ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Of late, I had begun to believe that licensing was being embraced by the security guarding industry and that maybe, just maybe, it could at long last drag itself out of the primeval swamp. Richard's article serves as a sharp reminder that there are many who like things the way they are, and see no reason to change.

I cannot recall the number of times I have been patted on the head and told by certain colleagues in the industry that I don't really understand ‘the chaps'. I'm assured they like to work long hours, that they're looking for reasons to escape their home life, that they want to put a bit of money aside for Christmas or - better still - that it's their "fundamental Human Right" to provide for their families.

Well, I'm sorry but I have taken the trouble to look through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 and what it actually says is: "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring for themselves and their family an existence worthy of human dignity" (Article 23) and that: "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including the reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" (Article 24).

To me, this means that individuals have a right to a decent wage for a 48-hour week, thus affording them the choice of additional working hours or the chance to spend more time with their family. For the bulk of the industry's security operatives, this means that they must work 56 or 60 hours per week to realise that same standard of living.

In his article, Richard complains that, in pursuit of its mission, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) is curtailing enterprise. Well, if ‘enterprise' means keeping our prices down at the expense of our employees' quality of life then I'm glad to see that kind of enterprise curtailed. Well done the SIA!

Richard quite rightly points out that the regulatory process has been hard work, and that many companies have found life a struggle as a result. There is no question that certain regulatory procedures could have been more efficient and potential problems better thought through, but all parties must accept their fair share of the blame here.

I'm not entirely sure that we, the guarding industry, really started to take the whole process seriously enough until certain problems began to manifest themselves.

A classic example of the latter is the issue of overseas criminality checks. This actually built another three months into the process in relation to certain nationalities. Couldn't we have done more to anticipate these delays, though? I think the answer is Yes.

Is regulation any more difficult for the smaller operators than it is the larger contractors? I'm not convinced that it is. I believe that quality will prevail whatever the size of the company. Yes, there are certain economies of scale from which the larger company will benefit, but there are also diseconomies - most notably the problem of trying to communicate with a widespread workforce across a range of vertical market service styles (including retail, corporate, events and the construction sector).

If you look down the current list of SIA Approved Contractors, it reveals a complete cross-section of the industry. The common denominator among those contractors who have been ‘passed fit' by the Regulator is not the size of their operation but rather their commitment. A singular determination to be among the best of the industry on Day One of the new regime.

Unlike some, I remain firmly convinced that the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) offers us all a real and genuine chance of changing the face and nature of the guarding industry for the better, and significantly so. I agree with Richard that there should be more rigorous enforcement of the current standards. This would eliminate the companies operating at the lower end of our industry, and turn many potential new recruits away. We will all be pleased to see these companies fall by the wayside. That said, I do not believe that even rigorous enforcement of the current standards - as you rightly advocate in Security Management Today's April edition (‘Enforcing the law', pp31-32) - goes quite far enough.

However important they may be, standards are about processes and not about people. Neither are they about core values, ethics and principles. Put very simplistically, you can treat your members of staff as badly as you like but as long as you do so consistently you attain your ‘tick and crown'.

I happen to know that Richard does care for his employees, and delivers a very high quality service to his clients. However, there are many companies who do not, and it is they who are joining the bandwagon in demanding less rather than more regulation. They would love an ACS with low standards and limited policing. Let's hope that situation never materialises.

By my calculations, the ACS will cost no more than one penny per hour. If for that investment we enjoy a scheme that drives quality right through our industry, it will be money well spent. This will itself depend on the willingness of the guarding companies to embrace change and use the ACS to drive it.

Richard also expresses sympathy for those clients who will end up paying more for broadly the same service. In principle, I agree with him. There are certainly a number of enlightened clients who have worked with the industry to purchase a good quality service at a fair price. Unfortunately, these customers will eventually see the rest of the market catching up with them and lose some of their competitive edge.

Longer term, though, their foresight will leave them better protected against the full impact of licensing. Any future cost increases should, therefore, be manageable.

The buyers for whom I have no sympathy are those who have taken full advantage of the commercial naivety and moral weakness of our industry. They have exploited this weakness for a number of years now, driving prices and margins down, effectively forcing security companies to strip their training investment and management overhaul from the business.

Those clients are about to have a very rude awakening. One which could leave their businesses horribly exposed.

Without question, the marketplace is now changing. Those aggressive buyers will find themselves negotiating with more cautious and worldly-wise suppliers, who may not be as willing to win work at all costs. Retaining qualified staff will become the Number One priority, and suppliers will have to replenish some of the overhead they've stripped out.

Whether or not we use the ACS to improve our industry, the laws of supply and demand will probably do it for us anyway. A reduced pool of qualified labour will drive up wage costs, in turn demanding from employers a higher commitment to staff welfare and development. There will be the odd pocket of resistance, mainly in those parts of the country where unemployment is high and ‘old-style' work is deemed better than no work at all. In time, though, this will be the rare exception rather than the rule.

How long will it take for our ‘new industry' to evolve? I believe that this will happen a lot faster than many experts think, particularly in the employment ‘hot spots'. The sheer challenge of recruiting and retaining staff in a regulated world is already having an impact. I expect the situation to worsen in the short term as licensed security officers become more aware of their rarity value.

However long it takes, the employers who adapt to this Brave New World will succeed. Those who continue with their old ways will fail, and I for one will not be mourning their loss.

Stuart Lowden Managing Director Wilson James