Standard format

At first glance the subject of standards probably rates a score of around two out of ten on the sex appeal scale, particularly for those who adopt the buccaneering approach to business and find the whole standards debate deeply irritating. Not to mention something of a tedious barrier to profit making.

However, as a believer in the need for standards – and having become embroiled some three years ago on an unpaid basis (thank you, John Smith) – the ‘subject’ does have the appeal of making a useful contribution towards a better and more profitable industry.

As issued, standards aren’t mandatory. They become so when organisations such as the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) make their use a condition of membership and customers demand service providers’ adherence. They then become part of a company’s own processes through the ISO 9000 standard where they’re duly inspected to ensure conformance. In doing so, the standards then essentially cease to exist as a standalone entity.

In Britain, of course, standards are produced by the British Standards Institution (BSI) which works through a myriad of committees covering every imaginable subject (not to mention some unimaginable ones into the bargain). Currently, there are something like 1,300 committees responsible for upwards of 10,000 standards.

British Standards and GW3

For the security industry there are three main BSI committees. GW1 covers electronic systems, GW2 examines physical security and GW3 concentrates on manned services. Here, we’re focusing on the work of GW3 and manned security, where regulation courtesy of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and the commencement of work on the development of European manned services standards makes it particularly relevant today.

The British Standards covered by GW3 include the following:

• BS 7499: Manned guarding/patrol services;
• BS 7858: Security screening;
• BS 7958: CCTV monitoring in public places;
• BS 7872: Cash-in-Transit;
• BS 7960: Door supervisors;
• BS 8406: Event stewarding and crowd safety;
• BS 7984: Key holding and mobile response (shared with GW1).

Once produced, a standard is then reviewed every five years (usually resulting in a revision to bring it up to date). At present, GW3 is embarking on five-yearly revisions of standards for door supervisors and CCTV monitoring in public places.

Standards in CCTV monitoring are in urgent need of updating as the proliferation of relatively cheap CCTV, vehicle and people monitoring systems allows surveillance from non-specialist Control Rooms. In addition, town centre CCTV monitoring schemes increasingly watch over commercial premises as a way of defraying costs to taxpayers.

The process for either producing a new standard or revising an existing one is essentially the same. Having confirmed the need, a sub-committee is formed for each standard consisting of experts in that particular discipline. A chairman is then appointed for each committee to manage the process and see that the end result is both relevant and sensible. At each stage, progress is reviewed by the parent committee (GW3).

Once approved, a final draft is sent out for public comment. When those comments have been taken into account, the final standard is printed and released for general use. That process is supported by a permanent BSI ‘Secretary’ and their professional editing staff, and will take at least a year!

The key to producing standards that are useful, relevant and sensible centres on making sure that the right people are involved. This is where the plea comes in. We need more organisations and people of stature on the parent committee GW3, as well as additional support on the sub-committees.

This is not to decry the efforts of the handful of stalwarts who do support the process, and who remain selfless and committed in giving their time for the good of the industry – but they are only a handful and, by definition, do not offer a broad enough view across the industry. On the other hand, this renders the decision-making process much easier.

European security standards

UK security industry standards are – in general – among the most highly developed of the lot. Aside from the Spanish standards, that is, which demand manned services companies’ adherence to a 500-page document...

It’s also noticeable that there’s a huge variety in the way security standards have developed (or often not developed) in different countries for various – totally understandable – historical and cultural reasons.

Of major interest at present is the subject of European security standards. Behind the drive to develop them lies the creation of the proposed ‘European Directive on Services in the Internal Market’ (‘Euro Services Directive poses “major threat”’, News Update, SMT, June 2004, p7). The intention behind this particular piece of legislation is the desire to make it easier for companies to provide services across national borders into other European Union (EU) countries by cutting back on red tape.

Jolly good idea, you might say (bearing in mind that it takes six years of bureaucracy for a non-Italian company to set up a new supermarket in that nation, as stated by the EU Commissioner). It’s due for enactment in 2008.

A fundamental part of the proposed legislation is the ‘Country of Origin’ principle. As presently drafted, this means that a company can provide temporary services across EU internal borders based on the rules, regulations, salaries and working conditions that apply in the ‘Country of Origin’ – and not those of the country in which the service is to be delivered.

There’s no definition of how long ‘temporary’ is, but it seems to hinge on whether or not the business in question is actually ‘established’. ‘Established’ is taken to mean that the business must have a permanent presence in the country, with at least some infrastructure. Once this is the case, then that company has to abide by the rules and regulations of the host country (further information can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/servgen.htm)

This whole process can be a threat to any EU country which sets high standards, has higher rates of pay and solid working conditions. For the UK security industry, the best answer is to develop a European standard which all EU countries must then be required to follow.

How might that work in practice, though?

The organisations involved

The first step involves developing an understanding of relevant organisations:

• CEN (the European Committee for Standardisation) – where every EU country has its equivalent of the BSI, Europe has its own central standards organisation called CEN;
• CENELEC (the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation – the electronics equivalent of CEN);
• CoESS (the Confederation of European Security Services) – EU countries have their own security industry trade organisations... joined together here in the equivalent of the BSIA;
• Euralarm (the Association of European Manufacturers and Installers of Fire and Security Systems) – the electronics equivalent of CoESS;
• ESTA (the European Security Transport Association) – the European trade organisation for Cash-in-Transit services.

To demonstrate how the system works in the UK, the review of BS 7958 will take account of European standards on CCTV systems through the appointment of a chairman who sits on both groups. That’s fine for monitoring centres and Cash-in-Transit, but what about manned security? Are we going to have matters forced upon us that we do not want?

The first moves towards an EU manned guarding standard were made earlier this year by Germany. The German’s equivalent of BSI – DIN – produced a blueprint for an EU standard which was a fine effort, but universally rejected at a CEN meeting in Berlin at the end of May. In its bold bid to produce a standard, DIN tried to house every discipline under one roof (which we all know just doesn’t work).

In the wake of May’s meeting, CEN has now established a programme of work aimed at developing security standards in the following disciplines: manned security, mobile patrols, alarm response, key holding, security screening, event security and door security personnel. That programme doesn’t take in technical systems and products, Cash-in-Transit or monitoring stations.

Readers of SMT will note that this list reflects our own standards structure and excludes Cash-in-Transit and monitoring stations (which are already being dealt with by other European organisations, ie ESTA and CoESS/Euralarm).

The first batch of development work will concentrate on manned security – including mobile patrols – and is scheduled for completion in four years’ time. This is in readiness for the EU ‘Directive on Services in the Internal Market’, when it will replace BS 7499 in the UK.

European security standards are a factor about which we should be wary and aware. They could be an opportunity... and a threat.