Enough is enough!

Here we go again … the tail is wagging the dog!
Over the past twelve months, most of the Industry has endured the updated ISO 9002 (2000) and the imposition of DD243.

Now the Technical Board of CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation) has declared that throughout all CENELEC member-countries, National Standards conflicting with EN 50131-1: 1997 (General Requirements for Intrusion Alarm Systems) must be withdrawn by September 1st 2003.

Our representative on CENELEC is the BSI Secretary for the Electrotechnical committee who is briefed by the Chairman of the main standards committee GW/1, represented by the following:

• Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
  
• Electrical Contractors Association
  
• Loss Prevention Council
  
• Metropolitan Police
  
• National Security Inspectorate
  
• Security Industry Training Organisation
  
• Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board
  
• Security Facilities Executive
  
• Association of Security Consultants
  
• British Security Industry Association
  
• Association of British Insurers
  
• Association of Chief Police Officers
  
• British Telecom Plc
  
• DETR
  
• Association of Social Community Alarms Providers
  
• Sub-committee Chairmen

Committee voted to withdraw
At the last meeting, prior to Christmas this committee voted in favour of the withdrawal of the national standards. I am reliably informed that two organisations that understand the industry, opposed the withdrawal.

Ironically the only countries adopting the CENELEC decree are Ireland, Norway and yes, you guessed, the UK.

After numerous telephone calls, collating information, it appears to me that the GW/1committee has been conned by organisations attempting to ingratiate themselves with the Association of British Insurers, who have been pushing for adoption of BS EN50131 as soon as possible. Had this committee rejected the proposed date of withdrawal, a representation would have been made to CENELEC for an extended implementation period.

As things stand, we are being required to implement a flawed standard that even contradicts itself, and which is currently under revision.

As things stand at the moment, we are being required to implement a flawed standard that even contradicts itself, and which is currently under revision.

This implementation coincides with the busiest trading period of our year. Are the members of GW/1 really fully conversant with the Industry?

Start date not realistic
Everyone that matters, including various members of the GW/1committee are now stating openly that the implementation date is not realistic. So why did they vote in favour of the date of withdrawal? The UK is the largest installer of security systems in Europe.

The committees responsible have been formulating our standards for the last 15 years, which I understand is the reason why CENELEC are trying to force implementation. These committees are now hiding behind a so-called European directive, to the detriment of the public and the Industry.

Why has the formulation of standards taken 15 years? I believe that the lack of sufficient proper industry representation has permitted unqualified 'committee men' to hinder progress.

This implementation coincides with the busiest trading period of our year. Are the members of GW/1 really fully conversant with the industry?

Industry technical representation and participation is the key to rapid formulation of workable standards, this was proved when the NVQ qualifications were formed.

In my opinion we need the GW committee, who purports to represent the Industry, to stop prevaricating and complete our standards for implementation as a whole, with a 24-month BS4737 parallel running period.

This will provide the manufacturers, who incidentally are also against the withdrawal of BS4737, to properly design, test and manufacturer all new equipment required, and the industry to implement comprehensive training.

Public will be at risk
The current 'piece meal' approach will without doubt result in the public being placed at risk. The GW committee has not publicly announced how the revised BS EN 50131-1 and remaining standards are to be introduced and who they perceive will pay for the changes. Obviously the end user … further harming the Industry's image. Surprise, surprise!

What can we do?
Personally I will be writing to Steven Breeze, Managing Director of BSI to protest in the strongest terms possible.