Manned security's changing face

While the BSIA is to be commended for its hard work during this time, there remains a considerable disparity in service provision among its members. This is something about which I am constantly reminded in every contract negotiation which involves inheriting those contracts previously administered by other BSIA-approved companies.

Consequently, I've seen the status of BSIA membership eroded by the wider range of companies included in its ranks, not to mention the massive increase in the number of contractors outside of the Association's 'umbrella' who offer much lower levels of service provision – in turn eroding the status of the industry as a whole.

While economists might argue that this is the true essence of competition, I believe that we can no longer allow our industry to be dictated to by uncontrolled market forces alone. To do so plays right into the hands of the protagonists that claim the security sector is unable to cope with the increased levels of training and more strenuous vetting requirements that would ultimately allow security companies to adopt a more 'public' role. Indeed, this is already a reality – albeit one which we have been slow to realise.

Increasingly, there is an expectation beyond our immediate commercial clients when we consider the role of each and every security officer. Contracts where our officers have next to no interaction with the general public are now few and far between.

At the same time, analysts are pinpointing the fact that the manned guarding sector is exhibiting static growth. I would contend that this particular sector is actually shrinking as clients look towards ever-more efficient methods of security provision.

Operating in a regulated world

As commercial organisations, the security companies desperately need to be operating within a regulated environment. One that protects the needs of the general public.

In turn, this goes far beyond the obvious need for an independently-administered criminal records check. It should embrace the spirit of Government legislation – such as the Working Time Directive – as well as the high expectations of commercial customers and public bodies alike.

In December's Guarding Watch ('Post-derogation: guarding in 2003', p50), Legion Security's md David Evans stated that an end to derogation with respect to the Working Time Directive will be "the single best opportunity this industry has had in over 20 years to improve and develop its staff". I would agree, but with levels of competition ensuring that price differentials between the major players vary hugely, there remains a reluctance to embrace this legislation and quote for contracts according to Working Time Directive-compliant rosters.

To be effective, the industry must embrace forced 'opt-in' to four-man, 42-hour rosters with zero tolerance on consecutive shift working – and adopt a maximum 13-hour shift. Such standards must become recognised and regulated across the entire industry, and be encapsulated within a Code of Practice partnered with the approved companies inspection scheme advocated within the Private Security Industry Act. These two elements then become the minimum entry requirements for BSIA membership.

To be more effective, the private security industry must embrace forced ‘opt-in’ to four-man, 42-hour rosters with zero tolerance on consecutive shift working. It must also learn to adopt – and live with – a maximum 13-hour shift

When it comes to employment terms and conditions for security officers, this continues to represent an area of potential cost-cutting among all manned security suppliers. In addition to working hours, such variables as minimum regional wage rates, pension provisions and holiday/sick pay for security officers need to be harmonised within the scope of BSIA accreditation and – importantly – open to independent inspection.

On a personal note, I'm keen to see security officer wages benchmarked against those of other regulated and/or licensed occupations such as HGV or PSV drivers. If deemed necessary, wages should be raised to reflect officers' soon-to-be-licensed status and, just as important, the adherence of their employers to those minimum standards.

Liability, insurance and training

Liability and insurance are areas where there are key differences between the small and large contractors – differences that have major implications for the end user.

Among approved companies it is a nonsense to have wide variations in a member's ability underwrite losses experienced by customers and/or members of staff. In the future, policies and levels must be harmonised across the approved contractors to remove this incongruence.

As always, training will inevitably be a key consideration this year. It's my firm belief that specific minimum standards should exist with regard to the number of basic days of induction training and training pay. We also need to increase the 'transferability' of training skills and qualifications.

The acquisition of skills and qualifications must be seen as separate from the immediate needs of the employer in order to raise the status of each individual officer.

The best way forward

In the manned security sector, there is a very strong temptation to 'buy' market share by acquisition, or to improve profit and shareholder value by cost-cutting or radical diversification. This tends to distract security companies from the real business at hand – providing excellent levels of customer service. To my mind, that is really the best way of ensuring steady growth and generating profits for re-investment.

Ultimately, it's the responsibility of all industry leaders to ensure that terms and conditions are made sufficiently attractive to retain employees within the approved community – and attract those suitable employees from non-approved companies by ensuring no loss to the individual.