In the spring, Una Riley was our rep at the Security Industry Authority conference at the Honourable Artillery Company in London.
I wondered as I walked through the door who the big guns of this yearโs conference would be? One of the first people I met was the former SIA Director of Compliance and Enforcement, Andy Drane. I enquired what he was up to these days and he explained that he now had a company called Roding Partnership, dealing with training and consultancy. I asked him to elaborate. Andy said: โOne of the services I provide is giving advice and guidance on regulation aimed at the good guys. People are trying to comply with the law but some of the complexities that exist require navigation. The advantage of engaging me is that I donโt work for the SIA … if the SIA inspect and find issues then they have to deal with them, whereas, I can give advice informally in order that my clients can get it right and not come to the attention of the SIA.โ What happens if they do come to the attention of the SIA? I asked. Andy replied: โWell, the SIA wants to focus their attention on intelligence and systems to ensure that non-compliance is detected. However, our clients in the event of inspection are not found wanting.โ I enquired if he enjoyed being on the other side, as it were. Andy laughed and said: โOur clients get the best advice to enable them to comply with the requirements of the SIA.โ I guess the โpoacher turned gamekeeperโ approach has its advantages. If anyone knows the ins and outs of the SIA compliance system it has be Andy Drane. I moved on and recognised numerous familiar faces. It was a very good turn out with many of the Industry players in attendance. However, next year it might be an idea if more people from the electronic systems sector took an interest in the changes. Although Geoff Tate of the SSAIB and Jeff Little of the NSI were in attendance it maybe an idea for more โsystemsโ practitioners to be involved. It will be an interesting landscape regarding the licensing of the security profession over the next couple of years; will we see the licensing of consultants re-emerge, after being shelved two years ago due to protest by the systems sector. It was the threat of licensing of the systems sector via the โconsultancyโ route that gave rise to the introduction of the FSA (Fire and Security Association) to fight such needless bureaucracy for an already highly self-regulated market. The systems sector does not suffer from organised crime infiltration and has high training and quality standards. It will be interesting to see how protected the profession will be in the hands of its own industry representatives and who will emerge as the doyens of self-regulation – if it ever happens? Or will it be a case of biding time whilst the unsettling disruption by government settles down?
In the meantime the conference was buzzing. This was the fifth stake-holder conference, and there will be another, northern conference later in the year. This conference was different; it was the first event following the Cabinet Office announcement in October that there should be a โphased transition to a new regulatory regimeโ for the private security industry. At three break-out sessions in the morning. topics were: new licence framework, business registration and designing the future. In the afternoon there were questions and answers and a debate on โsecurity now and in the future and what the transition means to us as an industryโ with a panel of Ben Dyer from Goldman Sachs, John Ludley from Sutton Insurance โ Specialist Risks, Cathie Smith from the BIIAB (British Institute for Inn-keeping Awarding Body) and Geoff Zeidler, UK MD of Securitas Security Services. However, I found the most interesting aspect of the day was in fact the introduction to the conference by the chairman – Baroness Ruth Henig who outlined that the gathering marked a milestone in the evolution of regulation for the private security industry. Ruth Henig in her inimitable way reminded the audience of an ancient Chinese curse – which was โmay you live in interesting timesโ. She said: โWell, all of us at the SIA and all of you working across the industry have been living in interesting times since we last met in conference in June nine months ago. At that conference, I outlined to you the SIAโs vision for lighter touch regulation in the future, and for greater industry involvement in regulation, and I talked about the blueprint for development which we were in the process of drawing up. There was general agreement across the industry over our proposed direction of travel, but also a strong consensus that we must not do anything to undermine enforcement and compliance activities, particularly those aimed at tackling serious and organised criminality. Then came October, and the leak that the SIA was to be abolished by the government along with nearly 200 other public bodies. There had been no consultation and no warning โ but it was very gratifying to hear the strong words of support for the continuation of regulation of private security coming from the Scottish government and from the Strathclyde police chief. Both the Scottish and Northern Ireland governments said that they would continue with the existing regime of regulation under their devolved powers if necessary, if the UK government moved to end regulation in England and Wales. But clearly self regulation was not something most people working in the industry wanted to return to. Companies and individuals started to write to members of the government with whom they had contact, or to the Home Secretary, the Cabinet Office and even the prime minister emphasising how the industry had benefited from regulation and how a return to self regulation would be a backward step. I think the government was very surprised by the number of strong messages and letters it received in support of continued regulation and about the levels of risk which it might face if criminality in the industry was no longer targeted and compliance and enforcement policies did not continue, particularly as the Olympic Games approached.โ As one of the people that contacted my MP and tried to get the government to listen, it is reassuring that at least the disbandment of the SIA is no longer imminent, in fact the government has agreed to take the SIA out of the Public Bodies Bill altogether. This means that they will not be abolished (yet) but that regulation and enforcement will continue while discussions with the government carry on working for the most effective way of moving towards a new statutory regulatory regime. In principle I am all for getting rid of the useless quangos that should not have been introduced in the first place; however, the SIA was not one of them and the leak was like one of the HAC cannons exploding! Ruth Henig outlined the fact that there had been a real threat after the announcement โ that individuals would hear the message that the SIA was about to be abolished and would stop applying for new licences or would not bother to book for training. This was confirmed by Cathie Smith of the BIIAB who said that such a blip did occur. There was a brief period when licence applications dropped. But at the same time, the prospect of the loss of all the gains achieved over the past six years of regulation united the industry as never before. Baroness Henig said: โI have been quoted by government ministers as supporting self-regulation โ but what I actually support is a regulatory regime which allows for greater industry involvement and greater industry responsibility. What I didnโt understand was why we could not continue to work for those outcomes through our blueprint for change, and as the SIA.โ In December 2010 the SIA established a โstrategic consultative groupโ to enable the leading industry bodies to find out at firsthand what they were proposing, and to inform them what was happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and above all what the thinking of the Home Office was. Regulation has been increasingly effective across the industry. Criminal gangs have been targeted and nearly 50,000 people have been removed from the industry after being identified as not fit and proper to work in it. The most important part of the introduction for me was when Baroness Henig requested the industry to help develop a new model of regulation and a shared vision. She said: โWe now have the opportunity to look again at the scope of regulation โ can we find a way of encouraging businesses with in-house security to associate themselves with the standards and approach of the new regime? Should we be looking to include private investigators and security consultants in the new body? These are all possibilities now which we could consider and discuss the merits of.โ Very interesting; what was that Chinese curse again?!
On the SIA website you can read the full Ruth Henig speech, and view the presentations by Stephen McCormick, SIA Director of Service Delivery; and David Evans, the BSIAโs Olympic Project Director, on the London Games. Visit –
