Feral Jundi

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Industry Talk: The Rise Of The UK’s Private Security Companies

     Good little story on the UK private security industry. Also it is good to see Andy Bearpark of BAPSC and Mr. Binns of Aegis get a little attention in the report.

     One area that I would like to further clarify though is that British companies are not immune from making mistakes or being involved in ‘gung ho’ operations, as the article below has stated. They typically do a good job, but believe me, back in the early days of Iraq, the British companies did stupid things out on the roads and on the bases as well. None of the companies were immune from making mistakes out there. But what defined the good companies from the bad ones, were those that cared to get it right and learned from those mistakes.

    Also, there was no mention of the upcoming International Code of Conduct signing taking place on Nov. 9th in Switzerland? Partners in the UK and the US have been involved in the creation of this code, and this will be a document that will help to further classify ‘industry best practices and standards’ that could be instrumental in weeding out the bad companies, both in the UK and the US. –Matt

Graham Binns

Graham Binns says the future is bright for the UK’s private security industry. 

The rise of the UK’s private security companies

1 November 2010

By Edwin Lane

Major General Graham Binns is not your typical chief executive.

As a lifelong soldier, he is more used to commanding an armoured division than a company boardroom.

In 2003 he commanded British troops invading southern Iraq, and in 2007 returned as the commander of British forces overseeing the handover of Basra to the Iraqis.

But now, four months into his new job as chief executive of Aegis Defence Services – a British private security company (PSC) – he has left army life behind.

“It’s liberating,” he says, sitting in Aegis’s comfortable headquarters in a plush office building in central London.

“Thirty-five years in government service was a wonderful experience. But in the world of business, ex-military people have got a lot to offer – I certainly hope so anyway.”

For Aegis, netting a leading figure from the Iraq war can only be good for business – particularly when your business is in the often-controversial world of armed private security.

Now one of the UK’s biggest PSCs, Aegis has made millions from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since it was founded just eight years ago.

Iraq bubble

It is even fair to say that Aegis, like much of the private security industry, owes its very existence to the last Iraq war.

“Certain activities can be done much more cost-effectively by the private sector” said Andy Bearpark of BAPSC

When the occupying forces found themselves trying to reconstruct the country while overwhelmed by Iraqi insurgency and sectarian violence, PSCs saw a lucrative opportunity.

“In Iraq in 2003 and 2004 money was basically free,” explains Andy Bearpark, director-general of the British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC).

“That meant [private security] contracts were being let for ridiculous amounts of money – millions and millions of dollars of contracts being pumped into the industry.

“The industry exploded in terms of the volume of business on the back of Iraq.”

Dozens of firms from the US and the UK stepped in to offer their services, providing governments and reconstruction NGOs with armed security personnel, convoy escorts, logistics support, training for the Iraqi security services, and risk analysis.

Names like Armorgroup and Control Risks, which had been around in the UK since the 80s, saw a chance to expand their businesses.

(more…)

Monday, August 30, 2010

Industry Talk: PSC’s And Their Customers Make Contingency Plans In Afghanistan

     Here are some of the commentaries being made by some of our coalition members and companies tasked with vital protection duties over in Afghanistan. There are four stories posted, with some commentary in one from Andy Bearpark of BAPSC and an interview that Doug Brooks of the IPOA did awhile back. Maybe we can collect some more commentary from some industry leaders, CEO’s, or even some customers? Until then, I will continue to fill the information void as best as I can. –Matt

Edit: 09/01/2010 – It looks like Blue Hackle’s license has just been revoked. Check it out here.

UK private security fears in Afghanistan

Garda scrabbles to stay in Afghanistan

Canadian Forces to review nine private security contracts on Afghan ban

Karzai’s Call to Expel Contractors Poses Big Logistical Hurdles

—————————————————————–

UK private security fears in Afghanistan

By Peter Jackson

17 August 2010

Private security guards are widely used to guard compounds and convoys

As UK private security contractors are given four months to stand down in Afghanistan, security experts have warned the consequences could be dire.

President Hamid Karzai’s decision to scrap the extensive private security industry operating in his country will come as no real surprise.

He vowed to curb its operations when he was sworn in as president last year, and has made no secret of the fact that he considers it a major source of instability.

But ask the British elements of the industry what effect the move may have, and warnings are quickly sounded.

They say commercial reconstruction projects would be at risk of delay – and workers of attack – as the exodus leaves them dangerously exposed.

Afghan police are simply not up to scratch when it comes to guarding foreign staff, they argue, and that could leave embassies and Nato supply convoys and bases vulnerable.

(more…)

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Industry Talk: The Book ‘Beyond Market Forces’ and a Policy Forum with UNWG and Company

The convention does not want to eliminate the use of private companies at all…. -Shaista Shameem

Over a decade ago, Kofi Annan concluded that the world wasn’t ready for privatized peacekeeping. It’s still not. But that shouldn’t mean that we are oblivious to the very important role that many private military and security companies are playing at what I would call the second rank level, freeing up national troops to play key frontline roles. We see these kinds of companies, for example, providing security analysis and training, local private security companies are often key in providing site security and in some cases, convoy support services, and humanitarians operating under a UN security umbrella come into contact with these kinds of companies in a wide variety of theaters and playing a wide variety of functions. -James Cockayne 

     Ok, here is a quick run down of this policy forum, book promotion and gathering of some really smart folks.  The general idea that I am getting from this group is that PSC’s and PMC’s are a fact of life, and it is on the various countries that use them to back up some kind of way to regulate them, all with the idea that accountability should be built into the whole process to prevent human rights violations.  The UNWG (UN Working Group) along with other groups (IPOA, PASA, BAPSC, etc.) have been working hard on some kind of a standard that companies and countries can adhere to, how to regulate it and also exploring what these security contractors should do and not do out there.

    For the most part, the folks on this panel think it is just fine that PMC’s and PSC’s should do defensive tasks, like convoy protection, PSD or static security (note the quotes up top).  It’s just anything in the realm of offensive actions is what they are against and very wary of.

(more…)

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Industry Talk: Security Industry to Review Vetting After Report on Murder Suspect

   This was a great little article, because it highlighted the good work of Andy Bearpark and BAPSC.  It also brings to light why it is so important to get involved, because there is a lot of attention right now on the conduct of companies and their hiring practices.

   Although I am still disappointed in the UK Foreign Office and their standpoint on PSC’s and PMC’s.  Self regulation is fine, but what are they self regulating too?  Each company has a different standard to abide by, and that standard is more guided by cost as opposed to what is right or wrong.  It takes a regulatory agency with teeth, to enforce regulations that all companies must play by.  For the Foreign Office to just throw their arms up in the air and say ‘I’m out’ is weak.

    The US effort is no different in my view.  We (the contractors that are tired of being hated) have been screaming at the top of our lungs what the problems are and what the numerous solutions could be and should be, and yet here we are, still dealing with these problems that are supposedly ‘impossible to solve’.

    Now here is an idea.  Why not get all the countries together that authorize their citizens to contract in these wars, put them in a room and tell them not to leave until a system is created to regulate the thing?  We could order pizzas and soda, park a couple of porta-potties in the back of the room, and lock them in that room until a reasonable plan is put together.

     The alternate plan is we can continue with the current system, and just wait for another Fitzsimons shooting spree or a Nisour Square incident to happen, so we can all further enjoy the hatred coming from the global community. Pfffft. –Matt

——————————————————————–

Security industry to review vetting after report on murder suspect

Case of Daniel Fitzsimons highlights need for change

By Terri Judd and Tom Peck

Saturday, 15 August 2009

The private security industry regulator has promised to tighten vetting practices after The Independent revealed that the man accused of shooting dead two fellow security contractors in Iraq had a long history of psychiatric illness, was awaiting trial for assault and had previously been sacked by another private security company.

The Government has recently held a six-month consultation into the multi-million dollar private security industry – which boomed in the early days of the Iraq conflict leading to concerns about the number of unregulated companies – and is expected to report back later this year, recommending self regulation with international cooperation to raise standards.

Andy Bearpark, the director general of the British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC) said one of the matters being considered was vetting procedures. “This case will draw this review into sharp focus,” he said. “At the moment every company has different procedures. Common sense tells us that there should be standard procedure.”

Mr Fitzsimons, 29, who is currently facing charges of murder and execution if found guilty, is as much a victim as the dead men, say his family, because he had documented psychiatric problems following combat duties with the British Army. He had also had a criminal record and been sacked for “extreme negligence” by Aegis, another security company.

ArmorGroup, the company who hired Mr Fitzsimons, said in a statement yesterday that it would not comment on individual cases but maintained that it has, “strong vetting and screening policy and processes in place”. It claims that these procedures include: “Assessing applicants’ backgrounds and likely resilience to stress in the recruiting process to ensure that those employed will be resilient on account of prior active service and an independent medical report that candidates are obliged to provide.”

Mr Fitzsimons’s family feel that a screening policy should have prevented him from being hired by ArmorGroup. His stepmother said: “He shouldn’t have been allowed back into a warzone in the state of mind he was in.”

Mr Bearpark argues that a greater level of cooperation between companies, in this competitive industry, is needed. “We have suggested if companies do not want to deal directly, BAPSC could provide a central register,” he said. While the association currently has a charter, this latest review is likely to lead to the formation of a detailed code of conduct. “The private security industry is essential if the UK is to play its role in reconstruction of fragile states such as Afghanistan and Iraq. BAPSC was formed to ensure that standards in all areas were raised and that the very best practices were used by the industry generally. We have worked with the British Government since our formation in 2005 to ensure that this is the case,” he added.

A Foreign Office spokesman said that self regulation looked like the most likely option. “Given the activities of UK private military and security companies overseas, often in countries with weak legal systems and where it would be difficult to collect reliable evidence and witnesses, there would be problems investigating and enforcing any breach of regulation such as a licensing regime.

“We believe self-regulation through the industry association in conjunction with international cooperation to raise standards is more likely to achieve the desired outcome, namely, to improve standards of conduct by security companies internationally, and reduce the risk that a UK company breaches international standards.”

Story here.

 

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Podcasts: Jake From COR Speaks with Andy Bearpark, Director of BAPSC

Filed under: Podcasts — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 6:06 PM

 

     Jake speaks with Andy Bearpark, Director General of the British Association of Private Security Companieson Combat Operator Radio. This was an excellent show. Andy was a wealth of information, and that was cool to hear some of the inside scoop on the Montreux Document. That would have been a fun think tank to be a part of, and I am sure the discussions were very interesting.  Here is a link for the document, so readers can check it out.  

    I was also curious what Andy thought about the New America Foundation’s paper called Changing the Culture of Government Contracting. They referenced the Montreux Document in the paper, and I was wondering if there was any collaboration? It certainly influenced the paper, and that is cool.   And to further expand on this excellent document, does Andy expect to see something of an index to pop up that actually rates companies on their performance or adherence to the industry best practices laid down by the Montreux Document? The reason I ask, is that I think it would be healthy for the industry to point out those companies that are doing well, and those that are lacking.

    As for a model for such a thing, I point to the Mo Ibrahim Foundation index on African Governance. Check it out, and I think something like this would be quite useful for this industry.  –Matt

—————————————————————— 

Powered by WordPress