Notwithstanding my attempts, at the invitation of the chairman of BSIA South East regional committee, to inform the debate, it appears confusion still reigns. Perhaps more listening and less politicking would have helped.
In contrast to the rhetoric emanating from various parties, let's have some facts. I know that sticking to the facts is not as interesting as the barn-storming approach adopted by some of my more vociferous critics, but I trust that you will take the time to read this, because I know you want to understand the background behind this.
First, I would like to explain how European Standards are actually developed and the involvement of the UK in that process.
The development of European Standards for electronic security systems falls within the responsibility of CENELEC. This organisation delegates responsibility for preparing standards to a Technical Board which in turn sets up Technical Committees to undertake the actual work of developing the standards.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Technical Committee, in its turn, usually sets up Working Groups to do the actual drafting. For electronic security systems the technical committee is Technical Committee 79. TC79 set up no less than 13 working groups to draft various parts of the series of standards within the scope of its activities. Currently I am convenor of Working Group 1 (WG 1).
Let's address some of these questions directly, starting by explaining how CENELEC gets the authority to "force" European Standards onto the UK and other EU countries.
Far from forcing anyone to adopt the standards, we volunteered for it! When the UK joined the EU we agreed to abide by a whole raft of rules and regulations, one of which requires us to abide by CENELEC rules and implement European Norms. Part of this involves withdrawing conflicting national standards (with which, no doubt, you are already familiar).
How is the UK represented on the Technical Board of CENELEC? And who sits on TC79 and on whose authority?
The UK member of CENELEC is the British Electrotechnical Committee, which in practice devolves its responsibilities to BSI (British Standards Institution), who represent the UK on the Technical Board, which is its overall standards committee. The UK delegate on TC79 is appointed by our national committee, known by its BSI reference as GW/1.
Who appoints experts to TC79?
So finally we get to the working groups, the people who actually do the work. Who appoints these so-called "experts"? In the case of the UK, they are nominated by the UK national committee, GW/1, and its sub-committees.
If GW/1 is effectively the UK national committee who is represented on it?
Representation on any BSI committee is open to organisations with an 'interest' in standardisation for the scope of the committee. Preference is given to representative organisations if only to keep the committee size manageable (e.g. insurance companies are represented by a delegate from the ABI). The full list is available on the BSI website and is also in the front of published standards, and includes users, specifier's suppliers the inspectorates..
Far from forcing anyone to adopt the standards, we volunteered for it ... we agreed to a raft of rules
So how has the controversy about the introduction of EN 50131-1 arisen?
Having been involved in the drafting of standards, both UK and European, for many years I speak from experience when I say it is not a simple process. Drafting European standards is extremely difficult, attempting to accommodate differing philosophies, reconciling differing practices, accommodating vested interests, all in several languages – so it was never going to be easy. As a result, the whole process has taken far too long, and interest in the development of European Norms has declined with lack of progress.
Into this sea of apathy, into which at least some parties had fallen, the CENELEC Technical Board threw its Date-of-Withdrawal (DOW) bombshell! Perhaps they did this to wake some people up. If that was their objective, it seems to have worked! Organisations which had lost interest and whose involvement had dwindled over the years were suddenly faced with the introduction of EN50131-1, or more accurately, the withdrawal of their existing national standards. EN50131-1 was, of course, first published in 1997, and some countries (notably in Scandinavia and Ireland) have been installing to it since then or are in the process of adopting it.
As a UK trade association, the BSIA is acting on behalf of its members, specifically those involved in the manufacture of intruder alarm equipment and the design, installation and maintenance of intruder alarm systems. Along with other European trade associations they are lobbying hard to have the DOW date put back by, I understand, two years, i.e. until September 2005. They have a reasonable basis for doing so in that not all parts of the EN 50131 series of standards have been published, indeed to date only EN 50131-1 General Requirements for systems and EN 50131-6 Power Supplies have been published.
In addition EN 50136 which specifies requirements for Alarm Transmission Systems has also been published. Other parts of the EN 50131 series are at a late stage of development, some at the voting stage. I understand EN 50131-1 Application Guidelines has now received a positive vote and that EN 50131-2-2 Passive Infra Red Detectors, which received a negative vote as an EN, has now been circulated for a vote as a Technical Specification.
However organisations representing the "supply side" are not the only ones with an interest in the introduction of European Norms, many other organisations are represented on the technical committees and working groups. Insurance companies appear to be particularly keen to see the introduction of the new standards because of the benefits that the grading of alarm systems will bring. BSI has been taking the prudent view – that we must prepare for the introduction of EN 50131-1 and the withdrawal of at least part of BS 4737, in case the requested delay was not granted. I understand that at a recent meeting of the CENELEC Technical Board there was still a strong view that such pressure was needed in order to force progress, and it is likely any opportunity to delay the DOW has been lost.
My involvement
What has been my personal involvement in the development of European Standards over the past ten years? This started when I was Technical Director of Securicor Alarms and heavily involved in the BSIA technical committees. In those days the BSIA and its members considered involvement in the development of European Standards to be of considerable importance. As such, I became a UK expert on WG 1 and subsequently became convenor, nominated via the relevant BSIA Technical Committee onto the then equivalent of GW/1, and by GW/1 onto TC79 working group 1.
Contrary to the impression given in various articles and other remarks made recently in industry magazines, I have never held any position, in terms of the development of European Standards, other than that of a convenor of a working group.
The delegate to TC79, who speaks on behalf of the UK at technical committees, was for many years John Finney, then Technical Manager of the BSIA. In that role he argued very strongly to reduce the time taken to prepare and publish standards. The BSIA also provided, for several years, the secretariat for the BSI committees responsible for the development of UK standards and also responsible for UK input to the development of European Standards. It also nominates several of its own experts to many of the working groups.
For individuals, associated with the BSIA, to claim they have not had an opportunity to participate in the development of the European standards appears rather disingenuous.
Movng on to claims that I have failed, in some way, to support UK security industry faced with the impossible task of introducing the European standards within the timeframe set out by the DOW: First of all let me establish that I had no influence whatsoever in agreeing the date. The date was set by the CENELEC Technical Board and not by a mere convenor of a working group! Equally surprising to some may be the revelation that I fully accept the timeframe for the introduction is very short.
I had no influence whatsoever in agreeing the date for introducing the European Standards ... I fully accept that the timeframe is very short
However, I do not believe it appropriate for an inspectorate to comment on the introduction or indeed the withdrawal of standards. I believe that is a matter for others. It is not particularly important to the SSAIB which standards are in use. As an inspectorate my concern is that such standards can be used within a certification scheme, no more and no less.
It appears certain individuals have a mistaken understanding of the role of an inspection body and the level of influence a trade association should rightly be able to exercise, perhaps based on their experience to date.
As to the insinuation that the SSAIB is failing its recognised firms by not opposing the introduction of the ENs, this again merely serves to reinforce my opinion that certain individuals do not properly understand the role of a certification body.
Committed to raising awareness
The SSAIB is fully committed to the support of the organisations we recognise in terms of making these firms aware of the requirements of the standards, issuing such guidelines as are considered necessary and appropriate and ensuring that such training as may be required, is available.
So where do we go from here? Until such time as the published date of withdrawal of UK standards conflicting with EN 50131-1 is changed (if in fact it is) we must work on the assumption that the standard will be introduced as planned.
The BSI have agreed to revise PD 6662: 2000 such that the installation of intruder alarm systems can continue after the 1st September if the DOW date is not changed. In the event of the DOW date being delayed, assuming the publication of a revised version of PD 6662, it will be possible to install systems either in compliance with BS 4737 or in accordance with PD 6662: 200X.
In summary, the development of European standards is carried out within an open and transparent framework, as defined in CENELEC Internal Regulations. Participation in the drafting of European Norms is via the BSI which also operates within an open and transparent framework, one in which the BSIA has been heavily involved over many years. It is unclear as to whether the individuals, who have seen fit to criticise my involvement in the development of the European Standards, some of whom have a strong association with the BSIA, are speaking on behalf of the wider BSIA membership, specific interest groups or their own (company's) interests.
Delegates of all national committees
My involvement in BSI's UK committees is as a representative of the SSAIB and as convenor of WG 1 in Europe, having been nominated by the UK national committee. Wearing my SSAIB hat, my interest is limited to ensuring standards can be used in our inspection and certification processes. As convenor of CLC/TC79/WG 1, I am tasked with managing the drafting of European Standards, the requirements being agreed by experts on the working group.
The drafts prepared by working groups are considered by TC79 which is responsible for agreeing whether the documents should be circulated to national committees for enquiry and ultimately for voting as an EN or latterly as TS. TC79 comprises delegates of all national committees including, of course, delegates briefed by the UK national committee. Each national committee has an opportunity to accept or reject draft European Standards. A wide variety of drafts have been circulated over the years, BSIA members in particular have had access to them via the secretarial role which BSIA undertook, so their members have probably been better informed than most.
So DOW reasonable or not? I guess this depends upon whether you see the introduction as an opportunity or a threat. The BSIA is generally supportive of European Standards but sees the introduction date as being premature.
I have some sympathy for their position but need to take a pragmatic view, i.e. ensure we are ready should the DOW stand. Others have expressed their concerns about the changes but take the view the EN's will have to be introduced in the near future and prefer to do get it over and done with rather than dragging it out over the next two years.
Source
Security Installer
No comments yet