‘Code of practice is seriously flawed’, wrote Richard Morgan of Imigix in December’s CCTV Solutions about the new Code for remote video monitoring. And indeed, there is little doubt that the past few months have witnessed vigorous, often heated, discussions regarding PAS 38:2000 – an initiative on monitored CCTV systems which in my opinion, and that of many other objective observers, was long overdue.
The reality is that, until the advent of the PAS, there were no effective guidelines to cover what was, and continues to be, a growing area of security provision. This was far from ideal, especially if one draws a parallel with the experience in another area, such as alarms. Here there has been a period of prodigious growth, an expansion primarily fuelled by vital police and insurer approval. This growth owes much to the existence of BS4737 and the fact that compliance with it was required by those organisations.
With ACPO adopting confirmation technology as a requirement for police response, the implementation of effective and practical controls are an ever more pressing issue. From a commercial perspective, the CCTV industry must ensure that remote video monitoring is the preferred confirmation technology in the marketplace. Without an appropriate regulatory framework this was unlikely to be achieved; hence the introduction of PAS 38:2000.
Ridiculous statement
In the current debate, while some, including many installers, have expressed their views on the PAS in a calm, coherent and positive manner, they appear to have been overshadowed by the persistent proclamations of a small minority. These high-profile individuals will undoubtedly claim to be speaking in the best interests of the industry, but the tone of their contributions point to another explanation: a none too subtle desire to raise their own profile and grab the headlines. How else can we explain statements referring to the PAS as: "One of the most blatant attempts ever to con an entire industry"? This ridiculous statement is a headline grabber and nothing else. If that writer merely believes that the PAS is too weak then where is the attempt to mislead? The purpose of publishing the PAS so quickly was to put in place a framework, which could then benefit from being in the public domain. This makes it accessible for comment to anyone, inside or outside our industry.
For all who have invested a great deal of time and effort in producing the PAS, the concern is that in the midst of the recent furore, it is all too easy for observers to lose sight of its ground-breaking nature. Instead they are being swept away by what at best seems misguided and at worst is simply a blatant method of gaining free publicity. Whatever the critics say, the PAS does – at the very least – address key areas including video integrity, tamper detection, control equipment integrity, communication integrity, power supply set/unset procedures, operator procedures and camera and detector positioning. Such a comprehensive approach is not the sign of an ill-considered, hastily produced document.
A detailed process
PAS 38:2000 in its current form did not come about overnight, as all those involved will testify. Its origins can be traced back to the West Midlands Police URN Trial Code of Practice, itself based on the working practices of three very different operators, namely RemGuard, Cougar and TNT Security Services. After it was adopted by the BSIA there were significant contributions made by SMC/Custodian. This is a far cry from the allegations that the PAS was solely based on RemGuard’s procedures. Much of the structure of the PAS is also based on concepts embraced by the CENELEC European Standards EN50131 and EN50132. A basic premise inherent in these standards is that they should not be technology-specific. Thus a flexible framework is created, which allows the industry to choose how to meet the specified requirements.
This is clearly counter to the claims of certain critics that the PAS imposes ‘Luddite restrictions on modes of operation’. Certainly, at all times the BSIA Working Group attempted to retain a delicate balance between practicality and available solutions. It is nonsensical to suggest the PAS is merely an attempt by one operator (RemGuard) to impose its technology on others and in the same breath lament the omission of any reference to IP-based systems. That IP is not mentioned in the PAS in no way precludes installers from using it. As a further rebuttal to the sceptics it should be pointed out that RemGuard transmission systems have relied on video over IP for several years. If the conspiracy theorists were correct, surely we would have insisted on video over IP as the only transmission method acceptable within the framework of the PAS. This is patently not the case and ranks as a perfect example of the poorly constructed and self-contradictory arguments of the critics. A major allegation also levelled has been that there was a failure to talk to the industry. Throughout the creation of the BSIA Code of Practice – on which PAS 38:2000 is based – there was an on-going and comprehensive consultation process. The BSIA Working Group sent drafts of each revision of the document (there were seven) to major manufacturers including Dedicated Micros, Baxall, C&K Systems, Clearview Communications, Photoscan, Sensormatic and Tyco Integrated Systems. In addition, contributions were also requested from a large number of installers.
A further draft was distributed by the BSI to all the members of the CCTV Working Group and to bodies such as the Association of British Insurers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Security Consultants, NACOSS, the Data Protection Registrar and the Security Facilities Division of the Cabinet Office.
The Code of Practice was also considered separately by Technical Committee 11 of the BSIA, itself made up of representatives from central stations, manufacturers and other related service providers such as BT Redcare. Unfortunately, even after this process many of the manufacturers, who were actively consulted, failed to respond. In fact some seem to have forgotten that they ever received copies of the various drafts for comment! I quote from one manufacturer who claims: "We weren’t issued with any documents related to PAS." In fact they were not only one of those who received all the revisions of the code, but they are actually represented on the BSIA CCTV committee. The code has been on the agenda at all committee meetings for almost two years! PAS 38:2000 should be welcomed by all of those with an interest in a healthy, regulated industry, representing as it does the introduction of a minimum requirement where none previously existed. PAS 38:2000 is not hidden away from view, it is out there in the public domain. I urge installers to obtain a copy of this landmark document, read it carefully and then make any constructive suggestions for its improvement to the BSI. Our industry has not been ‘conned’, it has been presented with a starting point and the opportunity is there for each of us to contribute and strengthen this standard. It was a joke that we soldiered on for so long without a standard at all.
