黑洞社区

The chairman of British Standards Institution (BSI) Committee GW/3 has hit back at stinging criticisms over BS 8549 鈥� the Code of Practice outlining 鈥渞ecommendations for the management, staffing, operation and provision of contracted security consultancy services鈥� 鈥� that appeared in a Press Release issued by The Security Institute (TSI) (鈥楾SI raises concerns over BSI Code of Practice鈥�, News Update, SMT, December 2006), writes Brian Sims.

In last month鈥檚 SMT, TSI chairman Bill Wyllie (pictured above, right) released a statement suggesting that the Code is 鈥渓ikely to make the practice of good consultancy difficult, if not impossible鈥� and 鈥渟eriously flawed in several areas鈥�. Wyllie also feels the document 鈥渃onflicts with the National Occupational Standards being published by Skills for Security鈥� and has offered further criticisms (Letters, pp18-21).

In first stating that TSI鈥檚 Press Release reproduced in SMT 鈥渘eeds an answer鈥�, Dealtry (pictured above) then commented: 鈥淭he Standard was first drafted and introduced by the Association of Security Consultants (ASC) back in 2003, when that organisation foresaw the need for such a document. Members of the ASC worked with it for a couple of years and then applied to the BSI for it to become a fully-fledged British Standard. Technical Committee GW/3 鈥� which is responsible for manned security services 鈥� was given the task of transforming the fledgling document.鈥�

At that time, a Drafting Committee was then formed, and duly distributed the ASC document for public comment. TSI applied to become a member of that Committee 鈥� a move 鈥渢hat was welcomed鈥�, said Dealtry 鈥� and two of its members then attended a series of drafting meetings. 鈥淎ll public comments were discussed,鈥� suggested Dealtry. Substantial amendments were made to the draft document 鈥渢o the apparent satisfaction of TSI鈥檚 representatives鈥�. The draft was then passed back to the parent Committee GW/3 for approval.

鈥淎t the next meeting of GW/3,鈥� Dealtry told SMT, 鈥淭he Security Institute representatives, who were not the same as those sitting on the Draft Committee, objected to some of the provisions. One main objection was deemed to be reasonable, and a compromise duly found. The Committee did not support other objections but, bearing in mind the fact that this was a new Standard, agreed to a two-year review period rather than the usual five years.鈥�

A vote was taken, and a decision to publish the document was passed (the only dissenting voice being that of TSI). Dealtry added: 鈥淚t is worth mentioning that the Committee consisted of ten representatives from the major bodies, including the Security Industry Authority, the British Security Industry Association, the International Professional Security Association, the National Security Inspectorate, the Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board, the Association of British Insurers and EPIC, in addition to several experienced practitioners and, of course, The Security Institute.鈥�

Dealtry feels it is generally accepted that British Standards have benefited the UK security industry for many years. 鈥淭here is a well proven method of development. The public comment stage is an important element of that development, bringing in a wider audience. The aim is to achieve a consensus in producing practical and effective British Standards not diluted to an unacceptable degree, nor benefiting one group over another.鈥�

From Dealtry鈥檚 perspective, he feels it is 鈥渞egrettable鈥� that TSI has chosen to issue a Press Release 鈥渨hich seeks to influence this process, rather than give the Standard 鈥� which is backed by the majority of the industry 鈥� a chance.鈥�

Dealtry concluded: 鈥淏etter, surely, to take advantage of the unusually short review period and make positive modifications in the light of two years鈥� practical experience.鈥�