ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Hot on the heels of the private
Security Industry Act and all the dire threats of licensing the installers, comes the Police Reform Bill that, once again, threatens to turn our industry and our working practices upside down.

When the Government White Paper on the security industry was launched upon us (for discussion don't forget) speculation ran riot. We assumed that no one would be able to trade without a licence, and you could not have a licence until you had a City & Guilds or an NVQ qualification. Then there was talk about not getting a licence if you had a conviction of any sort, going right back to the days of junior school.

In reality, there was some truth in some of the things and a lot of poetic licence in others. I even heard one character claim that if you got done for speeding it would prevent you from getting a licence – even if you were at school at the time. I am not sure which school he went to but they should have taught him not to drink on an empty head. Anyway, for us the pressure has eased a little now that we find they are going to concentrate on the manned services side of the industry, starting, oddly enough, with the wheel-clampers and door-supervisors, or as they are commonly referred to by our end of the industry, the "Wheel-tappers and Thumpers".

All in good time
I am not saying that we are "off the hook" – it has just been put on the shelf for a while until they get the other (to them, more urgent) side of the industry sorted out. At the time of writing, applications have been invited for the post of Chief Executive for the Security Industry Authority and interviews have probably already started. Next they have to advertise for the rest of the staff and find premises etc. it will be a long job before they get to the position of affecting our section of the industry, but that doesn't mean we can sit back and be complacent. We need to be well aware of these forthcoming changes. It will not do any harm to get ourselves qualified in some way. There are NVQs out there for installing engineers, salesmen and for company managers and I can well see the day when you won't be able to get a job without that bit of paper, be it a licence or a qualification. Let's face it, the days of saying to an interviewee "I will give you a month's trial and see how you go on" are fading fast. That little scrap of paper that gives you a qualification is becoming more and more important.

Many employers are finding that in these days of political correctness you just can't shove an incompetent installer out of the door, throw his P45 after him and tell him to buzz off. You now have to prove that he is incompetent, untrustworthy or just downright unreliable beyond a shadow of a doubt, and then you need irrefutable practical and/or written evidence to back it up. Even after that you can still find yourself in court for wrongful dismissal and/or discrimination if you haven't played by the book.

Letters of complaint
I know all these rules were brought in to protect the innocent and defenceless lads against the overbearing and domineering bosses, but I sometimes wonder if we have gone too far. You don't need to become a boss to prove that you are an incompetent bumbling cretin, a few of the lads out there in the job market would give them a run for their money! Thankfully, the incompetents on both sides are in a minority, (says he quickly before the letters of complaint start pouring in) not that that helps the employer or the employee.

Getting back to the point ... just as we are getting used to the idea of licensing looming on the horizon, we are faced with yet another factor – the Police Reform Bill – and the fox is in the hen house again with speculation scattering like frightened chickens.

The Bill (still in the public domain for comment) is looking at widespread changes in our perception of the police and their activities. There is a suggestion of widening the police 'family' to involve some of the private sectors. As I understand it, the funding of the police has not kept pace with the demands placed on them and resources are being spread to breaking point. We, as the private security industry, are one of the biggest culprits at adding a load of extra costs and wasted man-hours because we cannot get our act together when it comes to false alarm management. What's the current false alarm rate? Still in excess of 90 per cent ? We ought to hang our heads in shame.

You only have to look at car theft and house break-ins to prove that point. The police turn up and give you a crime number and that is probably the last you see unless your possessions turn up at the local car boot sale. Why don't the police do more? Probably because they are chasing yet another false alarm.

Guarding companies can often respond faster than the police ... now many installers are offering keyholding as part of their service

  We all moan and groan about the inadequacy of the police but to look at it realistically they need double the funds and manpower before they can start to turn the tide.

Alternatively, they can look at other ways of saving money and farming out some of their workload to the private sector may be one answer. How often do we hear the cry go up "What we need is more police e on the beat" Fair enough, I can see the point. It is comforting in a way to see the friendly bobby walking round the town smiling at the public and helping little old ladies across the road, but is it the best use of his time?

We see enough uniforms already
Surely it is far better to stick him in a car so that he can get to where he is needed most. Besides that, don't we see enough uniforms parading round the town with the traffic wardens and the car park attendants not to mention the private guarding companies patrolling the large shops and the door supervisors outside every pub and club? When we finally come to realise it, we could easily 'adopt' these people into a wider police 'family' to become the eyes and ears of the regular force. We could give them extra training and limited powers of arrest, not to mention a two-way radio to call in the real police if they are needed. But the real beauty of the scheme is that the cost does not come direct from the police coffers, the police become "managers" of the scheme.

Perhaps this is why they are looking at extending the police family in these ways. It is a lot more cost effective than our current method. Taking it a stage further, to put this into action the police are going to need access to a whole army of operators, each trained and skilled in his own field, each one vetted to a high level and each one registered as a "licenced" operator. Could it be why they are looking at licensing the wheel clampers and door supervisors first? Where else could they save and gain at the same time? Look at our own industry; it has already got to the state where the private guarding company can often respond to alarm activations faster than the police, and many alarm installers are pushing the customers in that direction. In many cases they are taking it a stage further and including keyholding in the service ... on the face of it a good idea. There is a keyholder available 24 hours a day, even if the customer is soaking up the sun on the Costa-Packet.

The down side is the validity of the service offered. Here we must be very careful about who we employ and the vetting and training of staff now takes on a far greater significance. We must say goodbye to the days of a seedy looking character in faded jeans and trainers with an equally seedy looking dog.

Be prepared to pay
We need to be looking at professional companies with smart well-trained operators who have been vetted to the eyeballs, being run from a properly set up control room. You also have to steel yourself to the fact that these things don't come cheap and if you want the right service from the right people you have to pay the right price.

We in the installations side of the business are at the sharp end whether we like it or not. the systems we install are, often as not, the first point of contact with the criminal so it is our responsibility to get the job right, and get the right people to respond. Despite the appaling false alarm rates our industry still holds sufficient respect in high places to prompt them to leave us alone for now and concentrate on others. This is mainly due to the combined effect of the Inspectorates, ACPO and the insurance companies. If it wasn't for the "self policing" action of the inspectorates on our section of the industry, standards and prices would be at rock bottom, training would be zero and insurance premiums would be sky-high, so in many respects our industry has much that it can be proud of. But have we done enough?
With the proposed Police Reform Bill, many changes are ahead for us and we must rise to the challenge. It will no longer be enough to fit a system and walk away. W e now need to look at offering keyholding and fast response to our systems. The insurance companies are going to be looking at the credibility and quality of the companies offering that response before they will underwrite any form of insurance cover. On top of that they are going to want assurances that your company is "doing it right". That means starting by having your company inspected and your staff fully vetted and trained – and, in the fullness of time, licenced so that we can act as the eyes and ears of the official police.

We need to be able to offer physical security in the shape of locks and keys, bars and shutters, electronic security, CCTV for surveillance and evidence in court, access and egress control for "daytime" security, all backed up by a Fast Action Response Team (you will note I did not use the initials). When all that fails we still have the police to fall back on, only by then (when they have been relieved of the burdens they now carry) they should have the men and machines to do the job.