IPSA AGM 2010: Logue energises strong debate on guarding industry structure

11 Jun 10

The star turn at this year's IPSA AGM was a debate on the security guarding sector framed by a brilliant and impassioned polemic courtesy of Bobby Logue. Brian Sims reports.

By Brian Sims

This year, Bobby Logue - the editor of security guarding website www.infologue.com - is on a mission. Like myself, he’s addressing various elements of the industry and spelling out the facts of life in the hope that, one day, the penny – quite literally, in the case of customers – finally drops.

For one thing, Logue firmly believes that the way forward is through properly mandated trade associations with clear strategies.

Bobby didn’t pull any punches at all in the opening gambit of a polemic launched at IPSA's 2010 AGM that turned into a mini debating chamber with plenty of impassioned participation from the 50-stronaudience.

“The industry is constantly dynamic, but far too many organisations are standing still,” he suggested. I immediately found myself nodding in agreement with this oh-so-wise man.

Take a look in the Sick Bay

Of course, Bobby runs a management consultancy (Logue Corporate). He brokers deals for security guarding companies, and works with organisations to turn their fortunes around for the better.

“Let me tell you that, just now, we have 11 companies in our Sick Bay who find themselves in serious trouble. Over the last two-and-a-half years, our in-depth studies of 32 companies show that, while regulation has been a contributory factor, costs are rising for these organisations while the prices they receive for contracts are heading in the other direction.”

Logue talked honestly and openly about the “promiscuity of contracts” in the guarding sector, and stressed that he’s in favour of some form of differentiation to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

He continued: “While gross margins for security companies are now seriously low, the industry remains resistant to change. Let me be clear that this situation is not the fault of the Regulator. Clients are driving prices downwards because they know there will be companies out there willing to take this work.”

Back in 2003-2004, (then) SIA chief executive John Saunders spoke of consolidation in the sector post-regulation and the ACS. “Consolidation has happened to a degree,” suggested Logue, “and that’s one of the reasons why smaller players in the guarding sector must now look outside of the box and at niche markets.”

What is IPSA? That was Bobby’s key open question to the audience. Patrick Somerville responded: “It’s primarily a membership organisation.” Bobby’s next question? “Are you representing your members?” A member of the audience stated that IPSA is best when lobbying, but Bobby wants to see that process taken a stage further.

“OK then, but why not get yourselve structured in such a way that you can really become a credible trade body?” Food for thought there...

‘Bonfire of the Quangos’

Next up, Bobby mentioned the ‘Bonfire of the Quangos’ that the national media have talked up in relation to the Conservative’s noises about dampening down ‘regulation creep’ in all areas of our society. The feeling among many commentators is that, at some point, the SIA could come under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition’s microscope.

“The SIA will have to change. They know that,” said Logue. “The SIA is in constant dialogue with the BSIA, but there are thousands of security companies operational in this country who are not represented by anyone. That has to represent a huge opportunity for all trade associations.”

Indeed it does, but as Bobby rightly said IPSA needs a story to tell in order to corall those potential new members. “The SIA would rather talk to mandated trade bodies,” he continued, and the SIA’s director of strategy and corporate services, Hazel Russell, nodded in agreement.

“What is IPSA’s vision going forward? Put simply, you need to decide on that and then build downwards from it. Demand representation at Skills for Security.”

He referred to the joint Four Issues, One Voice Campaign that he and I ran back in 2006, and mentioned the fact there was little or no input in favour of the licensing of in-house security officers from trade bodies present at a meeting with the SIA.

“As I recall, Chairman Mao once said that you only need three people to start a revolution. These kind of issues affect your business, so why does everyone remain tight-lipped?”

Bobby also touched on the issue of poor English literacy within the industry and believes that, in addition to the multiple choice questions already included in the SIA examination, there should also be a 300-word mini essay.

Sit and wonder

As we all know, the Government is spending “an absolute fortune” – as Bobby correctly said – on security officer training and development, yet it appears that with all the monies that have been available through LSE/Business Link, little has permeated down to the smaller players in the guarding sector.

Is that also because no-one has spoken up on behalf of the smaller companies? You have to wonder.

At this point, Patrick Somerville made a very salient observation. “Business continuity planning is very much to the fore these days. If guarding companies can show they’re on the case with this subject and can deliver on back-up premises’ security and the like, then they could offer real value-add on contracts.” Another astute and excellent miniature polemic.

“Smaller security companies either need to be smarter or better - or both - if they’re going to compete their larger rivals,” continued Logue. “I would also say that four days of BJT is nowhere near enough. Eight days should be the bare minimum. If security officers are trained in fire protection, Health and Safety and First Aid they can really add value to their customers and save costs, too.”

Somerville explained that one of the major obstacles to progress is that it’s extremely difficult to persaude clients to sit round the debating table and discuss these points. For his part, Justin Bentley asserted that the whole area of insurance and its relationship with the security sector must be reviewed.

How long, exactly, have I been making the same point?

Insurers base their premiums and cover on risk, right? That risk will be greater if the officers on site aren’t properly trained, equipped and licensed to do the job. Following on from that theme, there must be a desire to build-in questions when officers take examinations that actually make them write an answer rather than tick a box.

Passionate points of view

Bobby agreed to disagree with Simon Smith on a number of points, but both ‘combatants’ respected each other’s point of view and passion for what they were talking about (as did yours truly).

As Bobby said, it would be a dull world if we all agreed on everything (and there wouldn’t have been a cracking debate, either).