Licensing should be explored by the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo), says a slim majority of its members.

According to the live poll, 53% of APSCo members would want to see the trade body exploring the option of licensing. However, speaking at a debate on the subject in London, and streamed over the web in Birmingham and Manchester, APSCo chief executive Ann Swain (pictured) said she didn’t think the result “gave us a clear mandate”.

The main advantages of licensing, voters said, were outlawing rogue agencies, improving standards and creating barriers to entry.

However, 42% of those polled said APSCo should not explore licensing, citing concerns over increased bureaucracy and a “lack of teeth”.

Despite the percentage of people saying that licensing should not be explored, only 10% said that the current regulatory regime provided confidence in recruitment businesses.

Recruitment entrepreneur and chairman at Brightsparks Recruitment, Graham Palfery-Smith, who is also an APSCo ambassador, said he was opposed to licensing: “This is like turkeys voting for Christmas,” he said. “It’s disappointing that nobody on the panel is actively against licensing. Licensing is expensive and anti-innovation. It would mean more public spending, which is against the political zeitgeist.”

However, Paul Whitehouse, chairman of the Gangmasters’ Licensing Authority (GLA), countered: “No one else is enforcing and if you don’t have effective enforcement, then industries fall into disrepute.”

The statistics were revealed at the climax of a debate on licensing, hosted by APSCo and featuring representatives from the GLA, the TUC, BSI, research body Staffing Industry Analysts, the Forum for In-house Recruitment Managers, recruitment firms Angela Mortimer and Alexander Mann Solutions, and law firm Osborne Clarke.