The Bane of Deregulation: The Private Security Industry Experience - Essay Example

The Bane of Deregulation: The Private Security Industry Experience As early as the proposal that the Security Industry ity (SIA), United Kingdoms agency tasked to regulate the countrys bourgeoning private security sector be scrapped has already been floated around. This year, the proposal seemed to gather steam as the Home Office scramble to curb government spending. The Home Office, in a report by the BBC, explained that, "the government is committed to making substantial reforms of its public bodies to increase accountability and reduce their number and cost" (Campbell 2010). The idea is that such move is already feasible, timely and appropriate since the industry has supposedly reached a degree of maturity, hence, ready to regulate itself. This paper will explain why this measure is counterproductive both for the public and for the industry. Background The SIA was created under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The law provides two mandates for the agency: 1) the licensing, regulation, monitoring, inspection of private security workers and organisations; and, 2) the management of the Approved Contractor Scheme, a voluntary assessment mechanism designed to evaluate the quality and performance of private security suppliers (PSIA 2001) Art 1(2). The statute was enacted in response to the widespread criminality in Britain in the early 2000 involving contract security guards, bouncers, among other workers for security firms (Travis 2012). With the passage of the law and the creation of the SIA, the private security industry employees require license to practice or operate. A criminal background check is also mandatory for such license. This is the same for organisations. Stringent checks, evaluation, monitoring and assessment mechanisms are in place, making it possible to deter criminality involving people or groups belonging to the industry. For supporters of the regulation, the law and the mandate of the SIA are even considered insufficient. For example, many believed that the system is too narrow since it excludes many sectors in the security industry like security systems installers and in-house guards (Jones, 2006, p.43). There are those who also point out that the law lacks teeth because of the voluntary nature of the regulation wherein private security firms are not mandated to follow regulation or be subjected to SIA control in several aspects of their operations. The arguments brought forward by these criticisms reveal how the law and the SIA are important and are even lacking in many respects. It underpins the fundamental argument that this governmental regulatory mechanism is necessary in the maintenance of the wider public security in the United Kingdom. “Even strong critics of the current system of statutory regulation,” Jones pointed out, “accept that it is a significant advance on that which preceded it.” (p.43). Indeed, the imminent repeal of the law and the abolishment of SIA would mean relinquishing responsibility and regulation of about 4,200 private security businesses and approximately 330,000 private security staff (Travis). Flawed Rationale The Home Office is insisting that the supposed reform will raise the standards of the industry in addition to the manner by which the move could free private security businesses from governmental control and red tape. It is clear that the perspective of the government is to treat the private security industry as purely commercial enterprise that needs to be free in order to thrive and flourish in a capitalistic market. This argument could have been valid and legitimate had it not been for the fact that the industry has characteristics that resemble some of the states police power. A private security personnel, for example, can be mistaken for a police officer because of his uniform, badge, tools, equipment and behavior, in addition to the fact that they both are likely to appear as if they are in reactive modes anticipating problems that could emerge (Maggio, 2011, p.36). The difference is where things get more serious. A police officer will have limited powers because he would be restricted by local law in the manner by which he deals with a criminal or an offender. This is not the case with private security officers. They enjoy an unlimited power to detain and question without reasonable suspicion or probable cause; employ nontraditional means to protect and serve the interest of their clients; and, they also have wider powers of discretion (Maggio, p.36). One could go on and on debating the similarities and differences between a private security officer performing his job and a police officer. But there is the fact that both their works involved a capability to violate human rights due to the sheer force and authority they are able to dispense. Leaving armed groups with almost the same capability as the police force to operate and conduct business unregulated can lead to disaster. Some industry leaders support this argument. For example, there is the case of Russell Kerr who heads the SecuriGroup, an SIA accredited contractor who stated: ""It may knock us back 10 years. Theres a danger also that the serious and organised crime element would find it easier to get themselves re-established." Indeed, there is always a danger of criminality and even attacks such as by terrorist organisation given an environment with no governmental regulation, strict background checks, penalties and sanctions backed by the full force of the law. Impact of Deregulation The Home Office cites that private security is an enterprise and that like any other organisations with a commodity to sell in a market economy, has to be left alone in order to be able to achieve better performance and efficiency. The idea is that deregulation could help these businesses boost profitability, which, in turn, could allow for more resources spent on skills and hardware upgrades and the sophistication of self-regulation that would emerge in a maturing industry. But this scenario is the ideal one. What it fails to cover is the dark side of the free economy. In a purely capitalistic world, profit is the ultimate objective. Decision makers in the industry will inevitably adopt policies and practices that will provide their investors that maximum return for their investments. By removing the governmental control, the public stake in the industry is severely reduced. Based on conventional business practices, public welfare is never a priority as schemes such as social responsibility and business, among others are widely seen as burdens and costly initiatives that undermine profitability. To expect that a business regulate itself is a cornerstone of the free market. But to expect the kind of business like the private security industry to do so on its own is inviting disaster. As explained elsewhere in this paper, the industry is different because of its characteristics. It concerns public welfare because the product or the service being traded can involve lives or threats to life and property. Governmental control is important in terms of accountability. It has been argued that security personnel could have greater latitude in exercising some police powers and in investigations. Button documented actual events that depicted this. In a series of interviews, private security personnel provided these statements: We can rough a guy up if we want to. We can get a confession in cases where the police can’t because we don’t have to worry so much about a guy’s rights. We can use every means possible to secure information (Button, 2007, p.19). These statements highlight the dangers of the unregulated powers given to the workers in the industry. Once responsibility of control is transferred to private entities, what will happen in cases of extreme, unethical and illegal security practices when rights are violated? Self-regulation does not entail the power to penalize. In addition, it is not guaranteed that private security firms will be ethical, lawful, fair and conscientious in their practices especially in the manner by which it disciplines errant workers. One goes back to the nature of purely commercial companies operating with the sole objective of maximizing profits. Without accountability, it is likely that organized crimes could penetrate the market on the guise of a legitimate private security enterprise. This is not a far-fetched possibility since government mechanisms such as mandatory criminality checks and constant monitoring are entirely eliminated. Conclusion Deregulation is not only a negative development for the public but also for the private security industry. As Russell stressed, it can set the industry to the condition 10 years back. The reason is simple. The governmental regulatory framework provides some semblance of best practices framework and private security standards. Even those voluntary regulatory schemes, they provide the criteria and the guidelines so that practices become more legitimate than others. They pressure private security firms to adhere on account of legitimacy and credibility – variables that are crucial in the competition in the current business and regulatory environment. The Home Office is concerned about the cost of enforcing the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and in maintaining the SIA. But this is a myopic point of view. It jeopardizes the security of the country in the long term. By abolishing SIA, the government is relying on faith, hoping that criminality will not emerge in the private security industry based on its supposed maturity at this time. There is no sufficient evidence to back this rationale. Industry insiders have already expressed their concerns about this move. And this is understandable. The current system works. But upon deregulation, the industry might wound up populated by private armies, mafias and even terrorist organisations, thriving without the knowledge of authorities. At the very least, the industry will lose some semblance of universal standards that dictate a code of conduct, best practices and ethics, necessary in professionalizing the industry. References Button, M. (2007). Security Officers And Policing: Powers, Culture And Control in the Governance of Private Space. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Campbell, G. (2010). Security sector quango faces axe in cost drive. BBC. Retrieved from . Jones, T. (2006). Plural Policing: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. Maggio, E. (2011). Private Security in the 21st Century: Concepts and Applications. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Private Security Act 2001. (2001). London: The Stationery Office. Travis, A. (2012). Private security companies to be self-regulated. The Guardian. Retrieved from . Read More