The Security Industry Authority is to have a ‘phased transition to new regulatory regime’ in the Coalition government’s so-called bonfire of quangos.
SIA enters a ‘new phase’
The Security Industry Authority is to have a ‘phased transition to new regulatory regime’ the Coalition government announced last month in a shake-up of quangos.
Quite what that means will have to become clearer after the October 14 announcement by the Cabinet Office. The SIA is no longer to be a Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB). What change if anything this means to the staff, standards of training required for a licence, the approved contractor scheme, and the regulator’s in-tray – such as licensing for private investigators – has yet to be worked out. So while what the SIA does is not abolished outright, nor is it retained like another SIA – the Seafish Industry Authority. In the small print, the Cabinet Office says that the SIA is ‘subject to the spending review and, where appropriate, to impact assessment and consultation’. So the SIA could yet see its functions discontinued; or it may ‘change status’, becoming a charity or private firm.
The Government hailed what it called a ‘new era of accountability in government’. To make the changes happen, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, said that the Government intends to introduce a Public Bodies Bill, but did not give a timetable. It may mean months or more of uncertainty, and meanwhile a faltering in compliance with regulation. In the weeks since a September 22 leak of the SIA’s possible abolition, Professional Security understands that the regulator began to see a drop in licence applications and renewals, as people hung back before paying their £245.
More confusion may arise, whatever the Westminster Tory-Lib Dem Coalition decides, depending on the Scottish Nationalist government in Edinburgh. While the Scots came into the SIA regime later than England and Wales, the SNP may argue that they want the SIA as it is, to tackle organised crime involvement in pub and club doors and building site guarding. The SIA has taken care to stay in contact with the Holyrood government and the Scottish authorities have embraced regulation. For example in December 2009 SNP Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced that all firms providing private security for the Scottish Government would have to be approved contractors.
As for some other bodies in these pages over the years, the Information Commissioner’s Office and Gangmasters Licensing Authority are retained; the Independent Safeguarding Authority is still in the air, as the Home Office is reviewing the ‘vetting and barring’ scheme for people who work with young and vulnerable people. The national strategy for public space CCTV appears likewise in limbo as its home for the last few years, the National Policing Improvement Agency is like the SIA no longer a NDPB. The government has yet to say which parts of the NPIA ‘should sit in a rationalised national policing landscape’, whatever that means. And if you are a CCTV control room or other user of Remploy’s disabled staff, Remploy – a public body – is still ‘under consideration’.
The reform process, which covered all of HM Government’s Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs), as well as other bodies, such as some non-ministerial departments and some public corporations, will help to reinvigorate the public’s trust in democracy and also ensure that the Government operates in a more efficient and business-like way.
The Government proposes to reform 481 bodies. Of these 192 will cease to be public bodies and their functions will either be brought back into Government, devolved to local government, moved out of Government or abolished altogether.
Francis Maude said that this process represented the restoration of political accountability for decisions which affect people’s lives and the way taxpayers’ money is spent: “We know that for a long time there has been a huge hunger for change. People have been fed up with the old way of doing business, where the ministers they voted for could often avoid taking responsibility for difficult and tough decisions by creating or hiding behind one of these quangos.”
The Government announced proposals to merge 118 bodies down to 57, and to substantially reform a further 171. Francis Maude said: “There are of course organisations that will remain, although it is unlikely that any will be completely unchanged. This is because we recognise that some of these bodies do hugely important and essential work that has to be done at arm’s length from Government, especially when political impartiality, independence or technical expertise is required.
“But those that remain will not be allowed to go back to the old way of working. As part of the reforms, we will also be introducing new transparency requirements, a new governance framework and a new review process to ensure that there is a robust and regular challenge of the continuing need for all the public bodies that remain.”
He added: "While today’s changes will help us move quickly to a new era of accountability in government, we recognise that there will be significant changes for many staff, who have done an enormous amount of excellent work for their organisations. We also want to recognise the public service given by members of boards and committees. We will continue to do all we can to work with their Chief Executives, Chairs and management teams to ensure any change is conducted as fairly and as smoothly as possible."
As for the Public Bodies Bill according to the Government this will help enable proposals to be rapidly implemented where statutory changes are required. Other legislation, which will be introduced this session, such as the forthcoming Education Bill and Localism Bill, will also enable some specific changes. All final decisions and implementation will be subject to the Spending Review, necessary legislation and other measures where appropriate.
Union comment
GMB, the trade union covering the private security industry, was quick to comment. Paul Kenny, GMB General Secretary said: "It is important to remember that licensing in the security industry was brought in to keep out crooks, drug dealers and those convicted of criminal assaults to protect the public and create decent standards in the industry. The change of Government has not removed the risks to the public. Abolishing the Security Industry Authority is wrong. It will hit decent employers, it will expose the public to unnecessary risks and will undoubtedly end in tears and in the courts. Is the Government saying that it is OK for crooks, drug dealers and those convicted of criminal assaults to set up and run security companies?"
