7/21/2019 Training Providers

1/2

"##$%&'(&$) $* +,%-.&(/ 0.'&)&)1 2.$3&4,.#

5'#(67-8

CALLING ALL TRAINING PROVIDERS

On the 23rd of March BBC One aired a report on Inside Out London. In its

investigation Guy Lynn and Ed Davies highlighted widespread fraud in the

security training industry. It is high time that training providers join forces andvoice their concerns and opinions through a strong united forum. For long,

we have been suppressed and our voices unheard by the Awarding

Organisations and the SIA. For long, we have played the role of the little

man in this industry. No more I say! We deserve to be heard. Interested?

Keep reading.

To some of us the recent BBC investigation regarding the activities of Ashley

Commerce College (ACC) an IQ (Industry Qualifications) centre is not real

news but a ticking time bomb, which just exploded. The current structure ofthe industry breeds what the investigation has shown which may only be the

tip of the iceberg. Sadly, we, the training centres, will absorb most of the

fallout of this investigation one of which (something which is being felt) is

public distrust. As training centres and trainers, we must learn to question

this structure and to ask serious questions without fear. Our training

approvals must allow us to operate a legitimate training business and not

deter us from free and logical thinking.

Lets look at the current system. A handful of Awarding Organisations controlall the security qualifications. This means no matter where the course is taken

from, the certificate is issued by one of these organisations. As a training

centre we have a regulatory (compliance) and commercial relationship with

the Awarding Organisation we chose to partner with. This presents a major

conflict of interest as Awarding Organisations are profit-making companies

and need to sell as many certificates as they can in order to maintain a

healthy profit. Sometimes this drive to sellcertificates is passed on to corrupt

training providers as highlighted by the BBC in its investigation.

Now lets look at ACC and IQ and discuss how the interest in maintaining

commercial relations and profit-making stopped IQ to act responsibly as

they should have. ACC was owned and managed by Haji Yunis, a man

known to many of us as a corrupt individual in the security training industry.

However to IQ, not only was Haji Yunis fit enough to be a Master Trainer but

also a partner at IQ LLP. To simplify this relationship, it is equal to Banking

and Financial Institutions becoming members of the Financial Conduct

Authority (FCA), an implausible idea that would deem FCA not fit for

purpose.

7/21/2019 Training Providers

2/2

"##$%&'(&$) $* +,%-.&(/ 0.'&)&)1 2.$3&4,.#

5'#(67-8

Currently IQ is doing their best to minimise the damage by shifting blame

and releasing news almost daily highlighting their efforts. These desperate

attempts only show how ill informed this company was on the activity of its

centre(s). In a statement Raymond Clarke, Chief Executive at IQ, apologised

for the embarrassment and suggested that they were victims of this fraudshunning any responsibility or failure on their part. Convenience expressed its

best form. In a white paper published by IQ, Raymond Clarke suggested

emphasis on unannounced visits and commitment to quality. Lets ask how

many unannounced visits did IQ conduct on ACC, their partners and

members of IQ LLP, since giving them approval to run Level 3 Close

Protection and Level 2 Door Supervision qualifications? Surely the figure

cannot be significant as lack of policing, responsibility of which falls

completely on IQ, gave Haji Yunis the confidence to do what he did on a

scale that is unprecedented. How many IQ qualifications lack merit? If ACCand Haji Yunis can fast-track a Level 2 Close Protection course in 3 hours,

surely none of the courses they ran had the compliance and regulatory

integrity which most of us work hard to maintain. For ACC, this is the end of

the road but what about IQ? Is IQ fit enough to be in a position of power and

responsibility? Is their behavior leading up to this investigation and probably

countless fraudulent certificates a sign of negligent behavior if not complicit?

Shouldnt the SIA and Ofqual restore the publics trust by setting an

example that such negligence will not be tolerated on the part of

Awarding Organisations? Do they only exist to print paper which we allcall certificates?

Finally lets discuss what can happen next. Once again the Awarding

Organisation will wash their hands off of all the dirt, play the victim and put

more pressure on training centres and trainers. On the current track and if we

listen to IQ themselves (according to their white paper) this would mean

added costs to training providers and trainers for additional certificates and

quality assurance systems, more bureaucracy (pen-pushing at best) and less

responsibility on them. This wouldnt really stop the ACCs of the industry butjust make making an income as a training provider harder than it already is.

Lets stop this NOW.

If you would like things to change, if you want to be a part of positive change

then come forward and lets change things together because we are only

strong if we stand as one. Lets forward our ideas and opinions based on our

experiences and not let people in power stop us from doing the right thing.

Join now and Find out more at: http://signup.astp.org.uk