On solid ground

John Saunders and his team are behaving entirely like a modern regulator. They're looking at the whole of the industry's well-being, and saying: 'What can we do to make sure that the industry's in a position to achieve what we have to achieve with it to meet the statutory requirement?' That requirement being the transformation of the entire industry.

As an industry, we must all recognise that there's a real opportunity here. Not to get in there and ram the prices up. Rather, to get in there and explain where the increasing value is to a market that's actually categorised by price purchasing. What John would refer to as 'contract promiscuity'. Major contracts change hands in this industry for £50,000 a year on a £1 million contract. That cannot be paying any proper regard to quality of service.

We were very grateful for the SIA's support at our regional seminars which were very effective ('BSIA and SIA spell out the future of private security to end users', News Special, SMT, January 2004, pp10-12).

What was really interesting about those seminars was that not one person from the client side said: 'We can't afford the cost of all this licensing and we're not going to pay for it'.

What's coming through loud and clear is that licensed security officers, properly trained and supported, are going to be a scarce commodity. If people don't want to pay for that commodity then they'll have to do without.

SMT: Couldn't this be the point at which the insurers become involved, David? They have the clout to go to the client and stipulate that unless they're operating to SIA standards with licensed operatives they'll not receive any cover...
DD: I'd love to see the insurers say: 'As part of our risk assessment and premium setting procedures, we want to look at the quality of the precautions you're taking, Mr Client. Not just the number of hours someone is on site in a uniform, but their real ability to guard your business while you're asleep.' All-too-often security focuses on guarding the gate when it should be about potentially saving the business. When they go on holiday for a fortnight, how many people would willingly give the keys to their house to someone they'd never met before, or didn't know much about?

It's all about the understood value of security services, but generally speaking security never becomes a genuine Boardroom issue until it's too late.

The biggest problem about good security services is that because they're a preventative measure, their real value is rarely seen.

You can imagine the scenario. Some accountant or financial director saying to the plc Board: 'Look. Why do we need all of these expensive security people around the place when we haven't experienced any burglaries, vandalism or incidents of arson?' It's precisely because the security staff are on site that none of these incidents have occurred. It's the value of prevention. In today's world that has to be a Boardroom issue.

At a plc's annual general meeting, if a shareholder asked the chairman who's responsible for the safety of the firm's people and its assets, the chairman would have to say: 'I am'. But you can't talk to the chairman about what kind of security should be provided.

SMT: The problem with that, David, is that the chairman will never take ownership of the security function if and when something goes wrong. The buck always seems to stop with the security manager...
DD: The risk assessment that the Board makes about the business should not start from the premise: 'How cheaply can we get away with security provision?' If a chief executive were to be told that he's suffering from a life-threatening disease, he or she wouldn't send for the head of purchasing and ask him or her to go out to tender for a doctor. But they'll do that with the health of their company.

When the doors are closed you're down to the security officers there to save the business if something goes badly wrong.

We're now looking to a different landscape, where security is appreciated and highly valued. For me, the big opportunity lies in informing the public about the job that can be done. At the launch of the SIA, the Government – in the guise of Lord Falconer – talked openly about the private security industry being part of Westminster's strategy for the wider police family. The real opportunity rests with getting standards right and forging a linkage between the Approved Contractors Scheme – which will be a real differentiator in the market – and the Accredited Organisations' Scheme under the Police Reform Act.

We have a real chance here to change the impression that people have of the industry and its people, and God knows they deserve better than they're getting at the moment.

SMT: What about the security companies already exhibiting sound operational standards? What will the SIA 'stamp of approval' mean to them in real terms?
DD: Where people are already going the extra mile, it's only right they should receive some recognition that lifts them from the ordinary to the extraordinary. If an independent body approves their work that's a great start.

I think the SIA is doing a tremendous job. They've been thoughtful, diplomatic and communicate well with the industry at large. They have also made full use of the expertise that lies within SITO in helping to decide where the competency levels should be. That's good, because there's a huge residue of experience and knowledge within SITO.

SITO's now working very closely with the SIA on the formulation of competencies. Indeed, in the absence of a Sector Skills Council, SITO continues to write the National Occupational Standards for the industry.

SITO director Stefan Hay's voice has been a very calm and pragmatic one for the SIA in terms of where the competencies should lie. The greatest thing of all coming out of the competency arrangements is that they'll be independently assessed. The people who have pretended to train by showing videos for a couple of hours and then sending officers to site will soon find their days are numbered.

The risk assessment that the Board makes about the business should not start from the premise: ‘How cheaply can we get away with security provision?’ If a chief executive were to be told that he’s suffering from a life-threatening disease, he or she would

We shouldn't stop at the Basic Job Training, though. We have got to get back to the point where service deliverers can afford to invest in the industry and in their people in the same way that they could back in the late 1980s.

Manned security is too important a job to say that four days' training in an entire career is enough. That's wholly wrong.

SMT: We'd heard that a day had been taken off from Basic Job Training...
DD: The current suggestion is that Basic Job Training will last for four days, but be measured in hours. The interesting thing is that this is only a measure. If someone fails the training then they have to have extra training. There may be a case, with separate funding, for completing a Basic Skills Training course before even embarking on a Basic Job Training programme. Key skills is what we're really talking about, and there's a genuine opportunity there to upskill the workforce.

SMT: On to the wider police family, David. There appears to be many a good idea coming out of Government, but there doesn't seem to be a cohesive strategy?
DD: I have a concern that if we're not careful we're going to have too many elements at play. At one end of the spectrum you could be faced with the fully-warranted police officer, then the PCSO, then a Neighbourhood Warden and then someone from an accredited organisation. Beyond that there are City Rangers and Park Rangers, and the Leicester Square operatives run by First Security ('Who's watching the Wardens?', Guarding Watch, p44).

I've said this before and I'll keep on saying it again and again until someone listens. We need to consider the role of the PCSO in different tasks with different types of training but, crucially, with one level of accreditation. We need to work out whether that is a public sector or private sector appointment, or indeed both. That's up for discussion. What's important is that there should be no confusion in the public's mind about what a person wearing a given uniform can do for them. If we proliferate the uniforms and there's a different one for Bournemouth to that in Bolton this will only breed more confusion.

It's interesting to note that HM Inspector of Constabulary is currently completing a thematic inspection on the use of non-sworn police people. There's a need for some cohesion. The results of the report will be published in July. Former RUC chief constable Ronnie Flanaghan, who's leading the inspectorate on this, is going to be at the SITO Conference this year to talk about the outcome.

Going back to the wider police family, it's entirely possible to see where a good many routine tasks that don't need a warrant card could be carried out by support personnel. What is key to that, though, is a set of clear national standards that everyone recognises and adheres to at all times. Otherwise it will be a free-for-all and run out of control.

   SMT: How did the recent talks between BSIA Member guarding companies and SIA officials progress? Were they beneficial?
DD: SIA chairman Peter Hermitage was at those talks, and received what the guarding companies had to say with enthusiasm.

What the industry needs to do is force margins back up to a reasonable level such that it can re-invest in its people. Given that we recognise customer budgets aren't completely elastic, there'll be a need to look for different solutions. Embracing technology wherever that may be appropriate.

Wage inflation in the guarding industry is going to be ahead of the Retail Price Index in the coming three or four years at least. We'll have to recruit a higher calibre of person. All of my experience tells me they'll not want to work excessive hours, and what's more nor should they be expected to.

We don't know what the impact of the Working Time Directive will be. I would argue – and I know that some BSIA Member companies will disagree – that someone regularly working over 48 hours each week isn't going to be as efficient or effective as they should be given the responsibilities they shoulder.

Much higher calibre people apply for 48-hour contract work, and there's often only a minimal cost increase there. The increase in cost to the security company will have to be passed on to the client, but they'll benefit from an added value service.

Practitioners who think you can go on throwing people at this problem either have a limited budget or a lack of vision about where the guarding industry is going.

SMT: Would that maxim also apply to policing, David? Many people feel the basic problem there is manpower. Namely that there's not enough police on the beat.
DD: It's interesting, you know. The police service now has more manpower than it has enjoyed at any time in the past. They also have more duties than at any time in the past, as well as more restrictions placed before them.

The other interesting point is that the more the police have to do in terms of training, the more time is taken up away from core policing. There are a lot of demands made upon the police. Some would say too many.

It's early days for the wider police family. We need to try out different ideas and see what works. As a committed private sector practitioner, I hope that just as the prisons and prisoner escort service have shown what can be achieved when you strip away the rhetoric, we must apply that edict elsewhere.