Security Oracle News Archive

Licensing – Good, Bad And Ugly

Mon, October 23, 2006

Source: IPSA

Justin Bentley, Deputy International Chairman of The International Professional Security Association, gives his personal opinions…

Justin Bentley, Deputy International Chairman of IPSA, gives his personal opinions…

It is over four months since D-Day for licensing and theoretically everything should be running smoothly now. Don’t misunderstand this article, I am in favour of licensing. Anything which improves the industry, increases the professionalism and stature of security officers and expels the cowboy criminal element should be beneficial. I just do not think what we ended up with was the best implementation of the legislation.

The Good

Training previously was not mandatory; anybody could put on a uniform and start work. Companies compliant with British Standards had to provide “at least two working days” of training on a list of headline topics. Now we have a minimum of four days training, with a more defined syllabus and rigorous assessment. There are also intentions for Continuous Professional Development (CPD) to be part of the licence renewal process. How the CPD requirement will be developed  has not been decided yet, but I would like to see security officers having to undertake a minimum of two days refresher or further training during the three year life of their licence and in order to qualify for renewal. This training could be any of a list of more specialist courses, e.g. an advanced security officer course, first aid, fire fighting skills.

Criminal Records Bureau checks were an obvious inclusion for licensing. It is difficult to come up with a fair system which allows rehabilitated individuals with something, now irrelevant, in their distant past to be licensed,  but excludes habitual reoffenders. Wherever the line is drawn it will create unfair exceptions, but there had to be a line. Recent SIA figures cite 4159 licenses refused.   Whilst some of these people may not have read or understood the implications of the literature, others rightly or wrongly presumably considered that they were suitable and fit persons. Unfortunately, what we do not know is the number of people who have quietly dropped out of the industry.

The Bad

The introduction of licensing could have been so much smoother, i.e. having sufficient personnel and resources to process applications within a reasonable timescale

On the 2nd August 2005  I asked the then Chairman of the SIA if he could name a date, which would ensure that if a correct and complete application form was received by that date, the SIA could guarantee the application would be processed by the March deadline. I never did get a reply, maybe that date had already passed?

There was adequate time to plan for the predictable backlog and secure additional resources. Hadn’t they heard of short term contracts or temping agencies? Other businesses with foresight take on additional staff and resources to cope with seasonal fluctuations.  Blaming it entirely on the applicants was quite unacceptable.

Training issues should also have been ironed out in advance, not during the process.

I can understand that a licence cannot be issued for longer than three years to ensure regular Criminal Record checks, but there could have been a financial incentive, rather than the penalty of lost months of validity, for applying sooner.

The whole application process is a bureaucratic nightmare, with applications processed without any attempt at customer service or logic. Applications  are often  returned for no obvious or sensible  reason (when resubmitted unchanged, they are sometimes processed without question) or for minor queries  that a phone call could resolve in the same time it takes to complete the rejection form and write the address on the return envelope. The Association has heard of many cases of rejection and tales of lost job opportunities, but the one reason that must be the most annoying is stating that documentation produced is too old, when the application has sat unopened at the SIA agency’s office for three months or more.

The Ugly

There are very frustrating experiences, such as trying to contact the SIA to enquire about delayed processing of an application.  I know security officers who can recite word perfect the phone announcement asking them to ring back later. And when you do get through, for the amount of help you receive, you might as well be speaking to a call centre half way round the world.

Then you have the obstinate belief at the top of the SIA that this is the only way and that it is for our benefit. Would it not be possible to have a probationary licence for three months, which you could only receive once, to enable you to start work as soon as trained? They have a database of licensed individuals, there could be a database of people refused licences or who have previously had a probationary licence. The SIA say that they are working with the industry, but they do not understand the needs of the industry.

The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is an unwelcome bolt-on to the licensing scheme. Launched with a marketing budget that is either government-funded or will need to be recouped in fees charged to the industry, a number of purchasers are stating ACS as the required benchmark for tenders for new business.  This is a scheme which puts as much emphasis on environmental impact as industry relevant standards. The industry did not need mission statements; it needed companies that provided quality services to clients and support to the security officers on the front line. The product of this kind of scheme is an organisation that has a procedure for everything, where everything is done to the letter, staff are so focussed on procedures that they ignore the customers, …is this sounding familiar yet?

Of course the big selling point for the ACS, as opposed to any of the existing inspection regimes, is the ability to use security officers whilst their application is in progress. This sounds fantastic at first, the panacea for the headaches caused by the licensing process. ACS Companies able to recruit, train and then put staff (almost) straight to work. Except, you have to be able to prove that the completed application has been received by the SIA agency. You have trained the person, they have completed their licence application, provided their proof of identity; you now need the awarding body to confirm they have passed the training (at least one week), post the application to the SIA, the application then sits in the in-tray for a couple of weeks before being opened, checked and confirmed. Then you must wait for the confirmation letter before you can issue a Licence Dispensation Notice to the employee. Even with ACS endorsement, it will probably take at least a month before the security officer can start work. In the mean time, they have discovered the pay and hours are better collecting trolleys at the supermarket, plus they get 10% off their weekly shopping!

IPSA