Writing just before the SIA took away the April start-point for taking business licences, while still insisting on the April 2015 deadline, London-based contract guarding company MD Wilson Chowdhry was already querying how helpful the regulator has been to the sector.
As April draws nearer managers in the security industry prepare themselves for the onset of the SIA’s Business Licensing programme. But just how many companies are ready? Moreover, what is the purpose of this new business license process? The SIA’s own Business Licensing Factsheet says:
“New regulation will further reduce criminality and poor business practices within the industry, benefit public protection, build on investment in the industry and increase support for law enforcement partners, particularly those focused on disrupting serious and organised crime.”
However many experts and practitioners associated with the industry see little change in the industry , despite seven years of regulation. Several reports of fake SIA licences have caused concern amongst professionals within the industry. One particular example was reported on the SIA’s own website when on September 29, 2013 they stated;
“A door supervisor was found working on a fake SIA licence during an operation conducted on Friday night [25 October] in Slough.”
Full story can be read here: http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/about-news.aspx?newsid=452
Although this capture was reported as a success, to many inside and outside the industry it signifies the failure of a system. We have to be honest with ourselves and recognise that it is highly unlikely that this case of fraud is an isolated incident. This then poses many questions, the most salient of all – how deep is the rot? My memories from the nascent phase of the SIA’s creation and implementation, was their estimation of close to one million operatives, deployed in the industry. After the first two years of licensing this figure was dropped. Bizarrely, many of us have seen fake licenses and reported them, but perpetrators are rarely caught. This awful malady is compounded by the large number of more audacious operatives who brazenly work bereft of any form of license. Whilst researching the topic of fake licenses, I was horrified to read a Yahoo question querying where to obtain fake licenses. The fact that one respondent chose to offer a remedy to the enquiry, only served to highlight the absence of fear and relative impunity, in which the illicit activity takes place.
Here is a link to the question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090113020230AAhPplV
The SIA was heralded as the change-maker for an industry that held a tarnished reputation. Yet examples from above would suggest they have failed in their primary aim. The SIA licensing programme is in my opinion a shambles, quite routinely I come across officers who have an extremely poor grasp of the English language, who simply would not be able to conduct the safety element of their assignment instructions, with any confidence. These same deployed officers would barely be able to sufficiently cover perfunctory duties, yet somehow have subverted the licensing process. The fault may not be entirely the making of the SIA, and we can apportion significant blame on the examining bodies, linked to training for the industry, who have failed to come to terms with the growing number of “turn up and pass” academies.
Awareness is increasing about the number of academies using dubious practices for training including; invigilators reading out answers before an exam, substitute sitters in exams, and invigilators completing exam papers. Some might ask; why an examinee needs such help for a 40 question multiple choice exam. But the fact remains that there is a growing economy for these false documents. Whistle-blowing to awarding bodies and the SIA, have not in my experience yielded a concerted effort to apprehend perpetrators of these crimes. This flies in the face of the professional status of the aforementioned authorities. Moreover, failure to clamp down on this illegal activity has led to many illegal migrants viewing the industry as a soft touch.
Returning back to my first question, I have to ask are security companies ready for this new licensing remit. To this question I respond favourably. Industry practitioners took in the initial phase of regulation, well within their stride. As a director of AA Security Ltd I was pleased that our company achieved SIA approved contractor status during its very first phase – a success emulated by less than 200 other companies. However, I am aware that the current figure of ACS approved companies stands at 770, indicating that over the years, additional professional companies have caught up with the increasing legislation, regulations, standards and probity expected of them, over the last ten years. Yes, the cowboys have found ways to buck the system, but clients with savvy have learned to differentiate and vetting has improved for companies in the public and commercial sector overall. There still remains a false economy in the booming construction industry (buoyed by the Government’s “Help to Buy Scheme.” Companies seeking lower costs and increasing profits, are complicit in the crime of deployment of illegal workers. They knowingly hire services from “here today, gone tomorrow” pseudo-security companies, knowing full well unlicensed operatives many without permission to stay in the UK are working on their site.
I am aware the construction industry is not singular in this approach to hiring security, but am astounded at the disparity in rates charged to corporate entities in this industry, when compared to others. Only last year during a call to a leading firm in the industry, one of our marketers was told that the industry giant was not interested in our services, as they could pay £6 per hour for the service? I won’t do the maths in this article but simply ask you to question how this is possible?
I think a more suitable question to ask is how well the SIA have advised the industry? To date to no clear figures have been set or even postulated for the cost of licensing. We know there will be four payment bands dependent on the size of a company, but no more than this? Hardly helpful considering this additional cost will impact on bottom line. This lack of pertinent information prevents rational budgeting requisite for easy assimilation. It speaks of a complete disregard of the affect these new costs will have on an industry forced to satiate the costs for implementation, development and monitoring for the scheme. Needless to say, I am sure the majority of the industry will survive through this new ordeal, but that does not justify sheer incompetence or bias.
*You can read this article on Professional Security Magazine [Here]