With the UK's contract security sector about to undergo fundamental reform, Peter French examines the state of play on home shores in relation to mainland Europe, and argues that the industry must agree strict reporting lines (and what topics those reporting lines should be concentrating upon).
The contract security OFFICER was first mentioned in Europe from around the turn of the century, when a security officers' company was formed in Austria. For the first 50 years or so the security providers' expectation was that they would develop a business to be judged on protecting commercial interests – in turn making up for inept and sometimes corrupt police forces.

Lowest cost wasn't even a consideration prior to 1970. Nor was it considered to be a sustainable business model, yet today cost (followed by knowledge) remains the uppermost criteria for most security clients. Hence in both the UK and the United States the service is sold as a disposable commodity for a few pence or cents difference.

Timesharing of a security officer across a diverse client base is probably the most economical use of a trained resource. This is a concept which is rapidly gaining credence in the Scandinavian nations, and yet outside of those countries such sharing is restricted to multi-tenancy occupation sites usually countermanded by the persistent desire of some clients to have their own low paid, dedicated contract resource.

An unstable workforce
A traditional view from UK contract managers – many of whom are poorly trained in the business of making a profit – is that they should keep on inducting new recruits instead of delivering competency-based extended training that will result in a stable workforce. This attitude should be deplored by all of the stakeholders in the business of security.

The direct consequence on home shores is an instability in the workforce. According to Security Industry Authority (SIA) chief executive John Saunders, attrition rates stand as high as 150%, with the cost of attracting a single recruit hitting the £3,000 mark.

There's also a loss of trust in terms of client expectations when it comes to security officers. And, of course, low margins... A combination of high fixed overheads and 'body filling' is in place rather than any great adoption of systems technology and extended contracts.

Is Europe any different?
COESS – the Confederation of European Security Suppliers – was founded in 1989 as a joint initiative of national associations who represent the private security industry.

The organisation's 2003 report acknowledged that, in terms of its own definitions, success for the security sector is reliant upon the social partner relationship with Uni-Europa (a confederation of European trade unions operating within the private security sector). This partnership is in dialogue with the European Commission and actively shaping the future of private security.

What does all of that mean, though? No opt-out from the Working Time Regulations. Social awareness at a Government level and corporate responsibility. Fair hours in parity to other nation's workers. Across Europe, the typical working week for the security 'agent' is anything from 34 hours up to 48 hours (except in Germany where the limit is set at 66 hours). We should be comparing hours by the country norm. In those environments where unions are leading social reform, the 40-hour working week is the benchmark.

What’s needed as something approaching 1.1 million security professionals ‘coalesce’ in the EU25 is an agreement on what we should be reporting upon. Risk, environment, community safety and crime reduction are but some of the essential headings that every

Are we really dealing with a quality security profession in Europe? First of all, the majority of security providers are small companies employing less than 60 people. After this month is out and the acceding countries join the European Union (EU), this average will reduce to perhaps less than 40 employees with licensing in all of the current EU states.

Who's actually dealing with crime? In six countries, guns are licensed for the security officer. You would contend that a licensed citizen walking around with their holstered revolver is an individual you don't bother to graffiti in front of.

Respect for security officers
Yet that isn't the entire picture. Respect, diversity and professionalism are the major underpinnings for self-appreciation. In well-regulated markets the security agent is trusted to perform commercial and state asset protection duties, removing some of the workload from under-staffed police forces. In many countries, indeed, the private sector is the only option for protecting national assets.

In reality, developments in regulation and licensing across Europe are of little comfort for the pan-border end user of security services if standards of service and reporting remain variable. How, then, can we develop a more professional service?

In the EU only Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden require the submission of annual company performance reports to the police or authorities.

What's really needed as something approaching 1.1 million security professionals 'coalesce' in the EU25 is an agreement on what we should be reporting upon. Risk, environment, community safety and crime reduction are but some of the essential headings that every single security vendor must consider and list in their 'armoury'.

Policing the security sector
In the UK, the SIA will have to report to Government on how well the security industry has policed itself. Perhaps the challenge should be for the security industry to contribute through performance review!

And perhaps Local Authorities and Government will stop the age-old practice of awarding security contracts to the lowest tender! You never know...