ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Although the future of Europe, the European Union (EU) and even the Euro are always key topics in political circles, they have begun to dominate the political arena over the last six months as never before. If nothing else, the ‘No’ votes in France and the Netherlands concerning ratification of the European Constitution have shown that we still have a long way to go before we speak – and act – in unison as true Europeans.

Closer to home, similar experiences prevail across the UK’s security sector. For example, the national standards institutions (such as our own British Standards Institution) and trade association partners including the BSIA recently met a move by DIN – the German Institute for Standardisation, on this occasion operating under the auspices of CEN – to develop a European Standard for the security guarding sector with a mixed response.

For UK representatives, it rapidly became apparent that the range of standards available to guarding and related professions in our indigenous industry was far more wide-ranging and sophisticated than that possessed by any of our European counterparts.

The fear for some representatives was that the new European Standard would be lower than their own national standard. Others felt that it might set the bar too high.

Scepticism regarding the relationship between CEN and the European Commission also proved to be a key factor in the debate, with some trade associations believing that the project was linked to the Directive of the European Parliament and Council on Services in the Internal Market.

The end result of this discourse? A compromise that saw the scope of the project changed to address the standardisation of terminology used in the sector.

The role of CoESS

Evident in the debate leading up to the compromise was the fact that although the need for security transcended national borders, industry evolutionary history, culture and approaches to service provision remained nationally focused. A situation most countries seem happy to maintain.

One of the key players in co-ordinating this compromise was the Confederation of European Security Suppliers (CoESS).

CoESS was founded in 1989 as the end product of a joint initiative instigated by several national associations of private security companies belonging to EU Member States (the UK representative body being the British Security Industry Association).

From its inception, CoESS has acted as a European umbrella organisation for national private security associations with members now in place in all of the old – and most of the new – EU Member States, and some members representing aspiring EU membership countries such as Turkey.

In practice, CoESS operates via a number of pan-European committees, of which the Professional Training Committee has become key. The Committee is made up of trade association-nominated security industry professionals from the following EU Member States: Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Turkey (as an aspiring EU Member) and the United Kingdom.

Through its research work, the Committee has established that great disparities presently exist in relation to the training of security personnel across current EU Member States, with specific harmonisation problems arising in a number of areas. In the majority of Member States the private sector is already subject to Government regulation, with specific legislation existing in relation to training. Where regulation has only recently been introduced, or is in the process of being introduced, training criteria have (in most cases) yet to be finalised.

It is unclear what the current training systems are within many aspirant Member States. There are differences in relation to the financing of training, with some Member States providing significant public funding support, other companies paying for all training and, in many instances, the individual paying for their own training (often prior to employment being offered).

Disparities exist in both training delivery and learning methods, particularly in relation to subsector training – for example Cash-and-Valuables-in-Transit, aviation security and maritime security (in some countries security personnel are allowed to carry firearms).

Certain Committee Members have reported that highly regulated training in their own countries has created a lack of flexibility and, as a consequence, in some cases it is difficult to adequately respond to market needs. Identified time periods for pre-employment training delivery vary from 32 hours to 320 hours. The complete breakdown of training is shown in table 1 (see page 37).

National variances: closing the gap

This diversity of approach and systems naturally creates a difficult situation for the Committee. To help close the gap between national variances, and assist those Members with no formal arrangements, the Committee has agreed on a harmonised modular training system, starting with a Basic Guarding Programme that qualifies people to work in unarmed static guarding environments. It is believed that this programme should be the minimum prerequisite for any person working as a security officer within the EU.

Additional areas of work – such as CCTV operation, mobile patrols and alarm response, for example – are addressed by way of supplementary training.

For this training, the Committee recommends the use of the European Vocational Training Manual for Basic Guarding. This was launched back in April 2001 as a minimum benchmark, but recognises that in some cases national criteria in many Member States (for example those specified by our own Security Industry Authority in the UK) will already exceed the benchmark.

The Committee also supports the position that all security officers should receive specialist training to operate effectively in other environments, and that all officers be instructed through Continuing Professional Development (CPD) systems.

However, it has been agreed as inappropriate to determine the level and duration of such training as many Member States have their own systems and criteria in place (as evidenced by table 1).

Diversity, management, technology

The Committee has made some additional recommendations concerning diversity, conflict management, technology and ‘redundant’ training.

As an issue, diversity must be tackled head-on. In working within the wider European Community (EC) it is particularly important that security personnel understand social and cultural differences. Vulnerable groups are diverse in themselves, and include the elderly, disabled people, ethnic minorities, cultural minorities and children. Understanding diversity is key to effective communication across the increasingly multicultural society we now inhabit and work inside.

It is fair to say that conflict management skills are lacking in the security workforces of most countries, a fact that has been identified by the majority of national Governments and, as a direct result, many educational regimes now include such training.

Understanding technology will also be a key feature of future training as more and more organisations and communities opt for an IP-based, totally integrated and networked security system which will – in most cases – not only complement the work of security personnel, but will actually be controlled by them. This may lead to less security personnel being required, but those that are needed must be far more competent in the application of new security-related technologies.

The issue of ‘redundant’ training must also be addressed. In other words, companies must endeavour not to re-train people in the same subjects every time they win a new contract, or when they recruit a new member of staff, as this is cost inefficient and stifles officers’ natural desire to learn.

As a result of feedback from CoESS Member Associations – and discussions held at the CoESS Board meetings on 13 December 2004 and 13 April this year – it is the intention of the Professional Training Committee to begin a project aimed at developing three additional training modules to complement the European Vocational Training Manual for Basic Guarding. These modules will specifically target the skills required by security officers who carry out mobile patrol and alarm response activities, and who work in the aviation security sector.

It is envisaged that the new National Occupational Standards (NOS) for key holding and alarm response – developed by SITO – in addition to some existing NOS will form the basis for the early development work.

Uni-EUROPA: in full support

The project proposal was presented to the EC-chaired Social Dialogue Committee on Friday 10 June, and was met with encouraging support from Uni-EUROPA (the European Trade Unions’ representative umbrella organisation which will eventually partner CoESS in the development work).

Other areas that the Committee is keen to pursue are those of skills transferability and mutual recognition of qualifications, which will also improve the mobility of security personnel across Europe. Improved mobility of individuals is considered to be of particular importance as many EU Member States struggle to sustain high levels of unemployment. Others suffer from defined skills shortages.

Finally, unlike certain European political leaders and the citizens of some countries, the CoESS Professional Training Committee is committed to partnership and ensuring that companies across Member States are encouraged to co-operate and begin to work as a united industry. An industry wherein stakeholders accept ownership for learning, training and development, the end result of which will be a highly professional workforce where the sustainability of competency levels will be made much easier... and learning becomes the responsibility of us all.

Of course, this represents a bold and somewhat altruistic position on which to end this particular commentary, but it also represents a very necessary aspiration if whatever political structures constitute Europe in the future are to be secured.