SubscribeAs recently as March 20th, the security industry underwent a revolution, but if you missed it you can be forgiven because publicity surrounding the changes that took place was conspicuous by its absence.
Contract Security Officers working in England and Wales must now carry a valid License - it is a criminal offence to work as a contract Security Officer without one. Simultaneously, ACS was launched.
ACS stands for the Approved Contractor Scheme and it's a vital component of the strategy to improve standards within the contract security industry and, as such, it's of real significance to Facilities Managers throughout the UK.
If you habitually read the pages of the security industry press (the only media that vocally heralded this new era for the security industry), you'll be aware that the Regulation of the Security Industry Act (2001) which came into force in March simultaneously legitimised security officers who had obtained Licenses and criminalised those who hadn't.
The Home Office body responsible for enacting the new laws is the Security Industry Authority - better known as the SIA.
It is their job to issue Licenses to qualifying applicants, and it is also their job to enforce the law by investigating and prosecuting security officers who continue to work even though they don't possess a License and the companies that employ them.
As at 5th July, the SIA had granted just over 62,000 Licenses, had refused 1,245, and were processing a staggering 95,000 applications.
Estimates vary over how many people are employed as security officers in the UK, but taking a mid-range figure of 125,000 (the SIA suggests there are 122,913 qualified people), simple mathematics tells you that there are a large number working illegally.
Regulating such a large industry by law is no simple task, as these two exemptions amply illustrate:
- The law only applies to Licensing of contract security officers - 'in-house' security guards are exempt. The future status of in-house security guards is ambiguous; the SIA is apparently 'minded' to recommend that Licensing be extended to cover in-house employees, but there is no timetable proposed, nor is the decision to extend Licensing to cover this category of security professional cast in stone. It is also worth noting that Licensing has not reached Scotland yet, with Licensing due to come into force there "towards the end of 2007".
- There is a device known as the License Dispensation Notice that allows certain companies to employ, train and deploy an unlicensed security officer pending the granting of a License by the SIA. The only companies able to operate in this way are the 213 companies who have achieved Approved Contractor status - this being an onerous quality management assessment made by the SIA.
The Approved Contractor Scheme is most definitely a Good Thing, and is your guarantee that you are dealing with a reputable, well-run and serious service provider. Obtaining and maintaining ACS is no small achievement - the standards that have to be reached are far in excess of the minimum standards that apply to practically any other business services sector.
So, if the Security Officer working at your premises has a License (indicated by the possession of a blue credit card-sized badge bearing his or her name and photograph), then all's well and good. If the Officer has no badge, you must check to see if he or she is working under a License Dispensation Notice issued by an Approved Contractor. You can check the register of approved contractors on the SIA website at www.the-sia.org.uk.
The most desirable situation of all is this: your staff are Licensed and the service provider is an Approved Contractor. That's the minimum you should demand.
An uneven playing field
Having said that Approved Contractor Scheme is a Good Thing, there are some problems with it, not the least of which is the uneven playing field it creates. Take this illustration as an example; there are two bidders for a security contract, the incumbent is ACS, the other not. The ACS company has invested heavily in achieving the new benchmark and Licensing for their staff, the other has not.
This places the second company in a commercially advantageous position: their overheads are lower and they are able to substantially undercut the ACS contractor and (this is the killer blow) they inherit the trained, vetted and Licensed security officers under TUPE.
In this scenario, the ACS contractor suffers a double blow - not only do they lose the contract, they also lose the considerable investment they have made in their staff. The only hindrance to this situation is the goodwill of the customer and, as we all know even if we prefer not to admit it, goodwill frequently falls on the sword of a cost saving.
The vast majority of Facilities Managers are committed to the twin pillars of raising standards and gaining efficiencies. At the present time, ACS security providers rely on Facilities Managers giving equal weight to both of these pillars to maintain their competitive position.
If the SIA cannot make ACS mandatory - and for a variety of reasons, they can't - then we are entirely dependent on our customers to discern the advantages that obtain from doing business with ACS companies, and weigh these favourably against companies that haven't met the required standards.
Enforcement of the law
Meanwhile, four months in to the new regime, we are still awaiting the prosecutions that will prove the effectiveness of the law and those charged with enforcing it. Evidence of enforcement is fairly scant at this stage and while it's only fair to point out that the SIA has been swamped by the deluge of late License applications, applications for accreditation under ACS and the associated administrative burden, those companies that have committed so much funding and resource to the process are now desperately keen to see Licensing come to some fruition.
There is very little doubt that there are many security officers who are currently working illegally. No-one particularly wishes to see an individual put through the courts for trying to earn a living, but the company bosses who employ them despite the fact that they are fully aware of their legal position are doing so in the most opportunistic fashion.
These companies regard the threat of prosecution as being a risk worth taking in order to turn a quick profit. March 20th was supposed to see the back of the cowboys. No such luck... at least not yet.
Our concern is that if Facilities Managers are still unaware of the laws and their ramifications, then they are in no position make fully informed decisions. Licensing is far more than an artificial device to raise standards; it carries the full weight of criminal law and it is obligatory, not voluntary.
By employing the services of a company that deploys unlicensed officers, Facilities Managers will be consenting to a breach of that law - and that is clearly not a tenable or tolerable position for them to be in.
