SMT Online Web Exclusive

Presidential address

28 May 09

On the opening morning of IFSEC 2009, Brian Sims talked to The Security Institute’s president Lord Carlile in relation to several pressing issues of the moment, including CCTV, counter-terrorism and policing.

By Brian Sims

Three years ago, Lord Alex Carlile was invited to speak at a seminar held in London’s Olympia. At the time, concerns over UK security were growing during the post-9/11 and 7/7 era, and the widely held view suggested that a degree of quality assurance was needed among security managers’ and directors’ host companies.

At that seminar, Lord Carlile met and talked with Security Institute champion Bill Wyllie. “I could tell from what Bill was saying that the Institute had rapidly become a pioneering professional body underpinned by demonstrable credibility,” explained his Lordship as we chatted in The SMT SELECT Lounge on the opening morning of IFSEC 2009. “The organisation wanted, and still wants, a Royal Charter. From my point of view, the key to that lies in ethics.”

Orating in his role as president of the Institute, Lord Carlile continued: “I’m a barrister, while plenty of my friends are doctors. Every profession including the law and medicine has an ethical ruling body at its peak. Those looking for services will then target qualified individuals accredited by those ruling bodies to practise. We don’t want un-regulated ‘professions’.”

As far as Lord Carlile’s concerned, The Security Institute is making a significant contribution towards setting and continually raising standards within the security profession, which is one of the reasons why he agreed to become the organisation’s proud president.

Acting as a voice of the Institute

“Both Bill and his recent successor as chairman, Mike Bluestone, would like me to be a voice for the Institute. As an individual, I always strive to be independent and as clear with what I say as is humanly possible. I like to act based on evidence. Bill and Mike know that they need ‘outsiders’ to validate the Institute’s work, and I’m happy to be one of those who acts in that capacity.”

When I mention the subject of policing and security in the UK today, and what needs to be done to tighten the net on criminals, Lord Carlile is unequivocal in his response.

“Talking to you in my capacity as president of The Howard League for Penal Reform, I will tell you that the private sector cannot cope with the nation’s security responsibilities all on its own. Neither can the public sector. Policing the 2012 Olympic Games, for example, will have to be a seamless partnership between the two.”

Clearly, there are immense opportunities for solutions providers in relation to the Games, and huge decisions to be made by the authorities in readiness for a huge influx of people from all over the globe.

“It’s the UK’s chance to show that it leads the way in security provision,” opined Lord Carlile. “National security is an individual liberty for every citizen, but we don’t want to pay too high a price for that liberty. I don’t mean in the monetary sense, but rather in terms of obtrusiveness.”

Jumping through security’s hoops

Neatly segueing into a short discourse on IFSEC to prove that theory, Lord Carlile explained: “Look around you at this exhibition, Brian. IFSEC is primarily about security kit. Kit that makes us all feel that bit safer. Once people are inside an event like this, you don’t want them having to jump through security hoop upon security hoop. There needs to be a secure passage from zone to zone that’s facilitated by sensible, robust co-operation between the private and public sectors.”

We then proceeded to discuss the Home Office’s highly controversial decision not to licence in-house security personnel. What does Lord Carlile think of this outcome, itself prompted by a scoping study of the market conducted by the Security Industry Authority?

“Let’s look at discipline within my own profession – the law – by way of an analogy. The Crown Prosecution Service, effectively the biggest law practice in the country, employs over 3,000 qualified individuals, some of whom are solicitors and some barristers. Those solicitors and barristers are subject to different disciplinary codes. I don’t think that’s right. The legal services ombudsman should take a look at that situation.”

An issue that continues to rile me is the fact that, when the police service spends so much time and effort bringing people to Court, and the miscreants standing before the Judge are 100% guilty, why do we then see such lenient sentencing handed out? Is it a case of ‘Sentencing Lite’ in this day and age and, if so, why?

“I cannot say that I agree with you that we are operating a ‘Sentencing Lite’ policy, Brian. I remember that, in 1984, there were 45,000 people in prison in this country. Today, that figure stands at 90,000. By the way, there’s no evidence to show that this increase has made any real difference to society as a whole.”

Look at what’s happening in society

Lord Carlile then expanded on this last point. “I’ve been involved in the criminal law for the past 39 years. I have to tell you that approximately half of those incarcerated in our prisons have some form of mental illness. Were we to treat these people on a different basis in the first place we could keep them out of prison.”

Another interesting statistic unearthed by his Lordship is that fact that, of the 85,000 males currently behind bars, 9% of them are ex-servicemen. “Why is that so? What is making people who were once defenders of the State commit crime? Why are they in prison? We need suitable diversions that will prevent them from offending.”

No doubt many of you will remember that, over a decade ago, the National Audit Office suggested for every £1 spent on diverting crime back then we would save the public purse around £7 now.

“There have been some serious incidents of criminality in Reading of late,” suggested Lord Carlile. “By and large, the problems are not being caused by locals but by people coming into the town from elsewhere for a night out. I have to say that CCTV doesn’t appear to be preventing violence from occurring in Reading or other town centres.”

Don’t blame the CCTV solutions providers

It’s not a case of the equipment being poor. Far from it. One need only have glanced around the stands at IFSEC this year to recognise that solutions providers are developing phenomenally good CCTV systems, while effective lighting for surveillance is now high on the agenda thanks to the tireless efforts of companies like Raytec. That being the case, it’s at the management end of the equation where matters are plainly a little haywire.

I have always felt it rather irresponsible of Information Commissioner Richard Thomas to suggest that we have too many surveillance cameras in this country. “It’s an issue of proportionality, Brian,” suggested Lord Carlile after pausing for a moment’s thought. “I would not wish to see cameras on every street corner. The processes for their role-out can have a momentum of their own, so it’s beholden upon local councils to act sensibly.”

One of the biggest causes of night-time affray is, of course, drink. “We need far better controls in place in this country to regulate how alcoholic beverages are sold to members of the public,” urged Lord Carlile. “The threat of public houses and shops being put out of business if they transgress the law has to be higher than it is at present. That will surely deter the majority.”

Those of you who read my interview with Lord Carlile in this year’s IFSEC Magazine will know that one of his Lordship’s key tasks is to act as an independent arbiter on all counter-terrorism legislation produced by the current Government. “The police and the Security Service have foiled several planned terrorist attacks in recent years. I believe we are safer here than in many other countries.”

National ID card: mandatory or voluntary?

Staying with the privacy theme for a moment, I asked Lord Carlile what he thinks of the proposed national ID card scheme.

“There’s very little doubt that such a card would make a contribution in the fight against terrorism and criminality,” outlined his Lordship, “but not enough of a contribution to justify rendering them compulsory. My view is that these cards would be welcomed by the majority.”

Lord Carlile then recalled a brief conversation he once had with a couple of French businessmen on this very issue. “They viewed national ID cards as a benefit. I think most people in the UK do, too. Most would want a voluntary ID card, and would sign up for that. The applications for them are vast and, potentially, very helpful. Most 18-year-olds would welcome a card that lets them prove their age or ‘zap’ their way into a sports stadium.”

For Lord Carlile, a voluntary card would be a success but he baulks at the suggestion of a compulsory scheme. “As you can see, there are seven cards of various kinds in my wallet. However, this issue is anything but a simple philosophical one where the political world is concerned.”

The House needs to be in order

Given what has happened of late with the expenses scandal and the fiscal crisis – to name but two unsavoury and massively damaging episodes – the real worry for most people is not the ID card itself, but whether or not our politicians are capable of managing both the data and procedures associated with it.

Just now, it appears to the bystander that our rulers would have trouble finding their way out of a paper bag.