Confirmation is the way

The consultation with the security industry has now concluded and the Association of Chief Police Officers Security Systems Policy has been launched. The Metropolitan Police Service will implement their version over the coming months, as will the other 42 Police Constabularies.

Unfortunately, some are not happy with the policy despite having had the opportunity to submit their own versions, through their representatives to the Association of Chief Police Officers, and some grumbling is beginning to be heard. What I find particularly disappointing are those who grumble only because they do not like the policy, or they do not like the answers they have already received concerning specific aspects of it. What is even more disappointing is their unwillingness or perhaps their inability to offer an alternative that will achieve the required objectives.

Modification likely
As is common with all policies, this document caters for the majority and, yes, some people will not be happy with the entire document. The ACPO 2000 Policy is intended to be a living document and no doubt we will see some modification to it as the months and years pass. (Grateful thanks to Tim Geddes of the BSIA for renaming it 'ACPO 2000' a far easier title to work with.) The idea of having a policy with a set life, which can only be changed at particular times, is not a practical way of moving into the 21st Century. ACPO 2000 has provided the opportunity to create a monitoring/review committee so that recommendations to update the policy and/or relevant codes of practice can be made sooner rather than later. For my own part, I would rather see any relevant codes of practice within the British Standards Institute and any modifications made by them. In the meantime all parties, whether they be police or industry, should take this opportunity to be positive and move forward in a sensible and pragmatic manner.

Confirmation is an opportunity for all. The police service considers the argument over its effectiveness is won. The performance of confirmation in Sweden has had significant results and this is echoed in statistics produced by the Metropolitan Police. It is important to emphasise that the requirement of ACPO 2000 is for confirmed activations to be passed to police for response. There is no specific requirement for a confirmed system. What is the difference? An anomaly within the standards allows confirmed systems to pass unconfirmed activations to police. An examination of the performance of confirmed systems reveals that for some strange reason confirmed systems that pass all signals, perform worse than the average. However, systems that only pass confirmed activations have a false alarm rate of only 0.04 false activations per system per year (yes, that was 0.04) as opposed to the average of 0.8 false activations.

We consider the argument over its effectiveness is won

   I know the industry has mixed views over the effectiveness of confirmation but even those who oppose it are content that it be installed for those systems that perform poorly. If it isn't effective why bother to install it for poor performing systems? Confirmation has shown itself to be an outstanding use of technology and may well be the saviour of an industry apparently rife with cowboys.

   I remember in 1995 the Chairman of the ACPO Intruder Alarm Working Group telling the industry that they were drinking at the 'Last Chance Saloon'. In many ways, some five years later, we still seem to be at the same watering hole and the industry must be careful that they do not take one drink too many at the Saloon. What do I mean by that? Confirmation requires a new expertise in system design to ensure protection of the premises. Similarly the standards within BS DD 243 at present are not comprehensive and are being amended to resolve this. It is important that in making these or even future amendments, that the effectiveness of the technology is not put at risk. Should confirmation lose its effectiveness the industry will have lost the technology that will make them truly professional and set themselves apart from the anecdotal cowboys.

   Having given a word of caution about having one over the eight, I shall now risk stating what I would like to see ACPO 2000 providing for us all. No doubt these comments will rear their ugly heads and start snapping at my heels in the future.

I would like to see an end to the security industry and police service moving apart and digging in when there are differences of opinion...

When a police service adopts this security systems policy, every effort should be made to ensure that it is as unified as possible. Yes, we will see some variations, but if they can be at a minimum and not amount to a rewrite of the fundamentals of the policy, then ACPO 2000 will be a success. Unfortunately, administration for the police service is no easier than for the security industry. We do not demand identical administration from each alarm company and likewise the security industry must accept that this is not possible for the police service.

The security industry is permitted to install any type of security system they or their clients wish. It is certainly not for the police service to make any judgements in this area. But if they wish to make use of police resources to attend activations from their installations, it is only right that we should ensure our resources are available to all the people and in sufficient numbers to deal with service priorities. It can no longer be acceptable that a large amount of our resources are used in attending poorly performing security systems.

Technology there to be used
The police service can expect that persons using our resources must install security systems to industry standards and where particular types of technology can reduce those demands it must be reasonable to expect people to utilise it. If society never moves forward with technology we would still be driving Model T Fords. Assuming, of course, that we had made use of the wheel when that appeared on the scene! I have deliberately made no mention of the impending administration charges for the issue of unique reference numbers, that being a matter between the police service and the end user.

In conclusion, I would like to see an end to the security industry and police service moving apart and digging in when there are differences of opinion. This must not be allowed to happen. At such times it is even more important that the channels of communication remain open.