This letter appeared in the April 2005 edition
Letters to The Editor
Security Management Today
Dear Sirs,
I write with reference to Security Watchdog Managing Director Terry O'Neil's opinion article in the December edition ('Raising the bar beyond BS 7858') and Securiplan's Phillip Ullmann article in February edition ('Supporting Securi-check').
Whether we like it or not the world has changed 9/11, BCCI, Barings Bank, Enron, money laundering and identity theft has increased the threat to society, which in turn has made individuals and companies examine the way they conduct their business and improve their process. Why then do these gentlemen wish to dilute security screening to a lesser standard.
The platform for charge was the British Standards Institute GW/3/-/4 committee for the revision of BS 7858:1996. I (as a co-opted member) like Terry served on this committee along with other notable security industry trade associations. The industry was consulted in 2003 for their feedback on the revised draft BS 7858, I attended every meeting, I do not recall the committee receiving any comments from Securiplan!
To say that Securi-check is 'raising the bar beyond BS 7858' could not be further from the truth. Obtaining 'quality employment references covering the past three years' is a lesser standard. 'Criminality check (both for UK and abroad)', does not mean the individual is fit for the position, because of reputational risk many employees do not choose to prosecute an individual who would otherwise be prosecuted. With the increase in the number of individuals arriving from countries where criminality checks may not be recorded accurately, if at all, the value of these checks is questionable. The 'Right to work in the UK ' is already covered by the change to Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 implemented on 1 May 2004.
Do not let us forget that in this vast security industry the Guarding sector is but one area that uses BS 7858. Would we to allow an alarm engineer into our home under a lesser standard (even though they are PNC checked)? Should we allow confidential destruction companies to work under a lesser standard? The answer has to be no.
My I suggest that the furore cause by this 'Securi-check' has less to do with security improvements and a lot to with saving money on the bottom line to counter the increased cost of licensing.
Yours faithfully,
Jonathan R. Grey
Managing Director
Click here to download PDF of the article *
*adobe acrobat required click here to download it. |
