Motherhood and Apple Pie

In declaring an interest, I confess to having been an advocate of security industry regulation for some time now, and was therefore much interested to hear the views of various Security Industry Authority (SIA) mandarins speaking at one of the SIA's regulation Roadshows on how they propose to implement the terms and conditions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

Since – like many of my industry colleagues – I had been under the impression that licensing is essentially all about eliminating the criminal element from the private security sector, my interest had been whetted somewhat by a comment from BSIA chief executive David Dickinson regarding a proposed additional licensing 'test' focusing on professional competency. It would seem that the Act allows the SIA to take account of both criminality and competency when issuing licenses.

Most right-thinking industry professionals would support the proposal to improve personal competencies, develop operational standards and create better conditions but – and at the risk of heresy – is licensing the means for achieving this? I was appalled to hear the SIA's representatives advancing the notion of developing (and increasing) competency requirements over time.

What business is it of a non-commercial regulatory Government agency to be setting industrial standards and skills? I asked the question, and back came a three-part answer, involving: "Black Hole", "Legal" and "Motherhood and Apple Pie".

The Security Industry Authority recognises that, in this industry of ours, there are "variable standards" and "limited and/or uneven training opportunities", in addition to "a lack of agreed requirements". The 2001 Act allows the test. Oh, and by the way this is all for the benefit of the "public, the industry and the police". It seems that we are all members of an extended police family whether we want to be or not! It doesn't stop there. Front line operatives, managers and directors all require licenses, and competency will be assessed for all these occupational strands. As a company director, I was somewhat reassured that I would not need an MBA to continue leading my own organisation, but I do wonder what skills I will be asked to demonstrate? Numeracy, reading, writing, negotiating skills, political correctness? 'Management for the under-fives'?

Aside from declaring its objectives to be: "Raising industry standards, improving operative safety, increasing customer/public confidence and supporting career development", the SIA has not yet enlightened me – nor convinced me – that this is what Parliament intended.

Interestingly, those on the podium did reveal that while criminal intelligence data forms no part of the licensing checks, the SIA intends to share intelligence information with the police. To my mind, this is a worrying departure. Also, since ministers would not look kindly on yet another Government agency failure, there has always been a certain underlying imperative to 'get it right'.

Well, I for one don't think that all this is right. I fully support the main thrust of the Private Security Industry Act. I believe that removing and preventing criminals from operating in the industry is commendable and long overdue, but this whole competency issue is a dangerous detour from freedom of choice – and amounts to little more than unwarranted interference in the commercial domain.

To be fair, the SIA's regulation Roadshows ('SIA engages buyers at first regulation Roadshow', News Special, SMT, March 2003, pp15-16) did come with a 'Health Warning' that many of the proposals discussed represented "emerging thinking", and were not final views set in stone. All well and good, but let's start with containing the desire to Gold-plate a fairly simple requirement to clean up the industry, and perhaps recognise instead that including all security operatives – both commercial and in-house – is a better proposition than a rather over-zealous and largely irrelevant competency test.

The classic accountant's answer to the question: "What's two plus two?" is said to be: "Any number you want it to be, Guv!" Does this now mean that they will not be licensed either?