BBC Scotland correspondent Glenn Campbell’s article – provocatively entitled ‘Security sector quango faces axe in cost drive’ – is based around the fact that the BBC has been privy to the contents of a Home Office report which apparently states that such a move would save security companies money while at the same time “reducing burdensome regulation”.
Although no final decision has been made in terms of the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) future, an official Home Office spokesperson has been quoted as saying: “The Government is committed to making substantial reforms of its public bodies to increase accountability and reduce their number and cost. All departments are working with the Cabinet Office and the Treasury to assess our public bodies and ensure they perform an essential role which has to be carried out by Government and cannot be provided more efficiently elsewhere.”
SMT Online understands the document seen by the BBC suggests the security industry has now matured enough to police itself.
The Home Office “expects to make an announcement [on the future of the Regulator] in due course”.
Government seeks to reduce public sector costs
Due to the fact the Regulator is largely self-financing, it’s fair to say that potential abolishment plans would not necessarily save the taxpayer any money. Nonetheless, like all public sector organisations the Regulator is obviously under close scrutiny as the coalition Government seeks to reduce costs and what it deems to be ‘red tape’ by cutting the number of such bodies in existence.
Not surprisingly, reaction from the security sector to the news has been swift and unequivocal.
SecuriGroup managing director Russel Kerr – whose company won the 2009 Approved Contractor Scheme Champion Award bestowed by the SIA at the Security Excellence Awards – said: “A decision to scrap the SIA may knock us back ten years. There’s also a real danger that the serious and organised crime element would find it easier to get themselves re-established.”
Meanwhile, International Professional Security Association CEO Justin Bentley contacted SMT Online and said: “IPSA believes that the intention in the leaked Government memo, which the BBC has obtained, paints an inaccurate picture of the security industry and that the abolition of the Security Industry Authority would be a severe step backwards.”
Bentley went on to state: “The security industry and the employees within may welcome the financial relief of removing the costs of licensing. However, the risk of the criminal element re-entering the industry is still too great to justify abolition plans.”
He added: “With cuts likely to be made in the budgets of all police services, now is the time when the private security industry could take up the slack. Therefore, it needs to be licensed by Government in order to ensure that public confidences remain high.”
Greater financial prudence needed
While licensing began back in 2003, it was introduced in various stages and has only been in place for a relatively short space of time in Scotland and Northern Ireland. “The positive benefits to the industry in England and Wales must be seen to be implemented in these countries as well,” urged Bentley.
The IPSA leader continued: “Greater financial prudence and taking advantage of improvements in technology to benefit the Criminal Records Bureau should be sufficient to reduce any costs and, hence, lessen the financial burden on the industry without reducing the benefits realised by licensing.”
In conclusion, Bentley told SMT Online: “As a Trade Association with a membership consisting of both individuals and companies, we wish to encourage the Government not to make any hasty decisions, and to allow the Security Industry Authority to continue with its task of ensuring that the public is not unnecessarily placed at risk.”
Like SecuriGroup, Select Management and Security is an Approved Contractor Scheme member. Based in Northern Ireland, the company operates throughout the United Kingdom, in turn providing trained and licensed door supervisors, event security staff, close protection operatives and security guarding services regulated by the SIA.
Company director Andrew McQuillan was interviewed exclusively by SMT Online Editor Brian Sims just before midnight on the Government’s leaked plans.
Potential “to be a complete mess”
“Of course we need to see the details of these proposals, but either way this has the potential to be a complete mess,” stated McQuillan.
“At the moment, end user companies buying regulated security services know that the staff employed are licensed and, as a result, they have some degree of assurance about security officers’ skills and character. If there’s total deregulation on the horizon then we’ll see a complete ‘free for all’. People with criminal records for dishonesty and assault will be back in the industry after seven years of painstaking effort to try and clean it up.”
McQuillan was quick to add: “Even worse, in the run-up to the Olympic Games in 2012, buildings may be secured by people on whom there have been no checks made at all. That’s a potential recipe for disaster.”
The security company leader suggests that if you look at the recent attempted nightclub bombing in London, without regulation the door supervisors themselves could end up being the terrorists trying to plant the bombs.
“How can you possibly secure the world’s most prestigious venues and events like the Olympic Games without checking who’s supposedly stopping bombs from entering a given premises? This could create a massive loophole that would surely be exploited. Lives could be lost.”
Industry not ready to police itself
McQuillan believes that any talk of the industry being ready to police itself is “worrying”. He commented: “In practice, self-regulation may be used by the dominant bigger firms to force out competition from smaller, more efficient companies and push up the prices. The industry will therefore see its security costs forced up at a time when it really cannot afford it.”
The Northern Ireland practitioner feels that across the UK there are “hundreds of thousands of good, committed people” in the industry who bought into the idea of a career and paid for their training and development on the understanding that their qualifications were recognised.
“Now, they may just be thrown aside with significant job losses from supporting sectors such as awarding bodies, training providers and consultancy.”
McQuillan believes there are problems with the SIA. “It’s far too bureaucratic, so by all means let’s fix the system with less focus on nit-picking detail and more enforcement on the issues that matter like stopping criminals, drug dealers and terrorists from infiltrating the sector. However, what this Home Office paper appears to suggest is the worst of all worlds.”
Concluding his comments to SMT Online, McQuillan stressed: “There are daily press reports just now on how the police service is leaning towards the private security sector to support it in a bid to reduce operational costs. How can any member of the public, let alone the police, trust security staff who are not vetted and approved to the SIA’s requirements?”
What are your thoughts on this matter? Either feel free to use the comment facility below this article or e-mail: brian.sims@ubm.com
For the time being, SMT Online is going to wait until any official announcement is made before voicing its opinion, but rest assured we will be forthcoming with comment