Just to quote one example, BS4737 requires (Pt 1 8.2.5) that an "external audible alarm shall sound ... if its tamper detection operates" – with no reference to the status of the alarm system at the time. On the other hand EN50131-1 (Table 3) specifically bans the use of a warning device if the system is unset when a tamper is operated. There are many others too – so when CENELEC requires the withdrawal of "all conflicting National Standards," it must include BS4737– without having to specifically state this. Unfortunately, Mike failed to answer what to me are the most interesting questions raised.
If this represents how Mike feels about the subject, why did he vote YES at GW1 to ratify the CENELEC decision. What has changed Mike's mind since, that he now objects so strongly? The answers to these questions would probably do more to boost his case than his whole argument presented. This issue raises a very fundamental issue central to industry voice in relation to standards of all kinds. In the same edition of Installer, Geoff Tate refers to the fact that "representation on any BSI committee is open to organisations with an 'interest' in standardisation for the scope of the committee".
Mike goes one step further and lists the thirteen such organisations currently acting on our behalf on GW1. Whilst the ten organisations not directly representing the mainstream UK security industry may well have a legitimate "interest", what neither Geoff nor Mike makes clear is that representation is "one organisation, one vote." Think about it, the BSIA –- representing a significant proportion of UK installers, as well as virtually all the manufacturers and ARCs – gets the same one vote as the Fire Brigades' Union (for example).
At CENELEC level, voting is weighted to give the larger countries a larger say in what happens. Surely the same should apply at this level, so that votes represent the real interests of the industry, rather than fringe interests?
Mike Cahalane replies ...
Brian, there are one or two nit-picking areas that can be described as 'conflicts' between BS 4737 and BS EN 50131-1: 1997. However, PD 6662: 2000 was intended to deal with these 'conflicts' three years ago. The key issue here is that BS EN 50131-1: 1997 is not capable of use in all its grades, which for all practical purposes means it can't conflict with BS 4737, and that is why BS 4737 continues as the only standard for security systems in the UK.GW/1 doesn't use a voting system (at least that is the way it is supposed to work under normal circumstances). GW/1 works on consensus – which means if I object and stand alone then my opinion is discounted – frustrating, but that's the way it is.
I tend to agree that the BSIA, being as it is, the party whose members have to carry out the requirements of BS 4737 and any amendments thereto, should have its views on the delaying the withdrawal of BS 4737 taken very seriously. I can't speak for them, but I have consistently objected to the withdrawal of BS 4737. You have to ask how the 'consensus' has been reached? Finally, all the parties to GW/1 (including the BSI, BSIA and me) categorically stated in PD 6662 that BS 4737 would be withdrawn when the whole of EN 50131 was published – not just one part that can't be used. That is clearly a sensible consensus view that CENELEC appear to have ignored. I'm not in favour of bureaucratic cliques telling the UK installers what to do.
The advice to CENELEC by the UK at TC 79, was to put the date of withdrawal on the incoming EN 50131-1 when it finally gets around to being published in about 2005. In such circumstances I don't think BS 4737 should be withdrawn.
Source
Security Installer
Postscript
Brian Harrington, Customer Service Manager
Castle Care-Tech Ltd.
brian.harrington@castle-caretech.com
No comments yet