George delivers cutting broadsides on SIA regulation

09 Sep 09

Former chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee and described by Security Industry Authority (SIA) chairman Baroness Ruth Henig as ‘The Godfather of Regulation’, Bruce George – the often outspoken Labour MP for Walsall South – followed Institute chairman Mike Bluestone’s introductory address on Day One of this year’s Annual Conference with a riveting and, at times, strident assessment of what has happened to regulation of the security sector since it was introduced via the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

The Institute’s vice-president may have sat down to deliver his fulsome polemic, but anyone in the audience who thought that meant his presentation might be a little downbeat were swiftly made to think again.

In truth, the long-serving politician delivered not one but several cutting broadsides on licensing and regulation that clearly resonated with Baroness Henig and Bill Butler – the SIA’s new chief executive – who were sitting side-by-side in the second row of the audience.

“What’s my assessment of regulation?” pondered George. “Frankly, I have serious misgivings. In the main, the villain of the piece is the Home Office. There are many that didn’t want regulation. The Home Office runs the show, so the blame for what has gone wrong must rest at its door. Both substantial and less substantial decisions have been taken, and most of those decisions made to date have, in my view, been wrong.”

Comparison of existing regulatory regimes

As a visiting professor at the University of Portsmouth’s Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, George has spent much time working and researching with that establishment’s renowned and respected leader Dr Mark Button in a bid to determine the level of “progressive control” that would be needed in the UK’s security sector in terms of regulation.

“We thought we’d succeeded with the publication of the Private Security Industry Act 2001,” he urged, “but it’s apparent there’s still a hell of a long way to go.”

Button and George, of course, famously compared regulatory systems in place across several countries and, in turn, determined different types of regulation. “First, there’s the non-interventionist model, which is pretty much what we had in the UK,” opined George. “Here, private enterprise laid down weak standards. Three days of Basic Job Training? It’s pathetic, and symbolised the relationship that existed between the Regulator and the BSIA at the time.”

George also talked of the minimum interventionist model, the comprehensive narrow model (wherein there are higher standards in place for a lower number of overall companies) and the comprehensive wide solution. It’s here that most companies are brought under the gaze of the Regulator.

“I campaigned for regulation for many years,” urged George. “There was guerrilla warfare with the BSIA prior to Jack Straw taking charge at the Home Office. To be fair to him, he said we would have regulation and we got it, but what we have in place now is neither wide nor narrow in scope. Too many sectors are presently excluded, while the Government appears to be moving at glacial speed when it comes to the crucial issues.”

Was in-house ever really on the agenda?

Referring to the Labour Party as having “kicked the ball into the long grass” where regulation is concerned, George added: “If there is a change of administration at the next General Election then some of the sectors excluded may well never be included. In-house licensing has been excluded, but was it ever really on the agenda?”

Going for the jugular, and with 99.9% of delegates by now hanging on his every word, George explained: “The Act is far too weak. It’s not what I wanted. The Bill meandered its way through the House of Lords [described by George as a “perfectly useless place to introduce it and its contents”] then Foot and Mouth appeared to steal the limelight. I made representations to the SIA, but I don’t feel they were listened to with any real interest.”

Have we gone far enough with regulation? For Bruce George the answer is an emphatic “No!” For him, standards in the EU are far higher. “The Europeans are developing far more competent models,” he suggested. “Take Belgium, for example. There, they demand 120 hours of basic training and after eight months of instruction there’s a rigorous examination. The number of basic training hours is similar in Denmark. In Spain, it’s 240 hours.”

Pulling no punches, George exclaimed: “How on Earth can we even begin to talk about a professional security guarding sector in the UK when, to put it mildly, officers are trained to such a miserable standard?”

By way of a neat analogy, George likened the SIA’s journey to his own trek from home to the Missenden Abbey Conference Centre. “The train I boarded this morning lacked what you might call good features. It set off very late. So did the SIA, whom we had to wait for until 2003. There were shady characters in my carriage, rather like the wheel clampers the Regulator has had to deal with. My train finally stopped short of Great Missenden because of track repair work. I would suggest that regulation needs a few repairs.”

Not a good story for the SIA or the Home Office

Overall, George feels that the period since licensing came into being has “not been a good story for the SIA or the Home Office”. He reiterated that too many sectors are currently “off the radar”, and suggested that this is the Home Office’s own fault. “Why are we bothering with wheel clampers and bailiffs? They have nothing whatsoever to do with security.”

George also said that he firmly believes there has been far too much commitment to the old order of voluntarism. “The cost of licences has arguably been too high, and we all know about the long delays that have taken place with processing.”

Here’s a suggestion. If the Government were to decrease the cost of licences and at the same time elevate the scope of training, might that just turn into a quid pro quo the industry’s majority would support?

Moving onto the vexed question of in-house regulation and the Government’s plans to abandon any notion of licensing individuals and teams at least for the next three years, George said: “The idea that we first have to identify a threat to the public good is by no means the lone issue here.” Of course, he’s quite right.

The myriad difficulties encountered by an in-house manager tasked with looking after a mixed team of licensed and non-licensed personnel is another that readily springs to mind, but the Regulator and the Home Office have seemingly chosen to ignore such matters.

“As for security consultants,” continued George, “there aren’t that many of them. Why has this sector been put on the back burner?”

As far as George is concerned, The Security Institute’s members may well be professional practitioners and rightly call themselves so, but much of the rest of the security sector “is not deserving of such an accolade”. He added: “There is much potential in the midst, but I’m waiting for the day when the BSIA has the bottle to stand up to the SIA and sort these anomalies out.”

The SIA: demon or angel?

Baroness Henig was next to present. The title of her polemic? ‘SIA: demon or angel?’ George had referred to himself as the angel in all of this, so it was up to the Baroness to defend the Regulator’s honour and lose the ‘demon’ tag ascribed by George (who, just like David Dickinson, would probably describe himself as a constructively critical friend of the SIA).

In her usual refreshingly honest mode, the Baroness began by echoing the views of many when she said that the biggest mistake made to date was the decision taken to licence individuals rather than companies.

“I was in angel mode but I left my halo in the office,” said the Baroness as she smiled at the Labour Parliamentarian. “Bruce has cast me as the devil. I wasn’t involved when the legislation was passed and came into law, but I do believe a lot of positive things have happened since. I would like to update Bruce and indeed all of you on the various reviews that have been conducted of our work in the past year, and what has been done about the results.”

For the Regulator, the calendar year 2008-2009 has been one of reviews. There were three external reviews, in fact, the first two of which (conducted by the National Audit Office and the Capability Review commissioned by the Regulator and the Home Office) have already been published. The third is the Hampton Review, the results of which will be known imminently.

The National Audit Office study mainly looked back to the start-up of the Regulator, and how resources were deployed to ‘get it going’ over the subsequent five-year timeframe. According to Baroness Henig: “This review was broadly supportive, and we have adopted its recommendations.”

For its part, the Capability Review looked at leadership within the Regulator, examining business process and organisational structure. This resulted in the well-documented changes at managerial level, and also – and very importantly – in an overhaul and wholesale restructuring of business processes and delivery systems followed by the SIA.

Licensing now “immensely more efficient”

“As a result,” explained the Baroness, “our licensing activity has become immensely more efficient. We are now much, much more focused on customer service and the delivery of a consistent, high quality performance.”

The Capability Review period saw the introduction of an interim chief executive – Bernard Herdan – for six months and then the appointment of current full-time chief executive Bill Butler. Today was Bill’s “first time out of the office,” suggested the Baroness, and it was a highly successful one from my point of view. It strikes me that Butler is a man who tells it like it is, will not pull any punches and will do good things. Time will tell.

Arguably the most important of these reviews for the industry at large is the aforementioned Hampton Review. This review has set out to establish exactly how good a Regulator the SIA really is, as measured against the Hampton Review principles and the Macrory characteristics – both of them central ingredients of the Better Regulation agenda we’ve heard so much about these last couple of years.

“If the results of this review are positive,” outlined the Baroness, “that will be a reflectance of our commitment to delivering balanced, risk-based regulation and should lead to the SIA being able to employ a greater range of sanctions short of full prosecution under the Regulatory Enforcement Sanctions Act of 2008.”

The expectations are that the Hampton Review results will be published very soon by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The Baroness stressed that, thus far, the Regulator has only been allowed sight of the draft final report. This could, of course, be subject to change. “Its principal finding is that we are a good Regulator. A Regulator that places an extremely high priority on regulating in line with the Hampton and Macrory principles, acting fairly and only implementing regulation where needed.”

Continuing the theme, the Baroness said: “Of course, there are also suggestions on how we could improve our work in certain areas, and we’ll be addressing them in due course.”

Improving relations with key Stakeholders

One of the observations made by the Hampton investigation team is that, because the Regulator holds a key role in improving standards within the private security sector as a whole, in addition to licensing individuals, this means that it needs to work a tad harder on improving relations with industry Stakeholders.

“We can then establish a clear division of responsibilities for raising standards,” commented the Baroness. “We need to establish more clearly with you and the industry at large who should be doing what. One thing the Hampton team has found is that expectations from the industry in terms of what we can achieve as the Regulator are unrealistic.”

The Baroness then turned her attentions to areas of mutual interest, including the decision taken not to licence in-house security operatives and differentiation within the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).

Baroness Henig was keen to begin with the in-house issue because she’s well aware the Government’s decision to abandon any plans in this area – at least for the next three years – has generated “strong passions and vigorously expressed opposition from many commentators, most of whom are good friends of ours but feel that, on this occasion, we have got it wrong.”

Apparently, there were far more opinions expressed in a supportive direction to say that the Regulator was right in its report findings. Others believe the research findings that emerged were written in reverse once the desired conclusion had been firmly established from the outset.

“My version of events, as opposed to that expressed by Bruce, is that in-house security officers were removed from the licensing regime when the legislation was being debated in Parliament in 2000 to 2001. This decision was taken on the grounds that the Government did not feel it was right at that time to add an additional layer of checking where it was not deemed to be necessary, and in an area of activity in which companies would already have satisfied themselves about the possible criminal backgrounds of their employees.”

No quantifiable evidence of risk

As is common knowledge, (then) Home Secretary Charles Clarke assured Parliament that this situation would be reviewed after three years of security officers having been subject to regulation.

“We held that review last year,” asserted the Baroness, “with a wide-ranging consultation exercise. Large numbers of businesses and individuals who work in the industry were approached for their views and experiences. Input was forthcoming from 125 organisations and 50 individuals.”

The responses received “did not reveal any quantifiable evidence of risk”, nor indeed any significant public protection issues which would justify ministerial action to introduce additional regulation for in-house personnel.

Baroness Henig opined: “I was interested to read the reviews of The Security Institute’s chairman Mike Bluestone, when he said on SMT Online and Infologue.com that he thought our decision not to prepare a submission for ministers was a political one. It was, but not in the way implied.”

It appears to be the case, then, that the decision had nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with Parliamentary process. To justify bringing in new legislation at this stage of the present Government’s Term of Office would mean that the powers-that-be would have to cite very strong evidence in support of the need for change. At present, and as we all know, such evidence is simply not there.

On a personal note, I wonder how many in-house teams are going to want to stand up and be counted, and say that in places they could be doing things in a way that’s a little better and in tune with received Best Practice? How many are going to suggest that licensing could help them?

With jobs potentially at risk, and with so many ex-police and ex-military types wishing to preserve the so-called ‘Black Art’ of security provision and what it is they do in the corporate arena, I would suggest the answer is not many.

Members of the public exposed to serious risk

“To introduce in-house legislation in the short time that’s available between December and May next year,” continued the Baroness, “there would first need to be strong agreement that the licensing regime is falling short and that members of the public are being exposed to serious risk. That agreement is simply not there.”

Baroness Henig again mentioned the fact that the door is not closed on this issue. There will be a revisit by ministers in three years’ time, an assessment of the climate of the day and any evidence that is presented.

“Again, I welcome the BSIA’s recent statement asking its own members to come forward with evidence to show that clear risk to public protection has developed across the in-house sector,” said the Baroness.

“The timing of any initiative here is important for another reason. If there is a change of Government next year, a new regime may not favour the extension of regulation. They may even wish to scale it back. The fact that it is the industry itself pushing the issue, providing the evidence and demonstrating the need for regulation will be crucial in persuading such a Government to move forward – if indeed the evidence is forthcoming.”

Bringing the ACS into play

Of course, there has been much discussion these past few months about the ACS, its perceived degree of success and about how far the initiative can move forward now that there are 600-plus companies registered (the target being 700 come next April).

According to the Baroness, the Hampton team has been very complimentary here. They suggest the ACS has been extremely successful in helping to raise standards in the industry. It also points out that there has been the generation of additional benefits (including a better exchange of Best Practice techniques within the guarding sector).

Thankfully, the Baroness didn’t shy away from addressing the issue about which I have been extremely vocal. “With over 600 ACS companies,” she stated, “the inescapable issue is how can buyers differentiate between them? And how can those companies derive the maximum benefit from being registered with us? Should there be some further distinguishing marks of achievement – such as Beacon status, informed choice differentiation or company-wide approvals, for example? All of them areas on which we are consulting further with the industry at the present time.”

Clearly, the SIA will need to listen to what the Hampton reviewers have said. “They’ve suggested that some of the options put to the SIA by businesses and their representatives could place the Regulator, as a Government body, in a difficult position as it’s unusual for a non-public service Regulator to rank service providers on the basis of the quality of their work.”

Baroness Henig added: “Furthermore, there are risks that the adoption of higher standards might impose additional burdens. Thus, the Hampton team believes that an alternative approach might be to work with the industry in promoting higher independent standards if that would suit the needs of companies. It also feels that the industry should adopt a shared approach to extending the system.”

Working with the BSIA and Skills for Security

With this in mind, the Regulator is working alongside the BSIA and Skills for Security in discussing the matter of differentiation. Indeed, the Regulator has recently published a report on its own web site that looks at how additional differentiation might be built into the ACS. Follow-up work is underway.

There has been “little support” for formal differentiation, it seems (such as the introduction of different levels within the ACS), thus the focus of the Regulator (and its supporters like The Security Institute) is now very much on those ideas that will help security solutions providers differentiate themselves.

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine