A proposed British Standard for security consultants poses dangers and should be seet aside, according to The Security Institute (TSI).
TSI chairman Bill Wyllie, writing in November, says that the standard is likely to make the practice of good consultancy difficult if not impossible, and to send misleading messages to users of security consultancy services. BS 8549:2006, security consultancy code of practice, is available (£56 to non-members) from the British Standards Institute. TSI reports it has 92 members who do security consultancy as sole traders or small firms, or who hold senior positions in large security consultancies. TSI claims that the code, like its earlier PAS (Publicly Available Specification), has serious flaws. Most alarming according to TSI is a list of 15 "competencies", representing some consultancy activities, breaking them down into those that are "minimum" standards for consultants. TSI claims that under 8549, a consultant whose speciality lies in advising on the hardening of vaults, safes and secure areas must have qualifications in business continuity planning and manned guarding. Likewise, a consultant whose speciality is advising on crisis management training should have qualifications in construction design and management regulations.
The institute claims that the code conflicts seriously with national occupational standards being worked on by skills body Skills for Security. The institute argues that 8549 attempts unnecessary interference in the conduct of a security consultant’s business, by directing minimum standards for insurance, accounting, release of organisational information, disciplinary procedures, office space, report writing, document and data retention and storage and the format of personal identity cards.
While compliance with a British Standard is never a legal requirement, the institute says, there is, it adds, a tendency for procurement departments to include in tender documents a demand for compliance with BS publications and, as such, consultants who did not comply with BS 8549 could find themselves in breach of contract. The institute regrets that even the draft versions of 8549 had to be bought from the BSI, which mitigated against widespread review and comment, according to the institute. TSI invites comment emailed to [email protected]
