Government-commissioned report calls for a review of the construction product testing system, but how likely is it to act?
Evidence given to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry raised serious concerns about the process by which cladding materials used on the west London block were tested and approved.
In response, in 2021, the then housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, appointed former national construction adviser Paul Morrell and legal expert Anneliese Day to examine the whole system for testing the safety of construction products in England.
Its 174-page report, published this April, raises several issues with the testing regime, including concerns with conformity assessment bodies (CABs) such as the British Board of Approval (BBA) and the Building Research Establishment ( BRE).
“If you have been rejected by another CAB, this must be a disclosing fact to any other CAB you attempt to do business with”
Hywel Davies
The report says there are two widespread views of such bodies: that they are too close to clients and subject to conflicts of interest, potentially resulting in “inappropriate assistance or collusion”; or are inaccessible to small businesses and unresponsive to customers.
Many of the organisations, of which there are 53 operating in the UK, offer services other than product testing to make money. These include voluntary third-party accreditation and consulting services.
The review says: “This can create a clear conflict of interest, comparable to that of accountants providing auditing and consulting services.”
Hywel Davies, a former chairman of the Building Standards Advisory Committee, which advised ministers on technical matters before it was abolished earlier this year as part of reforms to the Building Safety Act, was one of the contributors to the review.
talking with Construction newssaid that if the product testing certification system is to be reliable, it must be considered that CABs may ask difficult questions of manufacturers and may refuse to certify products if they are not given satisfactory answers.
“We need to be clear that if this is going to happen, it needs to be like insurance. When you’re renewing your car insurance, one of the common questions is, ‘Have you ever been covered by another insurer?’. We need a question like this [for CABs].
“And we need to get away from any nonsense about ‘oh, you can’t go and talk to them about us because it’s in breach of our intellectual property or GDPR.’ If you’ve had dealings and been turned down by another CAB, that it must be a discloseable fact to any other CAB with whom you attempt to do business.”
In their review, Morrell and Day are critical of the CABs, noting that “with limited exceptions”, the bodies “have shown no obvious sense of need for change (or even critical review) in the wake of the fire at Grenfell Tower”. .
They recommend that a legal duty be imposed on CABs to ensure that they act in the public interest when carrying out compliance checks and to declare to the UK Accreditation Service, the body that approves their work, whether they provide consultancy or other services to manufacturers also use them for product testing, in order to reduce the possibility of conflicts of interest.
Renationalize
The two CABs that regularly participated in the Grenfell hearings, the BBA and the BRE, were created by the government as public bodies.
In May 2022, following the inquiry, the Firefighters Union called on the government to renationalise the BRE with general secretary Matt Wrack saying the decision to privatize it had been a “complete disaster”.
“Corners were cut and building safety compromised as the BRE bowed to the building materials companies that pay their wages”
Matt Wrack, Firefighters Union
He added: “Corners have been cut and the safety of buildings compromised as the BRE bowed to the building materials companies who pay their wages.”
Speaking to a parliamentary committee last year, the communities secretary, Michael Gove, said: “I can’t promise that we will return them to public ownership, but I have an open mind about what is the best way fix the regime”.
Morrell and Day considered whether a nationalized facility such as the BRE should be reinstated in order to ensure the independence of the testing regime. But they do not recommend doing so, concluding that such a move would force the government to compete with the private sector. sector for the limited group of people who have the necessary technical expertise in building materials.
The BRE said in response to Wrack last year that there was no evidence of any conflict of interest between its different work streams. Asked by CN for comment on the new review, a BRE spokesman said it was still reviewing the recommendations and assessing their potential impact. They added that the BRE has no shareholders and all its profits go to the BRE Trust, which is an independent charity.
No application
Apart from the work of the CABs, the review raises concerns about other parts of the testing regime. These include finding that enforcement of the Construction Products Rules, the responsibility of trading standards in England, has previously been “almost entirely non-existent, so bad actors feel they can bypass the regulations without consequence”.
It notes that there have been no prosecutions under the Construction Products Regulations 2013 since they were introduced to enforce “designated standards” for certain products. These rules also only apply to about a third of the products on the market.
Davies said CN that the lack of execution is very unfair. “We have regulations there and they’re not being enforced, so the law-abiding ones are trying to compete with companies that aren’t trying to do the responsible thing. Having regulations and not enforcing them is a tax on the law.”
He said that only when news comes out saying “someone was fined £50,000 for breaching product regulation or even that someone is in Wormwood Scrubs for a year” will bad actors really be forced to stop and think
do it right
Morrell and Day say their review was undertaken with an “overarching goal in mind: to restore the conformity assessment process and the data derived from it as a trusted public good.”
Another contributor to the review, Iain McIlwee, chief executive of the trade body for equipment in the finishes and interiors sector, said there were many benefits to reforming the system, and being seen to do so. . “It’s about public and customer confidence, which is also about the attractiveness of the industry,” he said. “If all people read about the problems in the press, it makes the industry look less attractive.
“It’s the public’s trust from the point of view of commissioning good work, but it’s also the public’s trust from the point of view of [showing] that industry is one that contributes effectively to society. We all know construction does [contribute]but is sometimes disappointed by inconsistency.”
But with many of its recommendations dependent on government action and Whitehall’s busy schedule ahead of a general election due next year, as well as a range of other building security reforms, Will any of the proposals be enacted soon?
The Department for Leveling, Housing and Communities said it would “carefully consider” the report. “We will present reform proposals in due course,” he added.
