RiskUKApril2017

Opinion: Security’s VERTEX Voice
mind that even non-executive directors must at
present hold ‘non-front line’ individual SIA
licences, how can business licensing improve
on that level of vetting? Do we not think that
the criminal fraternity is clever enough to
circumvent this? If criminals can successfully
launder billions of pounds’ worth of drugs
money, do we really believe a determined
criminal organisation will not be able to
override a self-administered vetting process?
Of course, while business licensing would
increase the burden on law abiding business,
any unscrupulous organisation wouldn’t apply
to the legal requirements anyway, so in fact the
only companies really affected would be the
honest and legitimate ones.
Finally, it strikes me that business licensing is
simply unworkable. How will it address the
complexity of brass plaque organisations or
companies with overseas shareholders? How
can one insist on regulatory checks on
shareholders in a Belgian-owned business or a
holding company domiciled in Luxembourg?
Approved Contractor Scheme
There is, of course, a form of business licensing
already in existence in the shape of the
Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). It’s
voluntary. I know it has many detractors, but it’s
a great deal better than not having any scheme
at all. The introduction of mandatory business
licensing would kill off the ACS. This would be a
terrible mistake.
From my perspective, I could easily live with
any plans to drop the proposed business
licensing and adopt a mandatory ACS. All of the
reliable and trustworthy security companies are
on the ACS Register anyway, meaning that
application and approval would only be a
burden to the fringes of the industry that the
Regulator is seeking to eradicate.
Indeed, in many respects ACS status provides
a level of rigour that I, for one, welcome. For
example, ACS requires vetting to BS 7858
which, to my mind, is far more robust than SIA
licence requirements as it looks at five-year
employment histories. In particular, we should
consider how it might be used to forge
improvement across the industry and drive out
those on the fringes that the proposed business
licensing is meant to address.
On that subject, the ACS should remain under
the control of the Regulator and not be handed
over to industry. This will leave the industry free
to drive the important improvements needed.
Introducing bands of attainment within the
ACS would have the effect of encouraging
organisations to strive to improve their score.
While we don’t need to publicly compare
actual ACS audit scores, the opportunity to
‘band’ providers – whether Bronze, Silver or
Gold, for example – would allow these same
firms to demonstrate their expertise and use
such a banding to differentiate their services in
the quality end of the market.
Reactions and responses
At the Stakeholder Conference, it was very
interesting to hear Ronnie Megaughin (chief
inspector at Police Scotland) talk about his
experiences of making ACS status mandatory
for public sector tenders in Scotland. By all
accounts, this has helped improve the quality of
the security services provided north of the
border and made tendering more transparent.
This tells me that a mandatory ACS would work
in England as well.
That said, I was questioned from the floor
about whether a mandatory ACS would add
excessive cost and burden to smaller security
providers. Naturally, the ACS requires a
business to make a commitment in terms of
people and time, but if it plays a central part in
the continual improvement of that business,
then I would view any associated cost as an
investment in the company.
For me, two points came across loud and
clear at the SIA’s Stakeholder Conference. One
was the need for partnership, whether between
the regulatory body and private security
providers or the industry and the police service.
The second point I noticed was the welcome
recognition of the crucial role that the security
industry plays in keeping people, property and
assets safe across the UK. As Elizabeth France
(chair of the SIA) remarked, there are more
security staff than police officers in the UK.
That’s 300,000 pairs of ‘eyes and ears’ trained
to support the police’s sterling work. At a time
when policing budgets are under considerable
pressure, our industry’s importance to the UK’s
security infrastructure is crystal clear.
However, the good work of the SIA, the
existence of the ACS and the importance of the
security business sector as a whole is poorly
understood and unappreciated. As an industry
we must act and take better control of our
image. Indeed, it’s crucial that the private
security industry buys into this key message.
From my own point of view, the reputation of
the industry depends on it, while its future
growth relies on positive action being taken.
Peter Webster: Chief Executive
of Corps Security
*The author of Risk UK’s regular
column Security’s VERTEX Voice is
Peter Webster, CEO of Corps
Security. This is the space where
Peter examines current and often
key-critical issues directly
affecting the security industry. The
thoughts and opinions expressed
here are intended to generate
debate among practitioners within
the professional security and risk
management sectors. Whether you
agree or disagree with the views
outlined, or would like to make
comment, do let us know (e-mail:
pwebster@corpssecurity.co.uk or
brian.sims@risk-uk.com)
“The last 30 years have seen business and Government
trying to deregulate wherever practical and possible.
Business licensing goes against that trend”
15
www.risk-uk.com