-optimized.jpg){kind=avatar}
Do we want the SIA’s proposed approvals scheme, that is due to replace the approved contractor scheme in 2026-27, to in effect engineer a particular contract guarding landscape? asks Mark Rowe.
Use of โlabour providersโ has undermined the ACS; a buyer may do the right thing by choosing an approved company, yet whoโs to say, particularly in the events sector, requiring cadres of uniformed people for a few shifts including at weekends and evenings, those ACS firms arenโt turning to non-ACS sub-contractors, who hire off people recruiting through apps? Where are the safeguards around vetting, training and experience, tools that go with the job?
Hence the questions in the consultation about whether a new scheme ought to include a โvoluntary registerโ and a condition that SIA approved businesses only use โlabour servicesโ from firms on that register. More explicitly, the consultation asked if a scheme should โfocus on businesses having their own capacity to meet their customersโ needs and therefore have stricter rules on sub-contractingโ.
Many of those responding to the survey (although only amounting to a small minority of all the ACS firms) were agreeable; though some were not. Some hold sub-contracting with disdain; some are less judgemental, pointing out that small firms in particular cannot very well hold a bank of badged officers, and pull them out including at unsocial hours, as if theyโre frozen burgers in a refrigerator. Security officers are people, who may want regular and enough work to run a car; pay the rent; bring up a family. This might be an argument for, or against, sub-contracting; do we want a country and a private security industry where front line officers have to hold down multiple jobs, and keep dashing across town and from pub door to on-street patrol to convenience store entrance to earn a living – and, taking time and trouble to juggle the rest of their lives, and to keep finding ‘gigs’? Assuming that the zero hours culture of contract guarding needs altering, should a new approvals scheme be the way to alter it, rather than the market (which presumably is happy with what it gets, else it would pay more or switch suppliers)? Can the SIA chart a course to go after the โrogue tradersโ to quote a remark given in the consultation (although surely โrogueโ is an inaccurate term, if such trading is answering routine commercial needs) while allowing reputable businesses trying to do the right thing to draw on labour forces beyond its own pool.
The public in general, and buyers of services in particular, want it all โ they want the convenience of a security officer more or less immediately, if their shop window gets broken; and they want an officer they can trust โ while leaving all the checks to the contractor (the whole point of outsourcing, rather than going to the trouble yourself). The same goes for other services โ catering and waiting at table if you are personally wealthy or a corporate, and throwing a big party in the grounds of your house; and the cleaning afterwards.
Another hitch is that the more the SIA, and the interest groups the regulator tries to please, requires of the approval scheme the more complicated it gets. Yet the โinformed buyerโ whether in the private or public sector remains elusive. Yes, buyers want and indeed insist that the people they hire meet standards (and as buyers are all too human, do they expect more quality than they pay for?!). Do those buyers want to know, or care, what those standards actually are in detail? Again, the SIA faces a difficult balance between keeping an approvals scheme simple and understandable to the layperson, and accommodating detail and nuance. Hence the SIA is proposing that contractors who supply โa specialist serviceโ such as to healthcare and arena-events should meet โadditional requirementsโ to show they grasp the particulars of those settings. The NSI Gold has long had the traffic-light advantage of simplicity. Gold, a child can understand. Silver, you can assume the holder is aspiring to gold. Bronze, theyโve turned up and are at least showing willingness. Compare that to the ACS, that companies can score zero on, and a maximum of 145, based on 78 โachievement indicatorsโ. If a game of football was decided on such metrics, would it be as popular?!
The SIA has on its website as part of its guidance for choosing a contractor, newly released, for the year to June 2024, the average scores for approved companies, based on their number of licensable staff. For the tiniest firms with up to ten staff, itโs 37; and it rises steadily based on the number employed. For firms with 11 to 25, an ACS average score is 52; for firms with 26 to 250, 75; and for what counts as the largest contractors, with 250-plus staff, 127. Left for the buyer to choose is 1) whether they want an โaverageโ scoring supplier, or seek a higher-scoring and presumably more expensive one; and 2) whether bigger is more beautiful.
In fact much else is left to the buyer to choose (and that too is a matter of opinion; how much and what sort of regulation does society want?). Does the buyer of guarding services seek to merely tick a box, to satisfy insurance; or want above all consistency, like the rooms in a chain hotel? Or does the buyer look for a supplier that rises to an occasion, a burst water pipe or medical emergency โ which you cannot very well know, unless the incident occurs? Can any approvals scheme answer all these questions? Can an approvals scheme, then, at best be a utilitarian affair, for the greatest good of the greatest number?
Photo by Mark Rowe: SIA-badged security officer facing inside a McDonald’s, winter night.
Link to part one: https://professionalsecurity.co.uk/blogs/mark-rowe/.
