Introduction
In April 2008, The UAE sent a delegation to the U.N. in Vienna to present a draft proposal to the standing committee of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)., the Draft Resolution requested the U.N., support a “Study”. The purpose of the “Study” is to establish whether a case exists for international standards that address regulation and training for the private security industry.
At the 2008 IASIR conference, we heard an illuminating account from Steve Hess about Foreign Workers (TFW) and some of the issues and implications associated with transitory workers who migrate either permanently or temporarily into other jurisdictions for the purposes of providing security products and or services, Steve’s presentation clearly identified a link between the efforts of the UAE with the UN on matters that impact the UAE on a daily basis (and may if they have not already done so) further impact in your jurisdiction at some time in the future.
Also between Jan 14th and 15th 2009, The UAE Ministry of Interior hosted “The First International Conference on the Role of Civilian Private Security & Community Safety” in Abu Dhabi, 14th to 15th January 2009. There follows a brief review of the Conference and its findings.
His Highness The Minister of Interior. Major General Shaikh Saif Bin Zayed Al Nahyan. UAE., opened the 2 day Symposium. He Minister extended a welcome to all attendees and distinguished speakers. The Minister identified the importance that the UAE put on all security, particularly the partnership between the public police and society. The Minister described the equal importance that the UAE Government puts on the partnership between the police and the private security industry, noting that in some places private security companies may become involved in some “inhuman” practices or may not observe laws properly.
The Minister went on to identify the need to regulate and control the behavior of the private security industry in a way that would benefit society as a whole. He described the individual model that has been developed by the UAE over the past 7 years, after a global search seeking best practices. The Minister closed by thanking the audience and distinguished speakers and stressed that efficient and honest participation would hopefully bear fruit and add to the existing body of knowledge.
For the sake of this article, I have edited and paraphrased all the presentations that were introduced at the two day conference, but I have included just enough to give a flavor of the issues that were presented and discussed over the two days. The first day involved a total of six speakers presenting on a variety of topics but following the central theme of the conference. The second day involved a panel discussion and addressed the central theme to clarify issues that were raised during the presentations of the first day.
Speaker No. 1.
Mr. Radford Jones. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) (NGO) U.S.A.
Topic: The value to public police of professionalizing private security; the experiences of the IACP.
Presentation Synopsis
Mr. Jones topic concerned partnerships between the public police forces and the private security industry. Following the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001, he explained that these partnerships took on a new priority and meaning.
During his career he became involved in many activities including but not limited to; five focus groups which resulted in the development of a document called, Critical Incident Protocol – A Public and Private Partnership which was published in 2000. It is a very concise document on the public and private partnership process. Over 30,000 copies were produced and it has been distribute worldwide.
He also participated in a further United States study, Operation Cooperation: Guidelines for Partnerships Between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations, published in 2000 revealed that private security employment was nearly three times that of law enforcement and spending on private security more than double that of law enforcement. It was also recognized that the private sector had a number of technical resources, information and certain expertise not known to, or being utilized by law enforcement.
Conclusion
Mr. Jones concluded that when the strengths of law enforcement in the areas of training, legal powers, and governmental directives are joined with private security, the community benefits in the utilization of a number of cost effective crime fighting resources. It becomes a “win-win” situation for both government and business and society.
Speaker No. 2.
Mr. Stephan Hess. International Association of Security & Investigative Regulators, (IASIR) Canada/USA.
Topic: The need to create internationally acceptable best practices in private security regulations and training, to improve the quality of standards and ensure public confidence.
Presentation ynopsis
Mr. Hess described the scope of the private security market in financial terms, stating that the scope worldwide was estimated at U.S. $150, Billion and that security guarding made up only 40% of the private security sector.
He suggested that private security has changed in the recent past, but that Regulation has not kept pace with these changes, he further suggested that the public would be better served by examining whether there ought to be discussion about advancing the debate on security regulation at the international level. He went on to state that the changes in the dynamics of the private security industry, require reaffirmation of public confidence in the governance of the industry due to the increasing role the private sector has come to play in the public domain.
Finally Mr. Hess focused on the concept of accountability and how such a principle and its compliance can be assured to provide the necessary levels of public confidence. He identified the complex arguments surrounding the involvement of private actors operating in the public domain and how their behavior and activities which either directly or indirectly affect the lives of the public can be controlled. He reaffirmed the need for regulation.
Mr. Hess submitted that in his view the private security sector has become or is becoming over time, a de facto part of civilian criminal justice systems in many States, and has evolved much faster than the general ability of States to respond by providing appropriate models of governance.
Finally Mr. Hess highlighted the question, “Is private security an international issue”? He identified the affects Globalization has had, and is having on the world. He emphasized that like other industries who work on an international scale, we are seeing a truly global security industry evolving to meet challenges beyond anyone jurisdiction. He further emphasized the “Real Need” to distinguish between the activities of Private Military Security Companies and the Civilian Private Security Companies of which both industries though similar, are really quite distinct, yet both impact human rights values and public safety issues.
Conclusion
He concluded by highlighting the importance of formalizing codes of conduct, control and regulation of the civilian private security sector to protect human rights and reaffirmed the commitment of the International Association of Security Investigative Regulators (IASIR) to encourage State and International bodies to become involved in advancing the debate regarding private security regulation, and by encouraging best practices in education, training and regulation.
Speaker No. 3.
Mr. Douglas Brooks. International Peace Operations association (IPOA) Washington, U.S.A.
Topic: The Distinctions between Private Military Security Companies (PMSC) & Private Civilian Security Companies. (PCSC).
Presentation Synopsis
Mr. Brooks is an expert on the use of Private Military Security Companies, he clearly identifies Private Military Security Companies as being Private Security Companies but does distinguish the fact that there are clearly differences between the two entities in the respective roles and responsibilities that each private security actor has to offer.
Mr. Brooks explained that the demand for Private Security Companies (Primarily of the Military type) are often called into action by States who are experiencing a surge on their present capacities to provide support and control in Conflict and Post Conflict countries.
Mr. Brooks distinguished between the companies by referring to one type of private security (as being domestic type, civilian private security companies working in their home countries)as opposed to another type of private security companies ( as being more private military security companies that operate internationally, working in foreign countries for foreign regimes).
One distinction he made, was to highlight the “Wide Differences” between Private Military Security Companies and Private Civilian Security Companies as being the ROE and RUF, again clearly making significant differences between Private Military Security and Private Civilian Security.
Mr. Brooks outlines well the flexibility and efficiency that the corporate private security sector can offer any government in a conflict or post-conflict state. He emphasized the business potential for expansion when using private sector security forces, conflict zones become places of great business potential.
He went on to raise one of the most important issues of the Symposium, by asking a rhetorical question, “Who controls the private military security contractor?” One part of his answer was to identify the client who possesses contractual and financial control over the contractor, but whom he cautioned were primarily driven by market forces.
He further explained the problems associated to carrying out due diligence on contractors (especially when under pressure from States to deliver the PMSC services urgently. He emphasized that the contractor industry also had its own industry driven standards of quality control. This however raised further discussion on issues of “commercial market forces” versus “public interest and safety”.
Conclusion
Mr. Brooks concluded by stating that there was a need for oversight, a clear need to establish accountability and emphasizing that there was need for “good regulation”, which would be “a good thing for good companies”, finally stating that there was a need for a good legal structure to increase professionalism.
Speaker No. 4.
Professor Nara Srinivasan. PhD. Cambridge University.UK. Faculty Edith Cowan University (Dept of Security Sciences). Australia.
Topic: Professionalizing Civilian Private Security.
Presentation Synopsis
Professor Nara began by providing background on the concept of professionalizing the private security industry worldwide. The Professor alluded to the fact that 27 countries around the globe have begun the process of professionalizing their security industries in the past 5 years alone by implementing private security regulations. Examples being; the U.K. Singapore, Australia, UAE, and within the European Union.
Professor Nara went on to describe the changes occurring worldwide and identified international bodies such as IGO’s and NGO’s like ICAO, IACP, WTO, IMF Et Al, calling for, or generating new security regulations and guidelines. He used the Airline industry as a classic example of the growth in security regulations that have international implications.
He described how Government Agencies, particularly State and Federal Police Forces have become involved in establishing regulatory and training standards. Such agencies were no longer restricted to licensing and control but had themselves evolved to play a significant role in the development of training curricula.
Professor Nara also pointed to the fact that countries that were serious about international trade and commercial activities had to now factor in the role of private security. States (in a global sense) were becoming more involved in security education. This being accomplished by looking to Private Security Associations like ASIS and BSIA, or NGO’s like the IACP, organizations that took the voluntary initiative to improve standards and quality to professionalize private security before the State intervened to impose mandatory standards of regulation and training.
Most importantly, the Professor expressed the need for fluidity to cope with rapidly changing events, and calling for such training not to be left to the vagaries of individual entrepreneurship. He expressed a need to look at and use the existing educational establishments, such as Colleges and Universities who have the educational and teaching expertise and who follow well established guidelines and standards for teaching, examination integrity and accreditation. He identified the need for private security to seek certification by industry associations and places of higher learning.
Conclusion
One of the main messages to come from Professor Nara, was not only providing security education through appropriate and accepted mediums to professionalize the private security industry, but to ensure the ongoing healthy relationship that has been evolving between the public police and the private sector over the recent past. He emphasized that private security is now an established part of the wider police family.
Speaker No. 5.
Dr. Olawale Maiyegun. Nigerian Foreign Ministry, Government of Nigeria.
Topic: Private Security Companies and the Benefits of an Autonomous Regulatory Authority. The Case for Nigeria
Presentation Synopsis
Dr. Maiyegun shared some basic demographics about the State of Nigeria, having a population of 140,million, being a Federation of 36 States comprising of 668 local government areas and 6 area councils and the Federal Capital Territory, he stated there were about 268 police officers to every 100,000 inhabitants.
He explained that the high crime rate with criminal enterprises had an income of over $6. Billion U.S. Dollars a year, which is equivalent to over 10% of Nigeria’s Oil Revenue, this and general insecurity had become responsible for the growth of the Private Security Industry in Nigeria currently totaling more than 2000 Security Companies, employing 150,000 people. The client base is made up of Companies (particularly Oil Companies and Banks), Embassies, International Organizations, NGO’s, small Government Agencies and wealthy individuals. The only regulation to deal with private security is The Private Guard Companies Act 1986.
Dr. Maiyegun, explained that the existence of a large number of unlicensed security companies operated as vigilante groups at the community level, however not all groups had a healthy relationship with the police. Emphasizing that some of these unlicensed groups have transformed into ethnic militias which has further compounded Nigeria’s political problems.
In conclusion, Dr. Maiyegun stated that domestically, a Regulatory body equipped with correct policies and procedures, particularly with an Oversight and Enforcement mechanism, would ensure that the conduct and operation of both PCSC’s and Public Police operating in the private sector will fall within the rule of law and protect fundamental human rights.
Internationally, Dr. Maiyegun advised that there have been repeated calls to the international community by governments to introduce legislation to regulate the private security sector.
Dr. Maiyegun finally concluded that regulation requires political will on the part of the Governments.
Speaker No. 6.
Mr. N. Smith. Deputy Director Legal of the Security Industry Authority (SIA). Home Office U.K.
Formerly Seconded to the Prime Minister’s Office. London England.
Topic: The value of professionalizing the Private Security Industry and the benefits to enhancing support for the public police and the criminal justice system. The U.K. experience.
Presentation Synopsis
Mr. Smith began by explaining what were the main reasons driving the U.K. to create a Private Security Regulatory Authority. In brief Mr. Smith explained that the regulation came about for several reasons;
- Industry driven to import professional standards and remove harmful market forces.
- Remove perceptions of criminality in the security industry.
- Identify and remove elements of Organized Crime.
- Create a structure for an industry that was underperforming.
- Remove a historically poor reputation.
- Understanding an industry that has a gross annual turnover in the U.K. of; 4 Billion Sterling.
Legislation was described as the first step, and in 1999, UK government published its proposal, leading to legislation in 2001 that created the Regulatory Authority now known as the Security Industry Authority (SIA). The SIA is a statutory body that reports to the Home Secretary and established as a legal entity in 2003. In April 2004 it started the process of licensing individuals.
The SIA licenses individuals working in specific sectors of the UK security industry. It carries out this function to ensure consistency and exclude criminal elements, whilst at the same time recognizes companies that comply with the regulation. To accomplish its aim, the SIA carry out exercises in due diligence verifying identity, checking criminality and proof of competence to establish that the individual has been trained and/or has the right experience and skill sets required to carry out the functions of his work.
The SIA has created a National Intelligence model to monitor the industry and ensure compliance. In addition it carries out enforcement and deals with 9 specific offences that lead to imprisonment and or a fine or both. Its focus however is not on enforcement as much as it is on voluntary compliance, where the SIA assist the companies in this regard.
One of the major aims of the SIA is to offer reassurance to customers that the company and security person is subject to scrutiny and sanctions. To meet its primary objectives of better regulation the SIA operates on the basis of;
- Transparency.
- Accountability.
- Proportionality.
- Consistency
- Targeted (Targeted enforcement, only at cases where action is needed).
Conclusion
The SIA is currently looking to the future, in 2012 the United Kingdom will host the next Olympics. The SIA feels that it has, and is fulfilling its aim. To date it has over 250,000 active licenses, it has refused 9000 licenses and estimated that over 20,000 criminals have been identified and removed from working in the industry.
Conclusions
There was general consensus by the panelists and audience, that sufficient information was provided during the Conference to support the notion that a case did exist, where the private security sector was seen to provide a benefit and support to communities and criminal justice systems, providing such a security industry was subject to regulation and training standards.
That a clear distinction must be made between Private Civilian Security Companies and Private Military Security Companies, concluding that the two types of private security entities, their products, services and activities and areas of operation should be defined and considered separately.
The fact that many foreign workers were being used in the security industry, and in some regions, workers were being transported overseas and in many cases were subject to abuse of their basic human rights in circumstances that crossed over international boundaries. This information was coupled to the issue calling for international standards, it was identified, discussed and concluded that there was indeed a case to support a study, to establish a basis for international regulatory and training standards.
Contributors:
His Highness, Maj. General Shaikh Saif Bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Minister of Interior. United Arab Emirates.
General Nasir Al Nuami. General Secretary of The Interior Ministers Office. United Arab Emirates.
General Mohammed Juma Al Damarki. (Conference Chair) Ministry of Interior. Abu Dhabi Police. UAE.
His Excellency, Mr. Al Shamsi. Supreme Court, Sharjah. United Arab Emirates.
Colonel Ahmed Al Hantoubi. Ministry of Interior Abu Dhabi Police, GHQ. United Arab Emirates.
Dr. Mohammed Al Mulla. United Nations (UNODC). Vienna, Austria.
Dr. S. Redo. United Nations (UNODC). Vienna, Austria.
Mr. R. Jones. Special Representative, International Association of Chiefs of Police. (IACP) USA.
Mr. S. Hess. International Association of Security & Investigative Regulators (IASIR). USA/Canada.
Mr. D. Brooks. President, International Peace Operations Association IPOA). USA.
Dr. O. Maiyegyun. Nigerian Foreign Office. Representative to United Nations (UNODC) Nigeria.
Professor Nara Srinivasan, Edith Cowan University. (Faculty of Risk & Security Sciences). Australia.
Mr. N. Smith. Deputy Director Government & Legal, Security Industry Authority.(SIA). U.K.
Professor Peter D’Arcy. Advisor. (NSI). Ministry of Interior, United Arab Emirates.
Mr. A. Williams. Ph.D Candidate. Institute Policing & Criminal Justice Studies, University of Cumbria. U.K.
Over 30 Countries and 300 people attended the Conference. Multiple state and government agencies were represented at both the national and international level, including but not limited to representatives from various industry groups, the public and other stakeholders.
Other News !!!!
Since the PSBS attended the IASIR Conference in Florida in 2008, it has been going through some substantial changes. The Abu Dhabi Private Security Business Section (PSBS) of Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates became a Federal Regulatory Authority for the whole UAE in January 2009.
Well folks, that’s it for an update on activities in the UAE. Have a good year and we look forward to meeting you all again later in 2009.
On behalf of Colonel Ahmed, Lt. Faisal (and Lawrence)
Kind Regards to all,
Peter D’Arcy
