ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

SIR – March 2004 witnessed the 20th Anniversary of the beginning of the Miners' Strike. My company was heavily involved in the provision of security services to South Yorkshire collieries both during and after the strike. In truth, we began our services to what was then the National Coal Board (NCB) back in October 1983, when an overtime ban described to me as "a little industrial dispute that shouldn't last two minutes" commenced.

When the strike started, the NCB attempted to use the resources of the larger national security companies who either refused to involve themselves in the dispute or provided a poor service. We were subsequently asked what we could do to help and, to cut a long story short, by May had 250 men operational in the South Yorkshire coalfield.

When modern historians or members of the national media complete retrospective articles or TV programmes on this period (as was recently the case with Channel 4), they invariably focus on two aspects of the dispute. The first being the relationship and interaction between the striking miners and the police, the second the impact of pit closures on the local communities involved.

One area never spoken of is the way in which the colliery surfaces were protected and the fact that, due to the actions of my staff, damage here was kept to a bare minimum throughout the 12-month period of the strike proper (enabling men to return to work and commence coal production almost immediately).

The fact that many of the pits involved didn't produce again – or that the lifetime of some collieries was going to be very short – was unknown to us at the time.

From March through to July 1984, the police presence in South Yorkshire for what might have been described as 'normal' policing was minimal. Hundreds of people were apprehended stealing or causing damage to NCB property. Interestingly, very few of the perpetrators were striking miners, rather the normal pariahs who descend on vulnerable property when the opportunity presents itself.

When we turned these people over to the police some were prosecuted. Others merely walked in through the front door of the police station and quickly left via the back door summarily 'cautioned'. We didn't suffer from any confrontations with pickets, and indeed struck up a relationship with them that was built on mutual respect.

The value of our services was recognised by then chairman of the NCB, namely Sir Ian McGregor, when in a meeting with him in his office post-strike he stated that Constant's services had been of great value.

I wonder what the situation would be like in a regulated security industry if a similar circumstance to the Miner's Strike ever arose again? Could the licensing authority react quickly to the need for licensing large numbers of security officers within tight timescales?

In a politically-sensitive situation where union activists received tacit support from union members elsewhere, how would we cope if, for example, the civil servants operating the licensing system went on strike in support of the strikers, or simply refused to process licence applications in protest? Beyond the realms of possibility?

A Conservative Government confronting and defeating the country's most powerful union seemed beyond belief throughout the 1960s and 1970s, but sure enough it happened. Who's to say whether or not union power will grow again, by which time we'll have placed our industry under a unionised administration.

We must guard against what may turn out to be a creeping nationalisation of our industry. We mustn't lose the entrepreneurial skills of those businessmen who have brought the security industry this far.

Am I alone in perceiving an under-representation by operators within the industry on the various committees and councils of the Security Industry Authority? I'm most certainly not alone in suspecting that there seems to be an over-representation of the 'Retired Police Officers Association'.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-licensing, but fear that what is being proposed will be overly bureaucratic, costly and slow, and will damage a manned security sector that, in spite of all its faults – and there are many – is responsive and flexible enough to cope with the changing requirements of clients.

While we must destroy the 'Cowboys' we must not do away with the 'Buccaneers'.

Ultimately, we have to be careful. If allowed to become too bureaucratic, over-regulation may well turn out to be every bit as damaging as under-regulation has been in the past.