Hi Graham

See URL below.  Might be worth a read.

eurogip.fr/.../

Sergio Fernandez said:

Hi Graham

See URL below.  Might be worth a read.

eurogip.fr/.../

UK is not in the EU (but does use harmonized standards for products in the same way).

As an example from above, though, BS 7430 is not mandated in legislation so if the UK accepted the view (and there's no indication one way or another that it will do so), the installation standards in general wouldn't necessarily come under this banner.

BS 7671, however, is referred to directly in the ESQCR and ESQCR(NI) ...

Very interesting development. probably with more impact than the folk who have done it yet realise.

And I would agree that you should not have secret laws, so the standards you require to read to meet the requirements of current legislation, which may be more than those named by doc number in the statutory instrument or whatever, should indeed be accessible - which may not mean free to take away.

I also appreciate that it knocks a hole in the bottom of the bucket for folk whose living depends on selling copies, so I do not expect resolution to be swift.
We may also end up with an odd situation where the international standard is open, but the national one derived from it is expensive.

Mike.

gkenyon said:

so if the UK accepted the view (and there's no indication one way or another that it will do so)

With every major UK party promising tax cuts and consequent cutbacks in public services in their manifestos it would seem unlikely that they'll be keen to do this...

Very interesting ruling, particularly regarding harmonised standards for CE marking (which at present are effectively the same standards as for UKCA marking).

Seems like a bit of an administrative nightmare as there will be some standards which must be free and other, quite similar ones, which need not be, just depending whether they have been identified as harmonised or not. Also, how far down the tree does this go - taking EMC for example, the harmonised standards call up sub-standards which define the test process, which in turn sometimes call up sub-sub-standards...I can see the legal wrangling will have only just started as to how many of these are legally mandated and therefore should be free.

I fully agree with Mike:

mapj1 said:

probably with more impact than the folk who have done it yet realise

Any of us who've been involved in standards production and maintenance know how expensive (time consuming) it is. Not to say that this is a right or wrong decision, but the consequences of how many standards it will actually affect, and how those standards then get paid for, is interesting.

On a side topic, taking the statement in that link "Relying in particular on the principles of the rule of law and of free access to the law" so does this mean that access to legal advice (solicitors / barristers) should also be free? And indeed technical expert witnesses? Again there is a perfectly sound argument that it should be - and that it actually has a rather bigger impact on the ability of the "person in the street" to bring legal action, or defend themselves against legal action, than the cost of standards has. (e.g. see the argument presented in books by "The Secret Barrister"). If, say, a member of my family was harmed by a not-to-standard piece of engineering then it wouldn't be the cost of the standard that would put me off suing the manufacturer, it would be the far higher cost of the legal team. But I guess the counter argument is that at least this change would be a marginal gain.

You may also get an odd reversal of the current situation where organizations don't want their standard enshrined in law, so it can be kept closed.
It's not quite the same as the legal costs case, as you can represent yourself, but it is most unwise and unlikely to succeed.
However in you hypothetical case, the manufacturer would also be keen to avoid such costs ,and at least saying 'look - you failed to take account of the fact this standard requires an interlock on electric blade sharpeners' or whatever, may push them to fix the problem, and settle out of court rather than with a legal team. I fear a great many cases just benefit, well, the legal team...

Standards, free or otherwise are not protection against really scary dangerous things - like this 'laser pecker' knock-off on off Ali-express,  you import yourself, as it is shipped from overseas, and most folk doing so have no idea of the legal implications.

 But no warning about eyes or risks of reflected beams firing it at a shiny surface. Blinding kit in a box.  Hurt someone, and legal responsibility lies with the importer, who introduced it into the UK and as it is delivered to your door from the far East at your request, all compliance is bypassed and, well the buck stops with you..

(I pick this example as someone at Scouts has just bought one, or one very like it, and with its laser power of a few watts it burns lovely black text and graphics into wood, leather, table tops, and also lovely red welts into hands (!) etc. As laser safety chap at work, seeing these class 4 lasers open beam and in unskilled hands is toe curling frightening. We worry once we pass the 1 milliwatt level.)
Mike.

As with many things that can be purchased on the internet it is a case of Caveat Emptor (Latin for Buyer beware) UK legislation needs to change to include online sellers like Amazon, Temu and ali express (I am sure there are many others) that to sell into the UK market the items MUST be safe and MUST comply to UK/BSI standards in the same way that an item in Tesco or Argos high street store does.  (Other high Street stores are available)

mapj1 said:

like this 'laser pecker' knock-off

I'm simultaneously thinking "ouch" and "I want one..."

But then I have a belt driven lathe with open belts in my workshop, meanwhile simultaneously in the day job raising observations on clients because they haven't got adequate message alerts on the alarm systems on the cut-out switches on the covers on their equipment...

mapj1 said:

Stadnards, free or otherwise are not protection against really scary dangerous things

There's a course I wrote on functional safety with a slide on EMC, where I point out that compliance with the EMC standards proves you have...compliance to the EMC standards. (And, when I deliver it myself, add in that I am on the standards panel for the relevant standards for our industry, I know exactly how the limits came to be set where they were.) They do not prove that anything will actually work correctly or safely in the real world, which rarely meets the standard. So absolutely, they only get you so far.

As an ISA I really do draw on 40 years of experience to determine whether I agree that a supplier has done all that is reasonably practicable to consider the safety of their system before it's placed on the market, compliance to standards is a red line that must be met, but there's plenty more that usually needs to be considered. And in very many product liability cases those are the important issues, which need the same level of expertise to argue that not enough was done.

That said, there also plenty of cases in consumer products where the standards red line hasn't been met (particularly where it comes to UKCA marking), but that's a criminal law matter so not for the individual consumer to pursue anyway (except to raise it with trading standards as a potential breach)...but that's back to the discussion further up the thread.

Sergio Fernandez said:

UK legislation needs to change to include online sellers

For anyone interested where we are so far, the UK government review (October 2023) is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ca51246ae44e001311b3e7/uk-product-safety-review-consultation-august-2023.pdf

And the most recent article I could find on it (published last week) is here:

https://gateleyplc.com/insight/article/will-product-safety-proposals-close-the-legislative-gap-between-high-street-and-online-retailers/

Nothing more will happen now until after 4th July of course.

Hmm, to my mind the solution to the unwitting importer of dangerous tat, is NOT more legislation that the person committing the error it does not know about. We already have that problem now.

note that the same sort of thing that my scouty friend bought, hsa already come to the authorities attention.

https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/screen/webReport/alertDetail/10007098

What is needed is either

1) a mechanism to open and inspect all parcels to private individuals coming in from businesses overseas, and to be fair I can't see this being acceptable in any situation less than under a war footing.

2) a mechanism to educate the general public that when they internet order from Desert cart, Ali express etc they are the importer and they have personal responsibility for the safety or otherwise of what they buy.

I suppose outfits like Amazon and perhaps some parts of Ebay probably can be dealt with by legislation, as they have a UK presence, but the real danger merchants are far away and don't.

Mike

PS if your 'I want one of those' desire for a really dangerous toy gets too strong, try one of these backpack lasers, sold for stripping paint and rust and so forth.... at least it has a warning label.

Andy Millar said:

Seems like a bit of an administrative nightmare as there will be some standards which must be free and other, quite similar ones, which need not be, just depending whether they have been identified as harmonised or not. Also, how far down the tree does this go - taking EMC for example, the harmonised standards call up sub-standards which define the test process, which in turn sometimes call up sub-sub-standards...I can see the legal wrangling will have only just started as to how many of these are legally mandated and therefore should be free.

I fully agree with Mike:

mapj1 said:

probably with more impact than the folk who have done it yet realise

Any of us who've been involved in standards production and maintenance know how expensive (time consuming) it is. Not to say that this is a right or wrong decision, but the consequences of how many standards it will actually affect, and how those standards then get paid for, is interesting.

Standards will still be required, and will still be published, even if only electronically. They will need to be version-controlled, etc. etc.... so some of those whose income is paid for out of subscriptions for and sales of standards will still be necessary.

The cost of producing standards, even if participants are funded by the industry, or provide their time for free, is not insubstantial.

Therefore, the bigger question is perhaps how is standards production to be funded, if there is no revenue from their publication?

At the end of the day, the consumer pays when they purchase a product or service, as standards are part of the operating costs or expenses of an organization providing the product or service.

In the alternative proposed model, it's likely that the public will pay through taxes. The downside of that being, whether or not you actually use the product or service will be irrelevant, you will pay for the standards.

Just think ... instead of the cost of the standard for "count the money in my £1B+ bank account" machine being paid for by only those who buy such machines, it will be paid for by all of ... US !

Sergio Fernandez said:

See URL below.  Might be worth a read.

eurogip.fr/.../

Makes me wonder whether such an approach is really beneficial to us all?

Andy Millar said:

On a side topic, taking the statement in that link "Relying in particular on the principles of the rule of law and of free access to the law" so does this mean that access to legal advice (solicitors / barristers) should also be free?

I like that question, but I somehow don't see that flying?

Andy Millar said:

And indeed technical expert witnesses?

I'm not following that somehow. Technical expert witnesses wouldn't be providing an opinion on the law, or legal matters, but on a technical matter as directed by the instructing solicitor (usually as directed by the Judge)?