ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Training should be based on standards that are open and which reflect the interests of all strands within the sector, along with regional variations and the views of a wide range of companies, both large and small.

Crucially, the practical delivery of training and assessment should encourage new ideas, price competition and service-based improvements that come from a competitive market, and must take place within a controlling framework that ensures quality.

In achieving this objective, there are probably six fundamental issues that need to be resolved:

• How will the necessary training standards be produced, and how far will the scope of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) actually stretch in practice?
  
• How will training be delivered, and how can we be assured that the courses on offer are of the right quality?
  
• Who will undertake any requirement for the audit of training activity?
  
• Will qualifications play a part in the regulated industry?
  
• Will there be any public monies available to assist in the delivery of training resulting from regulatory requirements and, if so, how should that funding be accessed?
  
• How will the SIA relate to the Sector Skills Council movement, and the education sector?

From the outset, it's important to recognise that there are two sets of standards at play. Those that define a requirement for training, which usually specify course content and training period, and occupational/assessment standards that describe what security operatives should be able to do (or indeed know). The primary focus of the SIA is likely to be on the standards of training, but will inevitably stretch – at the very least – to influencing assessment standards.

What about the breadth of the SIA's involvement in security industry training? Clearly, the focus will be on those entry-level standards that underpin licensing, but what sort of influence will the SIA bring to bear on standards for the more experienced, senior or competent members of the workforce?

If we wish to see an integrated educational framework, one in which there is clarity of structure and clear routes of progression understood by all, then we must adopt an holistic approach to the development of standards. Thus the SIA must have at least some involvement in either influencing or contributing to training standards at all levels within the national educational framework.

While that involvement is unlikely to lead to regulatory requirements for training beyond entry level, the standards underpinning licensing should be part of a broader framework. The SIA is a major but not a sole stakeholder. After all, the in-house sector and strands of the industry operating outside of the licensing requirements also have an interest.

The key to the success of this approach is the role and composition of the Security Skills Strategy Group (SSSG) that has been formed by the SIA. Currently, the interests of the larger manned security companies dominate this group, its constitution is not widely available and the process by which its members were selected ill-defined.

If a constitution were developed which ensured that the interests of all constituent parts of the sector were equally represented, took account of issues relating to devolved Government and balanced the interests of large and small companies alike as well as the in-house sector, perhaps the SSSG could then provide a strategic lead for both the Sector Skills Council movement and the SIA.

Having defined the body with the strategic lead for developing standards, the next issue is the production of standards themselves. Clearly, this will be the role of the Sector Skills Council (more of which anon).

Delivery and control of training
The delivery and control of security training is critical to the success of industry regulation. Again, we must recognise that there are two types of training: that which falls within the scope of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 in respect of being a requirement for licensing – which is of interest to the SIA – and that which does not (and which shouldn't involve the SIA).

Concentrating on training activity that's directly related to licensing, the fundamental principles are very simple. Training must meet the requirements of the standard, the trainers themselves must be sector-competent and capable of instructing effectively and training records have to be maintained at all times. Importantly, they must also be auditable.

The second set of principles relates to the market for training. Prior to the SIA being established in late 2000, the Home Office was clear about the fact that it didn't support the creation of a monopoly in the delivery of training. After all, a situation whereby security companies would be forced – under a regulatory system – to purchase their training needs from a single supplier would ultimately fuel significant resentment in the sector.

If we wish to see an integrated educational framework... then we must adopt an holistic approach to the development of standards. Therefore, the SIA must have at least some involvement in either influencing or contributing to training standards at all lev

By developing an open approval system, with those wishing to offer training being approved by the Sector Skills Council on behalf of the SIA if they met the necessary standards, the industry would then benefit from a lower cost base due to competitive pricing, improvements in customer service and higher levels of innovation. Again, this approvals system could be administered by the Sector Skills Council, responsible to a properly constituted SSSG.

Approvals and auditing procedures
The effective auditing of training provision will be critical to the success of licensing, given that training could well be undertaken by a myriad of security, training and educational companies. SITO has exercised some control over the years through the provision of standardised packages, and a level of audit exercised in those companies participating in the funding scheme.

However, with only two of the six industry 'majors' taking part in the scheme – which demands at least three days of entry-level training – this has merely served to scratch the surface. Clearly, auditing within the new regulated framework will need to be considerably more thorough than that which has been in place to date.

The auditing/approvals process is likely to have three strands: the approval of training packages and/or materials, the approval of instructors and instructor training and the audit of training delivery and records.

While it would be feasible for a UKAS-approved inspectorate – or indeed an awarding body approved by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) – to audit the delivery of security training, on balance the approvals mechanism should be managed by the Sector Skills Council on behalf of the SIA. In this way, the approvals and audit process would be integrated and much more closely linked to the standards-setting role of the Sector Skills Council.

The overriding stipulation, however, is that the approvals and audit procedure needs to be entirely independent of the delivery of training or qualifications. In addition to that, it must itself be auditable.

Public recognition of achievement
The benefit of a formal assessment process is that it measures the understanding or competence of individuals, while the resulting qualifications provide public recognition of achievement. If the security sector is to attract higher calibre individuals, we desperately need to put in place a well-defined career structure that's underpinned by qualifications throughout. The adoption of qualifications would also increase the probability of public funding being made available.

Responsibility for the delivery of qualifications falls within the remit of statutory bodies inside the educational sector, the QCA and its sister bodies in the developed administrations. Already, four of the UK's five largest awarding bodies – namely EdExcel/ BTEC, the NOCN, City and Guilds and the SQA – operate in the sector, with smaller awarding bodies like the NCfE, the British Institute of Innkeepers and SITO also very active.

A characteristic of the qualifications framework that's not generally understood is that there's equal value in the qualifications offered by the QCA-accredited awarding bodies when offered against the same standards. An example of this is the NVQ Level 2 in security and loss prevention. Both City and Guilds/SITO and EdExcel offer the award. The bodies use the same standards, enjoy the same degree of approval from the QCA and support the same market. The difference comes in pricing, customer service and overall approach.

Surprisingly, few companies in the security industry have taken the opportunity to extract the best deal as a result of the competitive choice available.

As is the case with the provision of training, qualifications should be offered through a competitive market. It's the role of the SIA to determine entry-level standards for licensing in conjunction with the Sector Skills Council. It should be left to the QCA and its sister bodies to regulate the awarding bodies in a competitive marketplace.

In addition, it's also the responsibility of the QCA to determine the suitability of the awarding body to offer qualifications in the security sector. This will include making judgements on governance issues, as well as any potential conflicts of interest between awarding and training activities.

Who's going to pay for training?
Having defined the necessary structures for security industry training, we now come to the $64,000 question – who pays for it all?

On the one hand, if the SIA delivers on its earlier promises of a quantum leap in the amount of training undertaken in the industry, there will be a significant extra cost incurred by the security sector as a result of regulation. Perhaps there’s an

In the December 2002 edition of Security Management Today ('Mark of Authority', pp20-23), SIA chair Molly Meacher stated that the SIA is liaising with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) on the issue of funding training for the security industry. In Wales, the SIA will have to negotiate with the ELWa, but will the Authority be successful in its endeavours?

On the one hand, if the SIA delivers on its earlier promises of a quantum leap in the amount of training undertaken in the industry, there will be a significant extra cost incurred by the security sector as a result of regulation. Perhaps there's an argument to suggest that the public purse should bear at least some of that additional cost.

On the other hand, it's a difficult case to argue that taxpayers' money should be used to support training that's a requirement of regulation (where that training will have to occur if the industry is to continue to trade).

Further complications arise in that the sheer volume of training involved could be extremely high and, hence, a major drain on the public purse – and that the levels of training likely to be demanded by the SIA are far lower than that usually supported by public funds.

There will certainly be money for basic skills and NVQ Level 2 and 3 assessments, but there must be a question mark hanging over the longer term funding of entry-level training in a regulated industry.

The SSC: where are we now?
Since the Autumn of 2002, the rules relating to Sector Skills Council recognition have shifted somewhat. It's now possible to gain Council recognition in a sector employing more than 500,000 people, a figure that the security industry would indeed achieve. However, there are still issues surrounding the sector in respect of defining its scope of coverage, particularly with regard to engineering functions and its relationships with the public service, construction and facilities sectors. As a cross-sectoral activity, the question has to be asked as to whether or not the security industry warrants a Sector Skills Council at all.

All of these variables must be resolved prior to the security industry being accepted as a Sector Skills Council. This will delay recognition still further.

Assuming that the security sector does attain Sector Skills Council status (which I believe is highly probable), we then need to define the nature of that Council. The primary function of a Sector Skills Council is to provide a strategic input for raising sector productivity and skills levels. This involves developing standards, undertaking economic and labour market research, producing learning pathways and linking up with agencies such as the LSC with a view to providing supportive structures for education and training.

The manner in which a Sector Skills Council is funded will ultimately determine its nature. Until now, SITO has had to generate income commercially to support its operation as a National Training Organisation (the forerunner to the Sector Skills Council movement). Under the new arrangements for Sector Skills Councils, the Sector Skills Development Agency – the body which approves and funds Sector Skills Councils – makes a significant contribution to core funding of the operation of those Councils, but also expects employees to make a similarly significant contribution.

There's no requirement for a Sector Skills Council to offer commercial services. If employees in the security sector contributed to the Sector Skills Council through the SIA licence fee, the Council could then focus purely on strategic activities. Should this be the case, the security sector will then have found the means by which it can fund a sector-based training body. A body independent of trade association and commercial interests, and with a broader cross-section of the industry contributing to Sector Skills Council activity.

In my blueprint for sector training, the SIA would influence the strategic direction of training through a reconstituted SSSG. The Sector Skills Council would indeed be sector-specific, with the SSSG acting as its Board. The role of the Sector Skills Council would be to develop standards, undertake economic and labour market research, assume responsibility for audit activity and liaise with the LSC and the ELWa for funding to support training delivery.

The Sector Skills Council would be funded by the Sector Skills Development Agency, along with a proportion of the licence fee being directed to the support of SSC activities by way of employer contribution. Also, the Sector Skills Council would have no commercial interests in the delivery of training and qualifications, that being left to the market within the requirements of the relevant regulatory bodies.

Curiously, this is not a million miles from the original proposals for a Sector Skills Council made by the former SITO chairman Bob Rowan and myself. We sought a security-specific Sector Skills Council until such time that we were advised the sector was too small to warrant such an approach. We then identified and supported the need for a competitive marketplace in respect of training delivery.