The Government has decided to accept a proposed amendment to the Public Bodies Bill and thereby withdraw the Security Industry Authority from the list of organisations that can be abolished by way of secondary legislation.
However, the Government’s willingness to support the amendment does not represent any fundamental change of policy.
According to the security minister, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, it remains the coalition Government’s intention “to abolish the Security Industry Authority in its present form.”
The coalition has now decided, though, that this stated move will be best achieved through a different piece of primary legislation.
Amendment 19: Schedule 1, page 16, line 20… leave out ‘Security Industry Authority’ was put forward by Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
What has happened so far?
On October 14 last year, it was announced as part of the extensive public bodies review that the Security Industry Authority would no longer be a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), and that the Government would pursue “a phased transition to a new regulatory regime”.
The reasons for that particular stance were outlined during the extensive Committee debate held in the House of Lords on 28 February.
Home Office ministers then asked the security sector’s Regulator to consult key Stakeholders and duly produce a detailed plan of how that phased transition could be achieved.
Baroness Ruth Henig – the Regulator’s chairman – and the organisation’s chief executive, Bill Butler, then presented their plan to the Home Office on 16 February. A subsequent meeting with Home Secretary Theresa May occurred on 14 March.
In last night’s debate, Baroness Neville-Jones stated: “The key points that emerge from the proposals are that regulation will shift from licensing individuals to registering businesses, which will have to meet a comprehensive set of conditions set by the new Regulator.”
The Baroness continued: “The regulation of individuals will become the responsibility of registered businesses, which is an important point. The new Regulator will have the power to impose sanctions, including removing the right to trade in the private security industry on the part of businesses that fail to comply with the conditions that it sets for registration.”
Timescale for the transition
Some timescales have now become clear, too. The Government’s aim is for the new regulatory regime to be in place by the end of 2013, using “a phased approach to ensure a smooth transition”.
Baroness Neville-Jones went on to state: “We have decided to support the amendment to remove the SIA from the Public Bodies Bill because Clause 1 includes only powers to abolish bodies and transfer functions via secondary legislation. It does not include powers to set up new regulatory bodies, and it has become clear that primary legislation will be required to establish a successor self-regulatory body that will have the power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark was “very interested” to hear from Baroness Neville-Jones-why the Government had decided to join the opposition on this amendment.
Both at Second Reading and in Committee, he had raised concerns that there are “real risks of allowing criminality to return to an industry that has cleaned up its act dramatically in recent years”.
Lord Kennedy commented: “I have always felt it to be reassuring when you go into a venue and meet security personnel with credentials on display that show that the individual has reached a certain standard, had a Criminal Records Bureau check and is deemed to be a fit and proper person to undertake this kind of work.”
Crucially, he added: “It’s important to ensure that we take the industry with us. The industry does not want to see criminals return. Security checks on individuals who want to join the industry remain. A common approach to a problem that has largely been solved, but may need to be reviewed and updated as things change, could command support across the House if handled properly and built on what has been achieved in recent years.”
Regulator with ‘teeth’
In response, Baroness Neville-Jones said: “If I understood the noble Lord’s point, he attaches importance to the idea that the regulatory body should have ‘teeth’. The Government agrees. In other words, it must have powers that will enable it to enforce sanctions against companies that breach standards.”
Following a Home Office and Government review, that’s why it has now been decided that references to the Security Industry Authority should be removed from the Public Bodies Bill.
“The same primary legislative vehicle that will establish the successor regulatory body will also be used to abolish the Security Industry Authority, so we will put it all in another Bill,” explained the Baroness.
Appropriate legislation will now be brought forward when Parliamentary time allows.
Situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland
It also emerged from this latest Lords debate that the Home Secretary has personally written to ministers in the Scottish Government and in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to advise them of this amendment.
Of course, regulation of the private security industry in both countries is a policy decision for the devolved administrations to make. Baroness Neville-Jones said: “We are working with them to ensure that transitional and subsequent arrangements meet the needs of all UK administrations.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon also joined the debate. “Let me be clear that we don’t agree with the Government about the future of the Security Industry Authority because we believe that it’s essentially doing a good job as it is. As we understand it, the industry itself is content with the present situation and willing to pay for the present system.”
When the primary legislation was brought forward, one of the main bodies in favour of this being introduced was the police service. Many senior police officers have felt that the security industry, when unregulated, was rather a ‘dangerous’ industry, not just for the people working in the industry themselves but also for the wider society.
“It was as a means of protecting wider society that the legislation was introduced,” explained Baroness Royall.
The Baroness Royall asked of the security minister whether or not a consultation with the police and other concerned bodies will take place before a Bill is introduced, and when that Bill is likely to be brought forward.
Baroness Royall also said: “Will the Government consult with the Ministry of Justice and everybody else who has anything to do with the movement of prisoners and the wider care of prisoners? As I understand it, people who work within the security industry are sometimes employed within private prisons. It does not seem a sensible move or good idea to reintroduce some form of self-regulation rather than to have proper regulation for an industry that is extremely important for the well-being of our society.”
Baroness Neville-Jones responded: “On the question of the attitude of the police, we are consulting ACPO which supports the approach. The police attach importance to effective regulation.”
The security minister stated: “This body will have power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. There will be set standards in a number of areas. Certainly, the whole question of custody will be one of those areas of set standards. I have to say that the differences are more synthetic than real. I hope that, in due course, when we introduce and come to debate the legislation there will be cross-party agreement.”
Fit and proper persons
Lord Kennedy of Southwark outlined: “As I have said on several occasions, whatever happens we need to ensure that criminality does not return to the industry and that the public are able to remain confident that the people employed in the industry are fit and proper.”
He concluded: “The overwhelming majority of the industry acts responsibly and supports retention of the Security Industry Authority. If the Government brings forward a Bill for consideration, it will be important to give it detailed line-by-line scrutiny.”
To summarise, then, the Government’s acceptance of the amendment does not constitute a fundamental change in policy.
Rather, it’s a change to the vehicle that the Government will use to deliver that policy.
Brian Sims is Editor of SMT Online and Bobby Logue is the Editor of Infologue.com
Read last night’s House of Lords debate in full by accessing the web link on the right hand panel of this page
The Security Industry Authority is expected to make an announcement on the amendment later today
