The Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) has published its long-awaited independent report on the testing regime of construction products, which seeks to tackle the “serious weaknesses in the regulation of construction work”.
Highlighting the “historic failings in the system by which construction products were tested, assured, and made available for sale”, ‘Testing for a Safer Future: An Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime’ was published on 20 April 2023 and is a response to both Dame Judith Hackitt’s 2018 report and the evidence that was heard by the public Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
In her 2018 report, ‘Building a Safer Future’, Dame Hackitt outlined that “The system that covers product testing, labelling, and marketing is at least as complicated as the entire regulatory system which was mapped in the interim report. It is apparent that the current system makes it difficult to know whether the right products are being used.”
Thus, the Independent Review of the Construction Product Testing Regime was commissioned by the government in April 2021. Led by the Government’s former chief construction advisor Paul Morrell OBE and barrister Anneliese Day KC, its purpose is to “any potential weaknesses in the system” and “make recommendations for improvement”.
In the forward to this new report, Dame Hackitt remarks “…it has become increasingly clear that improvements in construction product performance assessment must form a critical element of the new, stricter regulatory framework”.
Split into six parts, the report looks at objectives, principles, and cross-cutting issues that can lead to a reform in the testing regime and analyses the gaps and weaknesses in the system. As Building reports, it also offers advice on how the new National Regulator for Construction Products (CPR), part of the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), can “operate effectively”.
Ultimately, the report highlights the systemic flaws that exist in the current testing process of construction products, where for the most part, products are tested to meet the appropriate standard rather than determining whether they are actually safe to use, which, as Construction Index notes, “is not the same thing”. According to the report, these systemic issues revolve around coverage, purpose, standardisation, complexity, capacity, and enforcement. In particular, the report notes: “Enforcement has been almost totally non-existent so that bad actors feel that they can bypass the regulations without consequence.”
Morrell and Day summarise their recommendations as follows:
- Setting standards which, if met, will deliver assurance of desired and defined outcomes, whether they might relate to quality, fitness for purpose or safety, rather than just provide a means of comparing products;
- Ensuring that the conformity assessment process is conducted independently, and is not compromised by commercial interests;
- Requiring manufacturers to make a full, honest declaration of the performance of their products, verified by reference to the assessment process, or by their own due diligence where independent conformity assessment is not prescribed;
- Requiring declarations to be backed by the information that designers, contractors and building managers need in order to specify, install and maintain products so that they match that performance safely;
- Establishing an organisational structure that engages Government, the industry and relevant actors in a shared endeavour to develop the processes by which the objectives of the Building Safety Act can be delivered; to build and disseminate a body of knowledge about the prevention of fire in buildings and the behaviour of buildings in fire; and to raise the understanding of building safety and the priority given to it;
- Creating and operating an effective surveillance and enforcement regime,
- Simplifying and clarifying both the system itself and the way it is communicated, so that compliance is not hindered by an actual or alleged lack of comprehension.
Additional recommendations include a prioritised review of standards and a review of the capacity of testing housing. The report also advises on early consultation and action on the role and effectiveness of UKAS, the “rigorous criteria for the operation of voluntary third-party voluntary certification schemes”, the implications of Modern Methods of Construction as a “new category of potential risk”, and the potential for Artificial Intelligence to “replace or supplement physical testing”.
Thus, Morrell and Day seek to reform the failed system by adhering to the “principles of transparency and corporate and personal accountability”. They conclude: “There is no quick fix to so complex a problem in such a context…There must be a constructive partnership between Government and the industry, with a view to building on the good work and body of good practice that does exist and driving out the bad. It is our hope that the first steps along that partnership path can be taken now.”
Chris Miles, Commercial Director at the FPA, and named in the report as one of seven individuals who provided particular assistance to Morrell and Day, responded to the report’s release by saying: “The FPA is pleased to see the publication of this long-awaited report. Paul has been extremely diligent and perceptive in his workings with this report resulting in recommendations that make a great deal of sense and will be recognised by many as needing attention, albeit not all of the recommendations will be easy to resolve. We hope and expect that the recommendations are taken seriously and with positive intent.”
“It will need many parties to come together to deliver some of the recommendations in the report, and historically the construction and fire sectors have struggled to do that. Now is the time to work collaboratively to deliver,” Chris adds.
“This report can and should be a catalyst for change.”
Chief Executive of the Construction Products Association, Peter Caplehorn, said:
“We are very pleased to see the publication of this Review. Paul has immense experience from the many senior roles he has played in both industry and government. We respect him for his intellect, understanding and objective approach to the challenges facing our industry.
“This report should be required reading for policymakers and industry leaders alike, coming at a critical time not only for the future of the UK product testing and certification sector, but for the wider culture and practices of UK construction as well. The recommendations cover a wide range of urgent issues, and the CPA and its members will be focusing on developing the necessary responses and actions in consultation with department officials.
“It is also very pleasing to see solid support for the work we are doing in developing and implementing the Code for Construction Product Information, a fundamental foundation for reform in the sector.”
Dame Hackitt added that the report “marks a major step forward in mapping the complexity and opacity” of the current construction product regime. “This is an opportunity which must be taken, and with some urgency,” she said.
“The task now is to use the wealth of information mapped out here to create a new framework that drives the right behaviours, which enables effective enforcement by the regulators and delivers buildings where people can have confidence in their quality and safety.”
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities, Michael Gove added: “To deliver the change we need, I will set out our proposals for reform of the UK’s construction product regime in due course, building on the work of this review. Nothing is off the table as we consider this new regime, and I welcome contributions from all who share our goal of a safer built environment.”
The full report can be accessed here.