Regulation... at a price

It's now almost exactly 25 years to the day that I 'passed out' of the Securicor Guard Dog Training School. Indeed, I'm extremely proud of the fact that I am the only Member of Parliament with a certificate in guard dog handling. Over the years there have been many ministers in the Home Office with an interest in regulating the private security industry, but none has had my practical experience of working within it for seven years.

When, as a minister, the press used to challenge me about the figures for criminality within the contract guarding sector, I would always be careful to differentiate between door supervisors – who were responsible for 90% of the crimes committed – and the contract guarding sector itself, which has a very low level of criminality.

However, I recognised that the tide was moving fast in favour of regulation. The media, the police and the industry all wanted it. While I'm instinctively suspicious of Government regulation, I issued a consultation paper back in 1996 which dealt with the industry's main concern – that of potential criminals working in the security sector without proper checks and vetting. A thorough check of criminal records would have eliminated most of the 'cowboys' from the industry, thereby clearing up what has always been security's major problem.

That said, I stayed well clear of proposals to impose any unnecessary and additional burdens. For instance, we did not propose to set training standards or skills requirements. No Government is able to second guess the training requirements for the huge range of tasks undertaken by the thousands of guards employed on varied assignments in the contract guarding sector.

Now, I look at the Private Security Industry Bill and the warm welcome it has received from

the industry. As realisation of the horrendous regulatory burden which will be imposed on the industry begins to dawn, it's my belief that the alarm bells will start to ring loud and clear. And not before time.

In its clamour for regulation aimed at wiping out the cowboys, the contract security industry will destroy itself when it's forced to absorb the huge costs imposed by this Bill.

The in-house sector will experience a revival and prosper, while the contract sector will surely struggle with the massive bureaucracy to be imposed upon it by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

And impose it will. If all my experiences in Government have taught me anything it's that, when an Act of Parliament gives an authority or quango powers to do things if it wishes, then it inevitably wishes.

Has anyone in the industry actually read the small print of this Bill? Of course, the SIA must set criteria for "a fit and proper person" to be employed in the security sector, but how will it know what is involved in setting criteria for the conduct, training and levels of supervision that security guards must have?

Well, fear not. The Authority will duly conduct research to find that out and, at the usual Home Office rate of £250,000 per project, will rack up another hefty bill for the industry to pick up.

It gets worse. Clause 8(1)(b) of the Bill gives the SIA powers to impose conditions "as to the manner in which the licensee is to carry out the specified activities of a security operative". This really is a prime example of The Man in Whitehall knowing best. What happens if the industry disagrees with The Man in Whitehall? What will happen when the industry actually sees all the regulations that will inevitably flow from this Bill?

Once the industry supplies all of the information demanded, including the publication of the home addresses of licensed staff and has admitted inspectors from the Licensing Authority to inspect their homes, what then happens if the industry disagrees with the conclusions of The Man in Whitehall?

Publish and be damned
The proposal in the Bill to publish the names and home addresses of all licensed staff – including senior officers in charge of contract guarding sector staff – is little short of a Robbers' Charter, not to mention a threat to the safety of tens of thousands of people in the industry. Yet the industry has not uttered any discontent about this. Of course, serious criminals will always make an effort to find out the names and addresses of key personnel, but this Bill appears to be handing them a ready-made 'Who's Who?'.

Since the guards manning control rooms will be included in this list, think how easy it will be for villains to kidnap (or threaten that they have kidnapped) the children and families of control room staff and force them to breach security in Cash-in-Transit or secure depots. Just ask the police if they would be happy for the home addresses of police officers to be published for public consumption. I think I know what their answer would be.

The private security industry has been so keen on industry regulation for so long that it's ended up buying into a pig-in-a-poke.

In a Bill that's 25 pages long, there are just two lines given over to finance (Clause 7(7) "The applicant shall pay to the Authority such a fee as may be prescribed"). At the end of the day, these fees will have to cover the entire operating cost of the SIA, including any research it might undertake and all the other actions it may take "if it thinks fit". Every quango always thinks fit. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the first law of Whitehall.

Having said that, it's not too late for the industry to save itself and lobby sensibly for amendments to the Bill.

Similarly, it's not too late to save the contract guarding sector from being made completely uncompetitive when compared with the in-house sector.

Ultimately, though, the security industry must first show signs that it understands how to save itself. It must weigh up very carefully the costs and benefits of the measures outlined in this Bill. Then it must lobby Government as strongly and as often as possible to ensure that regulation will benefit the industry, and not be a millstone around its neck.