Withdrawing BS 4737 is wrong!

In 1979, CENELEC (the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation) Technical Committee for Alarm Systems determined that any work on new standards for security systems could wait for those being developed by the IEC (the International Electrotechnical Commission). In the meantime, the national standards committees of both the European Commission and EFTA countries decided that there would be a standstill on new standards for security systems other than the completion of those already in preparation.

Nine years later, in 1988, CENELEC mandarins decided that the IEC documents were unsuitable. In that same year, the British Standards Institution published the last entry in its BS 4737 series. A year or so later, work then began in earnest on a new series of European Standards for security systems.

BS 4737: the key to design
The European Standards were seen as being the eventual replacement of BS 4737. Five years after the publication of BS EN 50131-1:1997, this first part of the European Standard cannot be complied with in all of its systems grades – which means that BS 4737 remains the key to the design of present day security systems.

For its part, BS EN 50131-1:1997 introduced a risk-based approach to designing security systems, rounding on the anticipated skill of the would-be burglar. However, anyone that's attempted to install a BS EN 50131-1:1997 system is unlikely to obtain an inspection certificate proving compliance because it's claimed the requirements for the movement detectors in Grades 3 and 4 cannot be met. As far as I'm concerned, it appears to be ridiculous that those who wrote BS EN 50131-1:1997 could conceivably have intended this as an outcome.

Now, we are advised that BS 4737 – the standard which EN 50131 was intended to replace – is to be withdrawn by 1 September 2003. Why? All because, we are informed, of a decision taken by the Technical Board of CENELEC.

I for one object to this decision on the following grounds. The BT of CENELEC has given the date of Monday 1 September 2003 as the date of withdrawal for BS EN 50131-1:1997. They say that the reason for this is so that they can speed up the work on standards in the 50131 suite. I can find no reference by BT that specifically includes BS 4737.

Even so, some have taken the BT decision in regard to BS EN 50131-1 to mean that BS 4737 conflicts with European Standards and must be withdrawn by the same date.

As the UK is virtually the only nation that enjoys a national standard relating to the installation of systems as opposed to testing, a decision to withdraw BS 4737 will have far-reaching consequences at home that are not faced elsewhere.

To my mind, the withdrawal of our unique national systems standards cannot be right. BS 4737 wasn't withdrawn when BS 50131-1 was published five years ago because it didn't conflict then – and it doesn't conflict now.

To my mind, the withdrawal of our unique national systems standards cannot be right. BS 4737 wasn’t withdrawn when BS 50131-1 was published five years ago because it didn’t conflict then – and it doesn’t conflict now

A full suite of standards
BS 4737 is a suite of standards. It consists of 22 parts, whereas BS EN 50131-1:1997 is but one element of a suite of largely unpublished drafts of 50131. The whole suite of 50131 previously consisted of 20 parts – work on seven of them has now been stopped, and just two have been published since work started on them in 1989.

Thus BS 4737 is a full suite of standards, whereas 50131 is an incomplete suite of unfinished drafts moving slowly through the various European Committees. Until the whole suite of 50131 is published, BS 4737 cannot be said to conflict.

It is also the case that the position regarding any withdrawal of BS 4737 was spelt out in PD 2000, and I quote: "The preparation of this Published Document (PD) was entrusted to Technical Committee GW/1 (Electronic Security Systems). It is a result of the Open Forum held on 6 October 1998 at the British Standards Institution on European Standards for alarms.

"A series of European Standards for intruder alarm systems is being produced which will eventually replace a number of British Standards for intruder alarm systems. Some European Standards in the series have been published, while others are in draft format, and work has not yet started on the remainder. Once the whole series of European Standards has been published, the BSI will be required to withdraw conflicting British Standards."

I believe that this statement represents very clear and incontrovertible evidence that BS 4737 doesn't conflict with 50131, and indeed that view was spelt out in no uncertain terms by those party to the preparation of PD 6662:2000, as enunciated in the document published by the British Standards Institution.

Again, I quote: "Committees responsible for this published document... The preparation of this Published Document was entrusted to Technical Committee GW/1 (Electronic Security Systems) upon which the following bodies were represented – the ABI, ACPO, the ASC, the BSIA, the Consumer Policy Committee of BSI, the DETR, the ECA, the Fire Brigades' Union, the Metropolitan Police, NACOSS, the Security Facilities Executive and the SSAIB."

Time to stand up and be counted
It's my firm belief that security installers are likely to suffer financially as a result of this situation if it remains unresolved. Many installers feel that they've had little say over what happens to them and their businesses due to the decisions of others.

Make no mistake about it. The withdrawal of BS 4737 represents a serious situation for the industry as a whole. Now is the time for installers and end users alike to stand up and be counted, one way or another.

The withdrawal of BS 4737 is wrong. If installers (and there are virtually 2,000 of them registered with the two inspectorates) and end users alike agree with me on this, then can I ask that they write to me via Security Management Today and voice their opinions?