Points of view

During the summer, Reliance Security Services joined forces with Security Management Today (SMT) to carry out a client survey aimed at measuring the impact of licensing and regulation post-20 March 2006.

Distributed with the July edition of SMT and also sent directly to facilities managers who purchase security and/or run guarding teams, the survey contained 27 searching questions covering the most salient aspects of contracted and in-house security operations.

Will regulation improve the overall calibre of security officers in terms of their education, qualifications and levels of training? Will the officers involved enjoy a more professional status? Are clients aware of the benefits of employing security contractors from the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)? These were just some of the questions answered by nearly 400 respondents from a wide variety of business sectors spanning England and Wales.

Of those ‘interviewees’, 67% contract out their security provision, with 5% using a facilities management company. 10% employ a combination of in-house and contract security, with 18% having only an in-house team.

Interestingly, the overall findings suggest that there’s plenty of support for those in the security industry who predicted a positive outcome from the huge upheaval set in motion by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

Improvements in personnel

More than 80% of respondents expect to see an overall improvement in the calibre of security personnel on site in terms of their education and training. Other main benefits were considered to be an increase in service provision (74%), improvements in the image of the security industry and a more professional status for officers (72%). Over half of respondents also cited an enhancement in wages and basic Terms and Conditions for officers as a likely benefit.

“This confirms our own view that regulation of the private security industry has thus far been a largely positive experience for both security companies and their customers,” suggests Michael Carré, the managing director of Reliance Security Services. “We are confident that the perceived benefits will become increasingly evident in due course.”

One issue that divided respondents to the survey was cost. Some 44% stated that licensing has increased the cost of their security provision. Of those, nearly 25% were adamant they’d consider moving their team in-house as a result. On that note, the Government’s decision to exclude in-house security provision from the Private Security Industry Act 2001 surprised many. The fact that – as a direct result of increased costs – a quarter of all respondents would even consider an in-house solution to circumvent the new regulations shouldn’t be ignored.

Of the end users who took part in this survey, 70% of those employing contracted security services believe that the in-house sector should also be subject to regulation. More interestingly, perhaps, the figure is almost identical for the in-house sector, where 69% of security and facilities managers feel their teams really ought to be regulated.

Further, there has obviously been an intriguing knock-on effect. Half of those respondents from the in-house sector said that they have already begun to vet their security personnel more closely since the introduction of licensing for the contract sector, while a small proportion (12%) stated that they would indeed consider outsourcing as a direct result.

A significant proportion of respondents (69%) from the in-house sector added that they believe all those personnel who failed to obtain a licence will now try and gain employment with in-house teams.

Commenting on the survey, Kaye Law – director of strategic development at the SIA – told SMT: “Back in 2004, we commissioned a review to explore the benefits and implications of extending the legislation to cover the regulation of in-house security officers, except for those circumstances where in-house security guarding is already in scope. That review revealed strong arguments for in-house to be regulated, particularly in relation to public safety and clarity.

“However, there are significant challenges surrounding the use of appropriate definitions and the current Government deregulation agenda. Moving forward on in-house licensing will require collaboration between the SIA, the private security industry and other stakeholders. We aim to revisit this issue with all interested parties during the remainder of this year and in 2007.”

Numbers versus costs

Only 15% of respondents to the Reliance/SMT survey said they would reduce security officer numbers in order to cut costs, while 80% stated that they would not take this course of action.

The division over costs prompted some interesting responses regarding alternative solutions to security provision. For example, one-in-three of those surveyed said that they had combined/would combine traditional security guarding with technology to reduce costs. Of these respondents, the majority (70%) explained that their preferred alternative would be remote monitoring for CCTV and/or access control. Around one third also said they would consider using mobile patrols and alarm response services.

This diversity of security provision was also highlighted by the survey. Where security is contracted out, reception duties represent the largest additional service provided (at 49%), followed by CCTV surveillance (38%), car parking (30%), remote monitoring (20%), cleaning (14%) and building maintenance (10%). Only a minority of clients are provided with Cash-in-Transit (7%), vehicle immobilisation (5%) and close protection (4%) services by their appointed security company.

The new rules have provided an impetus for managers to view their security requirements from a different perspective. For some, mobile patrols or a combination of remote monitoring and mobile response services could be a key element of that

Michael Carré, managing director, Reliance Security Services

However, with the education and training of security personnel taking centre stage inside the new working environment, industry executives expect to see these figures increase as contracted employees are gradually entrusted with more and more responsibility.

“We very much hope that a growing number of organisations will see the changes that are being wrought in their security provision, and that those changes can and will have a beneficial effect on their business,” continued Carré. “At the same time, our people will be looking to capitalise on their enhanced status by taking on any new duties required of them.”

Carré points to schemes such as the Project Griffin initiative in the City of London, where the Metropolitan Police Service has enlisted the help of many of the Square Mile’s banks and related financial institutions to use their private security personnel in the fight against terrorism. Such has been the success of the scheme that it’s now being extended to other urban centres (including Manchester).

Information flow to clients

The sheer scope and scale of change initiated by Home Office regulation has also been the subject of much debate within industry circles. Proponents of change will therefore be heartened by the news that the majority of respondents (84%) felt they had been kept fully informed of their security provider’s progress in the run-up to the SIA’s licensing deadline. A similar majority (88%) also felt that their security provider had fully supported the necessary training and application procedures required for members of staff.

Worryingly, 13% of end users questioned reported that they had not been kept informed of regulation developments at all.

There were also other somewhat less encouraging responses. Only 83% of clients surveyed could confirm that their security supplier and its staff had met the requirements of licensing. 13% believed that their contractor had not reached the standards demanded, while 4% declined to answer the question at all. More than one-in-ten respondents (13%) also said that they had either changed (or intended to change) their security services provider.

A more positive response was reserved for the ACS, the SIA’s voluntary Code of Practice for security companies that it hopes will become a benchmark of quality within the security industry. Most respondents (88% of them, in fact) said they are fully aware of the benefits of using a supplier with Approved Contractor status. However, only just over two-thirds (in other words 70%) could confirm that their supplier had achieved ACS accreditation, a further 19% didn’t know whether their supplier is accredited and 8% claimed that their supplier is not on the ACS Register. When questioned about the potential disadvantages of regulation, a third of respondents (26%) view the voluntary nature of the ACS as a negative factor, believing that it will make it impossible to ensure standards for all if every company is not working to the same rules.

Andrew Shepherd, assistant director of the ACS at the SIA, comments: “We believe that a voluntary scheme is more effective in raising standards, and that such a scheme enjoys greater flexibility and adaptability so that it can react to industry changes and stakeholder needs.” When talking to SMT, Shepherd also stressed that the SIA feels it would be security customers who’ll increasingly use the ACS as an important tool for choosing their supplier.

Another disadvantage of regulation – as perceived by 51% of all respondents – was the likely shortage of qualified security personnel due to the new rules.

In addition, almost half of those questioned expressed concern that the new law may not be properly enforced. Just under a third (29%) of respondents felt that there may be a potential loss of good personnel as a result of the stringent vetting and training criteria.

Only a quarter (24%) believe that licensing is an administrative burden likely to result in no discernible improvement to standards.

In the past year, while almost half of all respondents (44%) said they had increased their expenditure on security guarding, the biggest rise was in spend on electronic surveillance (which accounted for 54% of all spend). During the same time frame, access control expenditure rose by 30%, while 14% of end users allocated more money for remote surveillance. Mobile patrols and key holding functions rose for 7% of clients.

Over the next 12 months to three years, more than half of those clients questioned (57%) anticipated a further increase in spending on electronic surveillance. Expenditure on electronic solutions is also expected to rise for access control (according to 40% of those questioned) and remote surveillance (17%) systems. 40% of respondents expect further increases in their financial outlay on security guarding.

Guarding: the main form of security

Despite the trend towards using new technologies, 80% of clients surveyed said they would be unlikely to move away from security guarding as their main form of security provision across the next three years.

In most cases, the main reason stated in support of this is the irreplaceable requirement for a ‘human presence’ – either for customer care purposes, the deterrent effect or for genuine intervention. This would also underscore the firmly-held belief in the security industry that the changes being made will produce better trained, better valued and more committed security personnel.