Communication could be better

The SIA's ‘Operation Forewarn' was necessary in respect of those companies ignoring their legal obligations. However, there are many issues for which the Security Industry Authority (SIA) must accept responsibility, particularly the lack of foresight, planning and poor administration of the licensing programme and process.

The industry could reasonably have expected the SIA to have learned from the problems experienced when licensing door supervisors and vehicle immobilisers. In truth, there has been little guidance or encouragement from the SIA, just demands and threats. That has been compounded by the lack of any incentive to apply for a licence early in the regulatory process, because any licence issued prior to 20 March was not set to run from the date it was required but instead from the date it was granted.

Why should anyone have been forced to pay for a licence months before it was needed? Remember that we are talking about an industry in which the pay is low and margins are very small indeed.

Much of the correspondence on the CCTV User Group's web site reinforces allegations about poor administration. Many of the contributors state that they applied for licences early on in the process, certainly several months ago, and have yet to receive most of them.

A criticism that has been repeated time and again since the very first days of regulation is the poor lines of communication. When I say poor I mean non-existent. I have lost count of the number of times I've tried to get through on the telephone.

When I have spoken to someone, the lack of knowledge on the part of the SIA's Call Centre personnel has been astounding. Often, I am told one thing when I call, only to be told a conflicting story when I call again! Then there's the unacknowledged requests sent by e-mail.

Unfortunately, I feel the Approved Contractor Scheme is yet another example of poor thought processes manifesting themselves. Instead of being launched last September as planned, we had to wait until mid-February for Home Office sign-off. Did no-one see the need for a Regulatory Impact Assessment in the early stages, recognising that it was an in-built requirement of the Governmental process?

The lack of clear guidance on employment law and the dismissal of unlicensed staff post-20 March is another issue entirely. At a recent workshop, the response I received from an SIA employee when I posed the question concerning our legal position was: "Seek your own legal advice". Anyone fancy being the test case in all of this, then?

Gerry Coulter-Smith Managing Director Taurus Security