the Board and senior management team, and there鈥檚 an ongoing Regulation Project Group that meets virtually every other day to monitor the training aspects. We have committed to having 85%-90% of our workforce trained, vetted and licensed in line with the SIA鈥檚 requirements before the end of this year. Hopefully, all the required members of staff will be licensed by then.

鈥淗ow are we making that happen? For a start, we have invested the necessary money early on because we want to be at the forefront of raising the standards barrier. When the initial licenses are due for renewal in three years鈥� time, we鈥檒l probably see more training hours being added. 32 hours鈥� training will not be enough. I would very much like to see us move further towards the Scandinavian model.

鈥淭he reason we have invested heavily in personnel is that there鈥檚 going to be a tightening in the market. Recruitment will be much more difficult. It is likely that we鈥檒l have to split our operational zone into three areas.

鈥淭he majority of our customers are prepared to pay for the cost of licensing, and the biggest cost involved centres on the training and administration. Those costs simply have to be passed on.

鈥淚 recently completed an investor presentation. Afterwards it occurred to me that a perception exists suggesting one extra day of training [on conflict management techniques] will make all the difference. It will not. The same officers will be on duty post-licensing.鈥�

SMT: How is the licence application process working out in practice? Has it been relatively simple or somewhat problematic for you?

JL: 鈥淲e are genuinely concerned about the application process for the licenses. As things stand, if a list of 200-odd names is sent to the SIA, the application forms are being directed straight to the officers鈥� individual addresses rather than to the company. We then have to contact each of those officers and ensure that they return their forms. The whole purpose of us having appointed a licensing administrator is so that we could help officers with the form-filling.

鈥淚f there鈥檚 anything wrong with those forms they鈥檒l be rejected and you鈥檒l lose 拢190 for each wrong submission. Naturally, we cannot afford for this to happen.

鈥淭hat being the case, we鈥檙e having to liaise with individual officers and ask them to visit our head office at a designated time such that we can assist them with their application forms. All of them have completed the necessary training. We don鈥檛 have a problem with that or the forms themselves. It鈥檚 the way in which the SIA has set things up that鈥檚 the problem.

鈥淲e should have had a bulk applications procedure in place from the start. There鈥檚 no doubt in my mind that the contractors are at fault here, because we ought to have lobbied for a bulk procedure and we didn鈥檛 do so.鈥�

SMT: Have you any strong views on the Approved Contractor Scheme (ahead of the SIA issuing its final guidelines)?

JL: 鈥淭o bring in licensing without first having an Approved Contractor Scheme in place smacks of putting the cart before the horse. We understand the reasons as to why this happened, but the fact is that you鈥檒l now have security companies pushing their officers through licensing when the business isn鈥檛 being run to the right standards.

鈥淭he Approved Contractor Scheme is all to do with leadership, profitability, investment and benchmarking. Managing the business. There are an estimated 2,000-plus companies who will simply not make the grade.

鈥淭he first test case will involve, say, an officer who has worked for a given contractor for 14 or 15 years, and has proven that he or she can do the job, and yet some small point on their application form will prevent them from obtaining a licence in spite of the fact that the customer is very satisfied with their performance. I don鈥檛 know what we can do about that.鈥�

We are genuinely concerned about the application process for the licenses. At present, if a list of 200-odd names is sent to the SIA, the application forms are being directed straight to the officers鈥� individual addresses rather than to the company. The whole purpose of us having appointed a licensing administrator is so that we could help officers with the form-filling

SMT: We firmly believe that private sector licensing will be rendered impotent without regular 鈥� and stringent 鈥� enforcement procedures. How do you feel about this Jonathan?

JL: 鈥淚 tend to agree with you. The big issue is who will be the whistleblowers in March 2006, by which time licensed security officers are the only kind legally allowed to operate? We have invested massive money in licensing, but how will regulation be enforced? Will there be an array of detector vans driving around the country upholding the law?

鈥淲ithout proper enforcement, the SIA鈥檚 regulatory regime will be meaningless.鈥�

SMT: One of the biggest difficulties facing contractors is the issue of recruitment. There has been much talk of 鈥楪olden Hellos鈥� for officers, of course, but the bigger concern is finding a labour pool of new and better-skilled operatives to make up for the shortfall caused by those who do not qualify for a licence. How are you going to approach this problem?

JL: 鈥淚n terms of where we might recruit from, we need to look at the bigger picture. The labour market will harden, certainly. Charge rates will inevitably rise. What we鈥檒l see is that certain people will fall away as licensing comes in. Ex-police and MoD resettlements, as talked about at the last SITO National Conference (鈥楾ogether we can鈥�, SMT, December 2004, pp16-21) will solve the problem, at least in part.

鈥淚n London, we are paying wages substantially above the norm. We have quoted for two or three jobs recently that we鈥檝e won where the companies concerned, all of them well known, have said that they鈥檒l pay less than our benchmarked costs for the London area. We鈥檙e raising the mark. We鈥檒l naturally attract officers from other companies because we鈥檒l keep our pay rates high.

鈥淚鈥檝e heard about the possibility of 鈥楪olden Hellos鈥� being offered. We believe that if you set the pay rates at the right level and offer the right benefits that will not be an issue. People will want to come and work for you and nobody else. We will tell the clients that as well.

鈥淎t the end of the day we simply must maintain the focus on pay rates. That will not be easy, but it has to be done.鈥�

SMT: It鈥檚 obvious that a good many contractors and clients are choosing to ignore the Working Time Directive, but it鈥檚 an issue that will not go away. What are you doing to build this into your current and future contracts, Jonathan?

JL: 鈥淚n revenue terms, about 25% of our contracts already adhere to the Working Time Directive. Customers are moving over, but many clients are waiting until the Directive is imposed before they choose to deal with it.鈥�

SMT: Have the clients exhibited a sound understanding of your position as a security services provider faced with all of this upheaval?

JL: 鈥淚nterestingly, most of the clients are being very sensible about licensing. They know that if they were to move their accounts to another contractor 鈥� be it Group 4 Securicor, Reliance or the Shield Guarding Company, for example 鈥� then they would be privy to the same proposals and answers.鈥�

SMT: Only last month the SIA and the Metropolitan Police were forced to extend the deadline for door supervisor licenses in the Capital because too many companies had chosen to ignore the onset of regulation, and had simply 鈥榮at on their hands鈥�. As a company, First is 鈥榩laying by the rules鈥� and doing all the right things, but aren鈥檛 you a little worried that a similar 鈥榮tay of execution鈥� will be granted in the guarding sector, thereby penalising those companies who have acted in accordance with the law?

JL: 鈥淭hat鈥檚 an extremely good question. What will happen on 20 March next year? Will there be an extension to the deadline of, say, six months because the industry鈥檚 licensing timetable is way off schedule?

鈥淚n my opinion, if the bulk application procedure doesn鈥檛 take shape, and pretty soon, we鈥檙e going to have a real problem on our hands. Those 200 forms must be posted to us at the company, not to individual addresses. We鈥檙e worried that passports and other confidential documents required are going to go missing somewhere along the line. I鈥檓 very nervous that I鈥檒l end up with half of Group 4 Securicor鈥檚 licences, say, and vice versa. It鈥檚 a real worry for us at the moment.鈥�

SMT: As yet, no-one knows about the possible cost of an annualised fee for membership of the Approved Contractor Scheme. If a fee is imposed, what do you think it should be?

JL: 鈥淵ou need to be thinking more laterally than that. We are currently paying the BSIA a fee to be a member of that organisation. If we have to pay another fee to the SIA, then what鈥檚 the ongoing benefit of continuing to belong to the BSIA? That for one is a fundamental question which demands an answer.鈥�