Current affairs Robust approval


Let’s look at this in context. Markets by and large deliver what is asked of them: they work to a price, given the rigour – some might say the lack of rigour – of legal requirements and market demands. Without statutory requirement and appropriate enforcement by way of a robust approval regime, cost and ‘value engineering’ will take precedence over safety and compliance. Take the vehicle MOT test as a good example of this in practice. Introduced in 1960, its approved test centres and test technicians are underpinned by legislation, helping to keep all road users safe. However, without the legislation in place, how many vehicle users would voluntarily submit their vehicles for a road worthiness test? Under current legislation, approved MOT test centres keep people safe, with thousands of potentially dangerous vehicles being properly maintained every year. In contrast to the MOT, the fire safety


sector’s experience is less positive. Despite the introduction 15 years ago of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005 [FSO] in England and Wales, and its equivalent legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, enforcement remains weak. Many fire detection and alarm systems are not competently ‘MOT’d’, and unreliable fire alarms are sadly commonplace. Some organisations are committed to high standards of fire safety and competent fire risk


assessments, yet many more are not. Effective approval regimes work well in many markets, keeping people safe at work, at home and in all walks of life.


TPC bodies play a large part in making this


happen. A compelling example of certification making a positive difference can be found in the security sector and its long standing alignment with the police in terms of monitored intruder alarms. Founded on agreed standards, TPC has been delivering substantial benefits here for more than 30 years, and continues to do so. The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC),


formerly known as the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), and the security industry forged this effective alliance in the 1990s to address the significant adverse impact of false alarms on victims of crime, insurers and the police. At the time, intruder alarms were notoriously unreliable, almost encouraging criminals to chance their luck. Consequently, burglary rates were high, and


responding to them was considered both costly and a huge waste of police resources – hence many were ignored. To address the problem of an untenable 92% national false alarm rate, the NPCC laid down requirements working in conjunction with industry for the installation, monitoring and confirmation of alarm systems covered by police automatic response. Under the original 1995 unified ACPO intruder alarms policy, this was only to be undertaken


FOCUS


www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2020


49


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60