When the Government sought to abolish the Security Industry Authority (SIA) in September last year, many commentators within the private security industry thought this was a step too far.
That feeling was crystallised through the formation of The Security Alliance (now The Security Regulation Alliance).
What was needed, apparently, was business licensing. Essentially, effective business licensing would facilitate the creation of a level playing field for security companies and their clients. This would be achieved by removing the opportunity for ‘predator’ companies to generate a false market through illegal activity.
As a consequence, the Regulator would be better equipped to achieve its original objectives of improving public safety and public confidence.
Current proposals: cause for concern
Many organisations saw the value of this approach and duly gave it their support. A year on, though, the current proposals being put forward for the future of regulation by the SIA and The Security Regulation Alliance ought to be a cause for concern.
In my view, the proposals are fundamentally flawed in that they rely far too much on the value of “intelligence-led risk assessment models” and overly optimistic assumptions as to the level of maturity present in the industry.
Before progressing any further, let me state no-one should be in any doubt that the Government is the controlling mind of the SIA. As the recent SIA Commitment To Regulation Conference promotion stated, the Regulator is: “Delivering Home Office objectives”.
Consequently, the SIA is effectively being used as a “human shield” by the Government to achieve its stated objective of industry deregulation.
Demonstrable lack of understanding
The first flaw is the failure of this Government to fully understand the purpose of the regulation prior to its decision to abolish the SIA.
The original objectives as set out in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 were the prevention of crime and disorder, improving public confidence in the sector and enhancing public safety.
Instead of first consulting with the in-house and private security solutions providers, their clients and their employees, the decision was taken to listen to those whose sole interest is profit.
There’s nothing wrong with profit, of course, but as a country we have laws which make it illegal to put profit before public safety.
The challenges come when an organisation is so big its ‘bean counters’ suggest that the legal cost of a catastrophic incident is an acceptable risk. That’s fine for the company, and those who benefit from its largesse, as it will still be in profit and in business.
However, for those caught up in the incident – the Government and the public alike – the outcome can be terminal.
Fundamental contribution of the Regulator
The second flaw the politicians have made is failing to recognise the contribution of the Regulator since its inception.
The enormity of the challenge that was posed is sometimes overlooked: a brand new national system being sketched out on a blank sheet of paper.
From this lofty ambition the SIA has overseen the creation of national minimum standards across the industry. Clearly, there have been mistakes and teething problems: it was inevitable they would occur. The biggest charge they faced in the early years was that of arrogance.
Looking back at that time it now resembles the sometimes necessary false confidence projected by leaders, in all walks of life, when the way ahead and the future are unclear.
Over time, matters have slowly changed and improved as lessons were learned. The success of the SIA’s ‘project’ has led to other countries either considering or implementing similar regimes.
Furthermore, the Regulator had already identified the need to consolidate its successes and build a stronger, more effective regulatory regime ‘fit for purpose’ for the next part of its journey.
Government’s influence over proposed changes
The third flaw is the Government’s influence – and, indeed, that of its friends – over the direction and purpose of the proposed changes.
Having a clear sense of purpose and direction is of no use if it’s going the wrong way. Every few years, lemmings have a clear purpose and direction which ends badly at the bottom of a long drop (it’s worth noting their decision is at least one of self sacrifice, as it ensures there will be sufficient resources remaining for those lemmings who choose a different direction).
In terms of the direction of the current set of proposals, they all seem to focus on cost reductions to business through the internal streamlining of the administrative process.
Moreover, the emphasis of these proposals seems to be more concerned with reducing the Government’s costs while at the same time widening its revenue opportunities from licence and registration fees.
The idea of cost reductions in this context – and I’m not making this up, Home Secretary – as the key driver for improving public safety and public confidence in the private security industry is, quite frankly, laughable.
Consequently, if cost reductions continue to dominate the agenda over and above issues of public safety then – just like the aforementioned lemmings – this Government is heading for a fall.
Vested interests talking to themselves
The fourth flaw is the incestuous nature of the development of these latest proposals. Private security providers and vested interests are talking to themselves, listening to their own views and having their own visions of the future.
In other circumstances such introspective behaviour is considered a cause for concern rather than celebration.
The reality of the situation is that private security – indeed any form of security – exists solely to protect the business interests of its clients. At the moment, survival is the prime objective of those clients which pretty much means they ‘re shaving the bones, never mind trimming the fat.
It’s already common practice for corporate clients to tell the solutions provider what price they will be paid for the contract. They are well aware this policy is likely to lead to illegal activity as providers are expected to soak up the cost but still maintain the quality.
The reason they can do this is the current ‘tick box’ approach accepted by insurance companies. Ticking the box may be acceptable when dealing with cans of beans, but it’s most certainly not where people and human interaction are concerned.
The biggest incentive for clients to take safety and regulation seriously will be when it directly affects their insurance premiums. This means clients and insurance companies need to be included in the process if business licensing is to have any real chance of delivering its potential benefits.
Licensing dispensation for the 2012 Olympic Games
The final flaw I’m going to mention as part of this article – for there are many more – is the licensing dispensation being granted for the 2012 Olympic Games (again, it’s important to remember the SIA has been told to grant this by the Government).
This is understandable and makes a great deal of sense from a purely ‘Olympic Games point of view’. The problem is, though, that it sends out entirely the wrong message to all those door supervisors and door supervision companies providing security in the events, hospitality and leisure sector.
They have gone to considerable expense to ensure they can work in accordance with the law. Now, when the benefits of that investment can be realised, the Government is flooding the employment market to create a false economy.
That said, perhaps the biggest question licence dispensation raises is this: ‘If we can manage without regulation for the period in question, at a time when the challenges to be faced will be at their most severe and the potential danger to public safety without parallel, why do we need regulation at all?’
Ian Fox is chairman of the National Doorwatch Steering Group
