A real milestone or the finishing post?

I should perhaps begin this Letter To The Editor by confessing that I am a great fan of the NSI and all that it has done over the years to work with the industry in a bid to raise standards. While I don’t view the NSI as the standards setter itself – it is, after all, an inspectorate that inspects to standards set by other people – there is little doubt that it has been a major influencer in the process. Tom’s organisation should be proud of what it has achieved to date, and rightly so.

In a way, I’m also a fan of Tom. I admire his passion for the industry, his undoubted eloquence and the unquenchable faith that he and his inspectorate know what is best for all of us. If I were in his position I would probably be just as protective of my own organisation’s future as he is. However, the industry’s future needs must transcend the commercial requirements of any one body.

I also believe that if the companies at the lower end of the industry were forced to operate to the NSI Gold Standard it would be a much better place for us to work within – but is that enough?

Should we be happy in accepting that the Gold Standard is all the industry needs to put its affairs in order?

For my part, I simply don’t believe that a stricter inspection to current British Standards goes far enough. No matter how good the inspection regime, British Standards will never address the real weakness of our industry – and that is the ways in which certain companies choose to treat their staff.

Let me be clear that this is not another attack on working hours. It goes much deeper than that. What I’m talking about here is a complete lack of investment in further training, poor man-management skills, little or no internal communication, no career progression and little or no staff benefits. Not even paid sickness.

It is this widespread lack of care for people that means our industry is seen by many as a job of last resort, not one of choice. Those companies that do care for their employees – and want to offer genuine careers – are continually battling with a perception that they have done little to create.

The approach taken by the SIA to the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) has recognised this dilemma and attempted to address it in a progressive way. In consultation with a wide cross-section of the industry, the ACS Project Team has been trying to develop a model that will address a much broader range of issues than merely compliance with British Standards. Yes, it did all seem to be a little strange for those taking part in the consultation groups. We were talking a different language, and being challenged to ‘boil things down’ to first principles rather than simply bolting new elements on to existing standards. It was all a bit alien to most of us, but a general logic did seem to emerge.

In essence, we were being asked to redefine what would constitute a ‘good’ security company. One that would act ethically, care for its people and improve year-on-year. So, with a few reservations – we still wanted confirmation that the key ‘ingredients’ of the British Standards would not be thrown away – a fair number of us believed that the Security Industry Authority (SIA) Workbook approach (in other words Option 4) would offer a genuine opportunity for the industry to change itself for the better.

Without question the Workbook approach is different. It may threaten the NSI’s existence, as its chief executive clearly fears, but somehow I doubt it. The NSI has successfully fought competition from 14 alternative inspection bodies in the past, and I suspect its specialist skills will be just as valuable in the future.

That said, I would much prefer to see the NSI working closely with the SIA and the other inspection bodies to refine Option 4 rather than taking its current protectionist stance. However, I suspect Hell will actually freeze over before we see that happening!

I do believe that, in the background, there are a number of companies who actually like the industry the way it is. For them, the rigid application of a set of process-driven standards holds little fear.

I for one don’t like the industry the way it is. It doesn’t invest enough in its people (particularly its managers), it doesn’t pay enough and doesn’t charge enough. It treats its employees as a commodity. Frankly, the companies operating within the sector deserve all the pain they’ve been suffering for the past five years.

The good news is that, unless we wake up to this fact and work together to develop a powerful and effective ACS – and one that treats the British Standards as a milestone rather than a finishing post – we will have more of the same for the next ten years.

Stuart Lowden, Managing Director Wilson James