Seven years on from the introduction of licensing, and as the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the security industry approaches, SIA Director of Compliance, Intelligence and Communication Dave Humphries looks back at achievements in enforcing the law, and the outlook for the future.

He looks at the impact regulation has had under the current regime and discusses our current thinking on the key areas that have been identified to enable effective compliance and enforcement in the new regulatory regime.

“Compliance is not something that we have “done” to the industry; rather it has been very much about working together, and, through close collaboration with the industry, enabling regulation to mature.”

Dave Humphries, SIA Director of Compliance, Intelligence and Communication

Download the complete article (PDF, download size: 93kb)

Late last night the House of Lords passed an amendment to the Public Bodies Bill which removed the Security Industry Authority (SIA) from the schedule of Quangos set to be abolished. The amendment removes the Security Industry Authority from the list of public bodies that the Government can abolish by secondary legislation. The Minister of State, Home Office, Baroness Neville-Jones told the Lords that it remained the Government’s clear intention to abolish the SIA in its present form and transfer the powers to a new regulatory regime by the end of 2013.

Baroness Neville-Jones made the following comments;

“We have, however, decided that this will be best achieved through a different piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, it was announced on 14 October (2010) as part of the public bodies review that the SIA would no longer be a non-departmental public body and that we would take forward a phased transition to a new regulatory regime. I went through the reasons for that during the Committee debate on 28 February, and I do not intend to detain the House at this hour by going over that ground again. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.”

“Home Office Ministers asked the SIA last October to consult key stakeholders, including the industry, and to produce a detailed plan of how the phased transition to the new regulatory regime could be achieved. As the House will know, the chair of the SIA, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and its chief executive, Bill Butler, presented their plan to the department on 16 February and there has been a subsequent meeting with the Home Secretary on 14 March, so there has been close dialogue between the SIA and the department.”

“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 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; and 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.”

The SIA’s response

Baroness Ruth Henig, Chairman of the Security Industry Authority, who has campaigned tirelessly to ensure a smooth transition of the regulator towards smarter regulation, has issued a statement today.

Ruth Henig said in her statement;

“The Government’s announcement yesterday that the SIA is being removed from Schedule 1 of the Public Bodies Bill will be welcomed across the private security industry. (The SIA’s future: SIA removed from Quango hit list) The Government’s intention is to bring forward new legislation to develop and replace the SIA’s regulatory regime. This shows a welcome commitment to ensuring that the private security industry throughout the United Kingdom continues to be effectively regulated.”

“This confirms that regulation of the industry will continue, along with measures to enforce compliance with the current Private Security Industry Act until the new regime is in place. The SIA will continue to work with the Government in establishing a new regulatory regime, based primarily on business registration, supported by individual registration, and the SIA will involve the industry as fully as possible in this process.”

We believes that whilst there will be a new independent regulatory regime, the substance of transition of the SIA will be similar to the vision of lighter touch regulation as set out by Ruth Henig at the SIA conference in 2010.

G4S, the international security solutions group, today announces that G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited (G4S UK) has become the Official Security Services Provider and tier three sponsor of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games following the appointment made by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG).

Under the agreement, G4S UK will be responsible for recruiting, training and managing the 10,000-strong security workforce that will be tasked with securing the Games alongside colleagues from the police and local authorities across all London 2012 competition and non-competition venues.

G4S UK and LOCOG will be collaborating with the Bridging the Gap scheme established by the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), the Security Industry Authority (SIA), Skills for Security and North Hertfordshire College to identify talented people from further education colleges across the UK.  The initiative is set to bring thousands of new recruits into the security industry.  It provides a formal qualification for further education students from across the UK, leading to a guaranteed job interview with LOCOG to help supplement their security provision at Games time.   The programme has been awarded the London 2012 “Inspire Mark”.  It is hoped that the project will prove to be a gateway for long-term careers in the security industry, providing a lasting legacy.  The intake of students for London 2012 will be managed by G4S.

2010 marked the 75-year anniversary of G4S in the UK where G4S now employs 50,000 people. The group has extensive experience in the security of sporting and other major events and has been responsible for security at the Olympic Park site in East London since 2008.  The deal with LOCOG will cover all Olympic and Paralympic venues across the UK.

David Taylor-Smith, Regional CEO of G4S UK & Africa commented;

“We are absolutely delighted to have been selected as the Official Security Services Provider for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012.  We have worked extremely hard with LOCOG, the police, central government and the host venues and boroughs to develop a security proposal which will provide excellent security for the games, whilst ensuring that spectators, competitors and providers of services to the Games can enjoy the spectacle of one of the greatest sporting events in the world.”

LOCOG CEO Paul Deighton said;

“This deal represents where we are with our plans for the Games – we’re now looking at operational delivery.  G4S will help us ensure that the security provisions in place are robust and of the highest professionalism and we welcome them to the London 2012 family.  Our commercial programme has been a great success and we’re now approaching our targets which will contribute to the staging of spectacular Games in 2012.”

In response to media speculation that the SIA may be abolished as part of the UK Government’s programme of reform for public bodies, the SIA has stated that it cannot comment on speculation and will continue to fulfill its duties under the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

At a recent SIA Small Business Forum, Bill Butler, CEO of the SIA, stated that they are no more aware of the Government’s intentions than anyone else, which is understandable on the basis of the non-statement issued by the Home Office:

“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 HM 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.

No final decision has been made and we expect to make an announcement in due course.”

It obviously makes no sense to abolish any organization on the basis of cost-savings alone: if it performs a necessary function not provided elsewhere then it should remain (perhaps in a more cost-efficient manner) and, if not, then it shouldn’t really have been in existence even when the money was flowing more freely.

The question to be addressed, therefore, whatever the funding situation, is whether a necessary function is being fulfilled by the SIA, and, if so, whether there are improvements to be made. The answer to both questions is clearly “yes”.

No-one would suggest that the industry goes back to the bad, old days and abandons regulation and all the progress that has been achieved to date. Whilst it is evident that the Government is considering abolishing the organization, there is no suggestion that it is going to abandon regulation of the security industry per se. The SIA’s chairman, Baroness Ruth Henig, told delegates recently:

“You can all help the SIA to move forward, building on the benefits of regulation which have been achieved so far, and working together to drive forward a joint agenda of professionalisation of the industry and of higher skill levels and continuous training for those who work within it.”

There are a number of areas where opinions are divided as to what direction that joint agenda might take: the operation of the ACS being one example. The SIA website states that:

“The objective of the SIA’s Approved Contractor Scheme is to raise performance standards and to assist the private security industry in developing new opportunities”.

This seems to confuse two issues; surely the objective of the ACS should be to raise performance standards. Period. Presumably, it should not then be voluntary, to be pursued only by those companies wishing to secure a competitive advantage. Whether achievement of ACS status is a proven marketing tool is another matter again – in a competitive market, price is all too often the over-riding consideration, and successful companies would argue that their success is based on the excellence of their service delivery, rather than an industry accreditation.

Clearly, the question of what the future of the security regulatory framework should look like requires a period of considered, constructive debate involving all key stakeholders.