The SIA plans to replace the Approved Contractor Scheme with a new Business Approval Scheme. Find out what BAS could mean for security companies, trainers and operatives.
The UK private security industry is preparing for one of the biggest changes to business standards in almost twenty years.
The Security Industry Authority has confirmed that it is developing a new Business Approval Scheme (BAS) which will ultimately replace the existing Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).
For security companies, training providers, instructors and frontline operatives, this is far more than a change of name.
It represents a wider shift in the direction of security regulation: away from simply asking whether an organisation is compliant, and towards asking a much more important question: Is it actually delivering a professional, competent and high-quality security service?
That distinction could have significant consequences for the industry.
The SIA’s Strategic Plan 2026-2029 identifies strengthening individual licensing, tackling malpractice in training and qualifications, resetting security business standards and placing greater emphasis on the quality of security provision as key priorities.
For those of us involved in training people who eventually stand on the frontline, this should be welcomed - but it should also make us think carefully about the standards we are setting.
What Is Happening to the ACS?
The Approved Contractor Scheme has existed since 2006.
It provides a voluntary approval framework through which security companies can demonstrate that they meet standards relating to the management and delivery of private security services.
The important thing to understand is that ACS remains in place at the moment.
Businesses should therefore not remove ACS references or assume the new scheme has already taken over.
What the SIA has confirmed is that ACS will eventually close and be replaced by a new Business Approval Scheme.
The regulator’s 2026-2029 strategy includes plans for:
- a new Business Approval Scheme
- the eventual closure of the ACS
- a smoother transition between the two schemes
- a new digital portal for registration and renewal
- a more informative public register of approved security businesses
- new standards relating to supervision
- new regulatory guidance
- a compliance and inspection regime that looks at the quality of service delivery, not simply whether boxes have been ticked
The SIA’s 2026-27 Business Plan states that its BAS digital application service is intended to be ready for pilot activity in spring 2027.
That makes the next twelve months particularly important for businesses operating within the sector.
From Compliance to Competence
Perhaps the most interesting part of the SIA’s new direction is the increased emphasis on quality.
For years, one of the challenges within private security has been the difference between being technically compliant and being genuinely competent.
They are not necessarily the same thing.
A security officer may hold the appropriate licence. A company may have the required policies. A training provider may have the correct paperwork. A course may technically contain all the required learning outcomes.
But none of that automatically guarantees that the security officer standing in front of a member of the public at 2am actually possesses the knowledge, judgement and practical ability required to deal with a difficult situation.
That is where the industry needs to mature.
Compliance should be the minimum standard, not the ultimate objective. The real objective should be competence.
Why Training Has to Be Part of the Conversation
Security companies cannot deliver high-quality security without competent people.
And competent people do not simply appear because they have been issued with an SIA licence. They have to be properly recruited, trained, supervised, developed and supported.
The SIA’s latest strategy specifically identifies maintaining robust training standards and tackling malpractice within qualification and training provision as part of its plans for strengthening individual licensing.
That matters.
The quality of initial licence-linked training ultimately affects everything that follows.
Consider what we expect security personnel to deal with.
- violence and aggression
- vulnerable people
- intoxication
- medical emergencies
- safeguarding concerns
- suspicious behaviour
- terrorism-related threats
- evacuations
- crowd management
- conflict
- criminal activity
- situations requiring rapid dynamic risk assessment
These are responsibilities involving real people and potentially serious consequences. They cannot be properly prepared for through poor-quality training.
Passing an Assessment Is Not the Same as Being Operationally Ready
This is something the industry needs to become much more comfortable discussing.
There is an enormous difference between “Can this learner pass the assessment?” and “Can this learner perform the role safely and professionally?”
Good training should achieve both.
Training should not simply prepare somebody to remember enough information to pass an examination. It should help them understand why they are doing something.
Why does communication matter? Why should they recognise behavioural changes before an incident escalates? Why is positioning important? Why do they need to understand reasonable and proportionate responses? Why does accurate incident reporting matter? Why is dynamic risk assessment important?
And perhaps most importantly: When should they intervene - and when should they not?
Those questions cannot always be taught effectively by reading PowerPoint slides from the front of a classroom.
The End of the Tick-Box Mentality?
The introduction of the Business Approval Scheme potentially gives the industry an opportunity to move further away from what might be described as a tick-box culture.
A business should not be considered professional simply because it has a folder containing the correct policies. The question should be whether those policies actually translate into operational practice.
Take training as an example. A company may have a training matrix showing that every member of staff has completed mandatory training. That tells us something. But it does not tell us everything.
We should also be asking:
- Was the training appropriate?
- Who delivered it?
- Was the trainer competent?
- Were the learners properly assessed?
- Was practical competence demonstrated?
- Has refresher training taken place?
- Has learning been reinforced by supervisors?
- Are lessons from incidents being fed back into future training?
- Can the individual actually demonstrate the skills they were supposedly taught?
That is where meaningful quality assurance begins.
Greater Scrutiny of Security Businesses
The SIA has indicated that the new approval arrangements are expected to place greater emphasis on areas including:
- integrity
- financial probity
- competence
- quality
- public protection
- the different specialist services provided by security businesses
The SIA also intends to develop a new register providing buyers with clearer information about approved businesses and the services they provide.
That could prove significant, because ultimately one of the strongest drivers for raising standards is the person purchasing the security service.
The Cheapest Security Contract Is Not Always the Cheapest Security Contract
Security procurement has historically suffered from something of a contradiction.
Clients want professional, experienced, well-trained security officers. But procurement processes can sometimes place enormous pressure on hourly rates. Those two objectives do not always comfortably coexist.
A security company paying correctly, providing effective supervision, carrying appropriate insurance, investing in training, conducting proper screening and providing effective management has costs.
A business cutting corners has fewer.
On a spreadsheet, the second company might therefore look cheaper. Operationally, however, the consequences may look very different.
The SIA’s strategy talks about helping buyers make better-informed decisions and encouraging purchasing decisions that prioritise quality rather than simply economy.
That is an important message. Security is not simply another commodity. When things go wrong, the quality of the people providing the security suddenly becomes extremely important.
Could Business Licensing Become Mandatory?
This is another area where rumours can quickly get ahead of reality.
At present, the proposed Business Approval Scheme is being developed as a replacement for the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme.
However, there is a separate discussion concerning whether security contractors should eventually be subject to mandatory business licensing.
This stems partly from Monitored Recommendation 8 of the Manchester Arena Inquiry, which asked for consideration to be given to whether contractors carrying out security services should be required to be licensed.
A Home Office consultation published in December 2025 considered different options for reform, including stronger checks and controls.
The SIA’s current strategy also makes clear that mandatory business licensing remains dependent upon decisions by government and, where legislative change is required, Parliament.
So mandatory company licensing should not currently be presented as though it has already happened. It has not.
But increased scrutiny of security businesses is clearly part of the direction in which regulation is moving.
Manchester Arena Changed the Conversation
It is impossible to discuss changes to private security standards without acknowledging the impact of the Manchester Arena Inquiry.
The Inquiry placed security arrangements, training, supervision, communication and organisational responsibility under an extraordinary level of examination.
The wider lesson should resonate throughout the industry.
Security arrangements are rarely judged most closely when everything is going well. They are judged after something has gone wrong.
After an incident, investigators will inevitably ask:
- What risk assessment was completed?
- What procedures were in place?
- Who was responsible?
- What training had staff received?
- Were they competent?
- Were they properly supervised?
- Were previous concerns identified?
- Were lessons acted upon?
- Was the response reasonable given the information available at the time?
Those are uncomfortable questions if an organisation’s approach to security has simply been about achieving minimum compliance.
Martyn’s Law Raises the Stakes Further
These changes are also taking place alongside another major development.
The SIA is preparing to become the regulator responsible for the new protective-security regime created by Martyn’s Law.
Its 2026-2029 Strategic Plan states that it is preparing for the new regime with implementation currently anticipated from spring 2027, although the precise commencement arrangements remain subject to confirmation.
That means the regulator’s role is becoming much broader.
The conversation is no longer simply about issuing licences to individuals. It increasingly includes people, businesses, premises, training, preparedness and protective security.
For the private security industry, those areas are becoming increasingly connected.
What Does This Mean for Security Training Providers?
Training organisations should be paying very close attention.
If the wider industry is moving towards increased scrutiny of quality and competence, training provision is unlikely to escape that scrutiny. And nor should it.
Training providers should already be asking themselves:
- Are our tutors genuinely competent in the subjects they teach?
- Do they have current occupational experience or credible occupational knowledge?
- Are assessments being conducted properly?
- Are practical exercises meaningful?
- Is internal quality assurance actually identifying weaknesses?
- Are learner numbers appropriate for the subject being delivered?
- Are required learning hours genuinely being delivered?
- Are learners being coached towards competence - or coached towards the answers?
There is a massive difference.
Good training providers have nothing to fear from higher standards. In fact, higher standards should help distinguish professional organisations from those attempting to make money by delivering the minimum amount of training for the maximum number of candidates.
What Does It Mean for Individual Security Officers?
The same principle applies to individuals.
Holding an SIA licence gets you through the gate. Your professionalism determines what happens afterwards.
Increasingly, good employers are going to want evidence of continuing professional development and specialist competence.
That might include areas such as:
- enhanced conflict management
- first aid and medical training
- behavioural awareness
- safeguarding
- counter-terrorism awareness
- emergency procedures
- report writing
- customer service
- physical intervention
- searching
- crowd safety
- surveillance awareness
- communications
- leadership and supervision
A professional security operative should therefore view the licence as the beginning of their professional development, not the end of it.
Supervisors and Managers Matter Too
One particularly interesting element of the SIA’s future plans is the proposed development of new supervision standards.
This is hugely important.
We frequently concentrate on the person wearing the uniform while overlooking the people directing them.
A poorly managed team of good security officers can still deliver poor security.
Effective supervisors need to understand far more than producing a rota. They need to be capable of:
- leading personnel
- managing performance
- conducting briefings
- responding to incidents
- maintaining standards
- challenging poor practice
- understanding risk
- communicating with clients
- recognising welfare concerns
- identifying training needs
- ensuring lessons are learned following incidents
The development of security supervisors and managers therefore deserves considerably more attention across the industry.
Experience Still Matters
Technology is changing private security rapidly.
Artificial intelligence, digital reporting systems, integrated CCTV, access control, biometrics and sophisticated command platforms will continue to transform how security services operate.
But technology does not replace judgement.
When a frightened person approaches a security officer for help, it is the officer who has to communicate with them. When an argument begins escalating, it is a human being who has to recognise the warning signs. When information is incomplete and an incident is developing rapidly, someone still has to make a decision.
That comes down to training, experience and judgement. Those things matter.
The Security Industry Has an Opportunity
The replacement of ACS should not simply be treated as another compliance exercise.
Done properly, it presents an opportunity.
An opportunity for professional security businesses to demonstrate what separates them from poor-quality operators. An opportunity for buyers to understand what good security actually looks like. An opportunity for professional trainers to raise expectations. And an opportunity for security operatives to increasingly view themselves as professionals working within a recognised profession.
But that requires everyone in the chain to play their part.
Training providers need to deliver proper training. Tutors need to maintain their competence. Security companies need to invest in their people. Supervisors need to maintain standards. Security buyers need to understand what they are purchasing. And operatives need to take responsibility for their own professional development.
Because ultimately every policy, qualification, licence and accreditation eventually leads back to one thing: the person standing on the frontline when something happens.
When that moment arrives, nobody cares how impressive the compliance folder looked. They care whether that person knows what to do.
The Security Tutor
Professional training. Practical experience. Real-world application.
At The Security Tutor, we believe security training should do more than prepare somebody to pass an assessment. It should prepare them to perform the role.
We provide professional delivery of established security, first aid, first responder and stewarding qualifications alongside bespoke training in areas including Conflict Management, Physical Intervention, Violence Reduction and operational security.
Our approach combines recognised training standards with practical experience from the Armed Forces and private security industry.
Because qualifications matter. But competence matters more.
The Security Tutor - Training for the real world.
Need experienced security training support?
The Security Tutor provides qualified tutor, assessor and internal quality-assurance support to approved training providers throughout the UK. Check availability
Comments
Be the first to share your thoughts.