Among other statements he makes is that “BS4737 wasn’t withdrawn when EN50131-1 was published five years ago because it didn’t conflict then, and it doesn’t now.” Has Mike not read the two standards? They very clearly conflict in a number of details – some of them quite significant.
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?
