Figuratively speaking

SIR – I was pleased to attend the inaugural Security Industry Authority (SIA) seminar at London's Congress Centre ('SIA engages buyers at first regulation Roadshow', SMT, March 2003, pp15-16). It was certainly good to hear from the assembled SIA Panel regarding the development of the processes which will be applied to those needing to obtain a licence to work in their sector of the industry.

There were several areas highlighted by the speakers, and I'd like to touch on a few of them here. First of all, the cost of licensing. Apparently the exact cost is not yet known, but as you rightly stated in last month's Editorial Comment ('Rules of Engagement', SMT, March 2003, p3) it will now be "in three figures" and renewable every three years.

In addition, the licenses will be sector-specific, and two separate criteria will need to be satisfied by each candidate if they're to qualify. First, there'll be a test for criminality. Here, the seriousness of any offence will be a mitigating factor, and again this area will be examined every three years.

There will also be a test of competence, directed at competencies designed for the specific sector applicable to the licence. A 'Certificate of Competence' must be provided by a third party accreditation body. Once again, 'exams' are to take place every three years.

The reason that in-house practitioners of those sectors to be licensed escape is because – and I quote SIA policy director Graham Titcombe – "the Government did not want to upset the companies" that employ these in-house security operatives.

So there we have it. Add the cost of the licence to that of the competency certification, in addition to the cost of public and product liability insurance, and you're left with a total sum in the region of £1,500 (probably much more, in truth) as the basic cost of doing business as a recognised security consultant.

Those in-house consultants working in the management and accountancy consultancies will not have to fund the full extent of these added costs. Neither will they have to demonstrate by independent means that they are free of criminality, and have the appropriate degree of competency to assure their clients.

Interestingly, these large institutions are often international – another factor that has escaped the terms laid down by the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

No doubt our legislators will continue accepting and appointing lucrative consultancies with these large accounting and management consultancies knowing that they have kept them free of those 'other' costs and attendant layers of bureaucracy.

What's clear to me is that the whole in-house issue means the Act is partial, differentiating between in-house and out-of-house (ie large corporations as opposed to small businesses). Thus it will surely be challenged at some point in the European Courts of Law.

It's now also crystal clear that what was once perceived to be a break-even operation – with the revenue from a potential '350,000 security operatives multiplied by "three figures"' being deposited in the regulator's coffers – is nothing less than a new Government tax which will be highly adverse when applied to small businesses like private sector security consultancies and, indeed, private investigation bureaus.