ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

The industry now has the regulation it wanted... or has it? In retrospect, it is by no means clear that anyone ever thought through what sort of regulation and Regulator the industry might receive. Possibly some sort of regulatory ‘Watchdog' similar to those monitoring the privatised utility companies - Oftel, Ofwat? Perhaps another version of Ofgard? If so, the industry must now be cruelly disappointed with the SIA - a body launched to counter what was never much more than a media myth.

In a move seen by some as deliberate policy and an implicit judgement upon the industry it regulates, the SIA - rather uniquely among regulatory bodies - seeks to function without any industry experience among its ranks.

In deciding to first licence individuals rather than companies, the Regulator blithely overlooked the magnitude and nature of the task at hand. The guarding sector is said to employ X thousand people. The problem is that they are rarely the same X thousand people for any notable length of time, with massive employee turnover still endemic.

Perhaps the Regulator has also rather naively assumed that a security guarding licence will command the same status, earning power and peer group admiration of, say, an HGV or PSV driving licence, or even a Corgi engineer registration?

Such licences attest to the achievement of a particular set of skills demonstrated and re-affirmed every day as part of the job function. What, though, does the award of an SIA licence confirm? Not much, it would seem, if you happen to be scanning recent job advertisements which suggest a curious lack of industry confidence in a process allegedly designed to legitimise its own activities.

A typical example opens: "SIA licensed Security Officers required" and then goes on to state: "10-year checkable history essential". Why? Is not the former supposed to obviate the latter? A licence is either total or it is worthless.

John King Security Consultant Bromley