From the October print issue of the magazine; more in November’s.
An approved contractor scheme (ACS) will cost the guarding sector millions but should save you money, so claims a Government ‘Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment’ on the ACS.
The average cost of preparing for any accreditation is in the thousands. The document puts typical consultancy costs to help prepare for ISO9000:2000 accreditation £1,000 to £2,000. As reported in Professional Security, there are fears in guarding that the ‘voluntary’ ACS will in practice be complusory for guard firms, otherwise firms will not be able to afford to pay – or retain – newly-recruited, unlicensed guards unable to work while they await their SIA badge. ACS guard firms will be allowed to deploy staff awaiting licences. On that score, the document estimates the industry-wide cost of paying unbadged staff for weeks before they can begin work with a licence at £20 to £40m a year – that is, the cost to the industry of regulation without any ACS.
According to a ‘competition assessment‘, there is ‘no significant effect’ on competition in security services as a result of this measure under any of the options – which are four: no scheme, a scheme with no standards, a scheme with standards already in use (British Standards, say), or the standards the SIA has drawn up. There’s a separate set of options for the Government to rule on, regarding how the SIA charges companies to be members of the scheme (when applying, and an annual fee – and would that be fixed by number of staff, or by turnover?). The document admits that an ACS with no standards would be the cheapest option – costing UK guarding £1.2m a year. That compares with £3.6m to £5.2m if the ACS is done with existing accreditations, or £2.6m to £3.5m with the SIA’s standard. If the Government goes for the SIA’s standard, the 200 firms assumed to have existing, other accreditations ‘might also incur an extra £800 to £1,200 per company in inspection costs’. Bear those inspection costs in mind when looking at three tables in the document that claim to show ‘net benefits’ from joining the scheme – a cost benefit compared with having to pay unbadged guards twiddling their thumbs. The tables, for small (40 guards), medium (250 guards) and large firms (2,500 guards) claim to show a cost benefit, however it turns out that you pay to be in the ACS. A note however says that the table does not include the ‘fees payable direct to the assessing body for inspection’ and ‘cost of preparing for inspection’ – which might well mean the scheme is in fact a net cost.
Submit your views by November 17 by post, fax or by email to: Bridgette Brooks, Security Industry Section, Home Office, 4th Floor Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. Email: [email protected] or fax 0870 336 9130.
