Testing for a Safer Future - Revision history

Editor at 07:39, 17 May 2024

2024-05-17T07:39:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:39, 17 May 2024
Line 151:		Line 151:
	* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.		* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.

−	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Policy]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Building_safety]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Policy]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]]

Designing Buildings at 05:45, 25 April 2023

2023-04-25T05:45:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:45, 25 April 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[File:~~Gov Uk testing for safety banner~~.jpg]]	+	[[File:Gov_Uk_testing_for_safety_banner.jpg\|link=File:Gov_Uk_testing_for_safety_banner.jpg]]

	= In brief =		= In brief =

−	The long-awaited Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime, led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day has been published by the DLUHC, with a forward by Dame Judith Hackitt.	+	The long-awaited [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1151666/Independent_Review_of_the_Construction_Product_Testing_Regime.pdf Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime], led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day has been published by the DLUHC, with a forward by Dame Judith Hackitt.

	The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013, through EU regulations and currently regulates, monitors and enforces UK construction product standards. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products currently remain unregulated because there are no appropriate standards, as well as other systemic issues and recommends ways forward.		The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013, through EU regulations and currently regulates, monitors and enforces UK construction product standards. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products currently remain unregulated because there are no appropriate standards, as well as other systemic issues and recommends ways forward.
Line 133:		Line 133:

	Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”		Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”
		+
		+	You can see the review at: [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1151666/Independent_Review_of_the_Construction_Product_Testing_Regime.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1151666/Independent_Review_of_the_Construction_Product_Testing_Regime.pdf]

	-----		-----

Editor at 10:01, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T10:01:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:01, 24 April 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[File:Gov Uk testing for safety banner.jpg]]
		+
	= In brief =		= In brief =

	The long-awaited Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime, led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day has been published by the DLUHC, with a forward by Dame Judith Hackitt.		The long-awaited Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime, led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day has been published by the DLUHC, with a forward by Dame Judith Hackitt.

−	The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013, through EU regulations and currently regulates, monitors and enforces UK construction product standards. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products currently remain unregulated because there are no appropriate standards.	+	The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013, through EU regulations and currently regulates, monitors and enforces UK construction product standards. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products currently remain unregulated because there are no appropriate standards, as well as other systemic issues and recommends ways forward.

	“The most obvious gap in the current system is that only construction products for which there is a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation”. The review was primarily instigated, following the Grenfell disaster, to examine the UK’s system for testing the safety of construction products and a key message from P. Morell is "Many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent."		“The most obvious gap in the current system is that only construction products for which there is a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation”. The review was primarily instigated, following the Grenfell disaster, to examine the UK’s system for testing the safety of construction products and a key message from P. Morell is "Many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent."
Line 22:		Line 24:
	“How should the UK system for testing the safety of construction products and the use of data from the system be strengthened, to inspire confidence that those products are safe and perform as labelled and marketed when incorporated into construction work?“		“How should the UK system for testing the safety of construction products and the use of data from the system be strengthened, to inspire confidence that those products are safe and perform as labelled and marketed when incorporated into construction work?“

−	== ~~Methods~~ ==	+	== Method ==

	To carry out the work by		To carry out the work by
Line 108:		Line 110:
	(6) Government procurement. Government should use its buying power as an incentive to adopt good practice by setting out how the following could be accepted as criteria in consultant, contractor or product selection.		(6) Government procurement. Government should use its buying power as an incentive to adopt good practice by setting out how the following could be accepted as criteria in consultant, contractor or product selection.

−	(7) A joint Government/industry action plan. The success of the Building Safety Act depends upon a certain amount of “machinery” being in place, most of which should primarily be the business of industry, but which will call for a continuing engagement by Government. with ~~traing~~ and awareness.	+	(7) A joint Government/industry action plan. The success of the Building Safety Act depends upon a certain amount of “machinery” being in place, most of which should primarily be the business of industry, but which will call for a continuing engagement by Government. with training and awareness.

	(8) Body of knowledge. The safety of a building does not just relate to fire, and issues relating to structure are as important. However, the body of knowledge about fire in particular is as fragmented and dispersed as the many organisations engaged in this specialism. This body of knowledge needs to be pulled together as part of the joint action plan, made accessible and kept under review, with a centre of excellence and the public interest at its core.		(8) Body of knowledge. The safety of a building does not just relate to fire, and issues relating to structure are as important. However, the body of knowledge about fire in particular is as fragmented and dispersed as the many organisations engaged in this specialism. This body of knowledge needs to be pulled together as part of the joint action plan, made accessible and kept under review, with a centre of excellence and the public interest at its core.

−	The critical need for industry engagement and for a more comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge ~~renforces~~ the vital importance of Government continuing to engage, at the right level and in a practical way beyond the role of legislator and regulator, in the programmed development of the knowledge, skills and tools by which building safety will be more securely delivered.	+	The critical need for industry engagement and for a more comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge reinforces the vital importance of Government continuing to engage, at the right level and in a practical way beyond the role of legislator and regulator, in the programmed development of the knowledge, skills and tools by which building safety will be more securely delivered.
		+
		+	The report extends to some 175 pages and covers in detail a number of other issues, for further information see link below article.

	= Response from M.Gove =		= Response from M.Gove =
Line 124:		Line 128:
	= Industry response =		= Industry response =

−	Dame Judith Hackitt, ~~who heavily criticised~~ construction product testing in her 2018 report ~~‘Building a Safer Future’,~~ said the Morrell review ~~“marks a major step forward in mapping the complexity and opacity of the current construction product regime and also identifies ways in which significant improvements can and should be made”.~~	+	Dame Judith Hackitt, critical of construction product testing in her 2018 report said the Morrell review
−		+
−	She added: “We must move from a state where: up to two-thirds of products are unregulated, there is lack of clarity around purpose of testing, the fitness for purpose of current standards is questioned and there is no enforcement to implement a process that delivers quality and confidence.	+
−		+
−	“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.”	+

−	~~Last month, Hackitt set out~~ a ~~new performance framework for~~ construction ~~products~~ and ~~told CM~~, ~~“there~~ is a ~~high level~~ of ~~consistency with our~~ framework and ~~Paul’s report”~~.	+	“marks a major step forward in mapping the complexity and opacity of the current construction product regime and also identifies ways in which significant improvements can and should be made. We must move from a state where: up to two-thirds of products are unregulated, there is lack of clarity around purpose of testing, the fitness for purpose of current standards is questioned and there is no enforcement to implement a process that delivers quality and confidence. 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.”

	Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”		Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”

Editor at 08:57, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T08:57:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 24 April 2023
Line 133:		Line 133:

	Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”		Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”
		+
		+	-----
		+	This article is based on a review of "[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1151666/Independent_Review_of_the_Construction_Product_Testing_Regime.pdf Testing for a Safer Future - An Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime]" published by DLUHC in April, 2023 for further information follow direct link above.

	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =		= Related articles on Designing Buildings =
Line 146:		Line 149:
	* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.		* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.

−	~~[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]~~ [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Policy]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Policy]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]]

Editor at 07:54, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T07:54:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:54, 24 April 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= In brief =		= In brief =

−	The long-awaited Independent Review of the Construction ~~Product~~ Testing ~~Regim~~, led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day has been published by the DLUHC, with a ~~forwrad~~ by Dame Judith Hackitt.	+	The long-awaited Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime, led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day has been published by the DLUHC, with a forward by Dame Judith Hackitt.

−	The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013 through ~~European~~ regulations and currently regulates UK construction ~~products~~. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products remain unregulated.	+	The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013, through EU regulations and currently regulates, monitors and enforces UK construction product standards. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products currently remain unregulated because there are no appropriate standards.

−	“The most obvious gap in the current system is that only construction products for which there is a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation”. The review was primarily instigated, following the Grenfell disaster, to examine the UK’s system for testing the safety of construction products and key ~~messages are~~	+	“The most obvious gap in the current system is that only construction products for which there is a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation”. The review was primarily instigated, following the Grenfell disaster, to examine the UK’s system for testing the safety of construction products and a key message from P. Morell is "Many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent."
−		+
−	"Many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent." ~~P. Morell~~	+

	= Background =		= Background =
Line 15:		Line 13:
	* July 2020 - the government published in draft the Building Safety Bill setting out reforms to building safety regulation and including provisions to strengthen and extend the scope of the powers available to government to regulate construction products.		* July 2020 - the government published in draft the Building Safety Bill setting out reforms to building safety regulation and including provisions to strengthen and extend the scope of the powers available to government to regulate construction products.
	* January 2021 - the government announced that it would establish a National Regulator for Construction Products to enforce these rules, established within the Office of Product Safety and Standards. The regulator given powers to remove any product from the market that presents a significant safety risk, prosecute and fine any company. It also announced a review to examine how to strengthen the system for testing the safety of construction products.		* January 2021 - the government announced that it would establish a National Regulator for Construction Products to enforce these rules, established within the Office of Product Safety and Standards. The regulator given powers to remove any product from the market that presents a significant safety risk, prosecute and fine any company. It also announced a review to examine how to strengthen the system for testing the safety of construction products.
−	* April 2021 Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick appointed former Chief Construction Adviser Paul Morrell as chair of an independent panel to lead the review along with Anneliese Day QC. Jenrick said: “I am pleased to appoint Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day QC to lead this independent review of the system for testing construction products that will build on the significant progress we have already made to make buildings safer.” Terms of reference [https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-the-construction-products-testing-regime https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-the-construction-products-testing-regime]	+	* April 2021 Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick appointed former Chief Construction Adviser Paul Morrell as chair of an independent panel to lead the review along with Anneliese Day QC. Jenrick said: “I am pleased to appoint Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day QC to lead this independent review of the system for testing construction products that will build on the significant progress we have already made to make buildings safer.”
	* April 2023 "Testing for a Safer Future; An Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime." was published.		* April 2023 "Testing for a Safer Future; An Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime." was published.

Line 36:		Line 34:
	= Susceptibility to failure =		= Susceptibility to failure =

−	Susceptibility to failure of the process is attributable to matters that are either ~~(a)~~ systemic or ~~(b)~~ relate to individual conduct and performance.	+	Susceptibility to failure of the process is attributable to matters that are either systemic or relate to individual conduct and performance.

	== Systemic issues ==		== Systemic issues ==

−	~~(1)~~ Coverage. ~~Only construction products with a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation, anecdotally one-third of all construction products approx 20-30,000 products unregulated.~~	+	=== Coverage. ===

−	~~(2) Purpose. primarily designed to create~~ a ~~level playing field for a single market, not ensure a safe or sustainable product or building, or anything else not specifically~~ covered~~. Thus there isn’t actually a specific “UK system for testing~~ the ~~safety~~ of construction ~~products” only a system to assess conformity to other performance requirements of the standards~~.	+	Only construction products with a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation, anecdotally one-third of all construction products approx 20-30,000 products unregulated.

−	(3) Standardisation. Relevant standards state how product perform, tested or assessed, Conformity Assessment Bodies and reviewed by UKAS, and how UKAS. The framework for standard development is good, but slow, with insufficient and of variable quality output. Thus many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent; and research questions the fitness for purpose of a number of standards critical for testing products for resistance and reaction to fire.	+	=== Purpose ===

−	~~(4) Complexity. with 5 different routes and 6 steps~~, ~~CPR assessment is complex that so few understand it~~. ~~A disconnect between assessment and~~ the ~~design and construct buildings. Criteria for different levels~~ of ~~the~~ system ~~unclear, and sometimes inconsistent. Opaque not easily understood, can be taken advantage~~ of ~~through~~ the ~~lack of transparency~~.	+	Primarily designed to create a level playing field for a single market, not ensure a safe or sustainable product or building, or anything else not specifically covered. Thus there isn’t actually a specific “UK system for testing the safety of construction products” only a system to assess conformity to other performance requirements of the standards.

−	(5) Capacity. System (setting standards, conformity assessment and oversight) overloaded and slow. It represents a threat to quality and reform, specific urgency relating to the ending of recognition of CE marking in January 2023.	+	=== Standardisation ===

−	(6) ~~Enforcement~~. Enforcement almost totally non-existent, there have been no prosecutions under CPR305/11 since it was enacted, only a limited number of investigations (by Trading Standards in England, Scotland and Wales, Environmental Health in Northern Ireland). No central database of investigations or risk products impacts the market.	+	Relevant standards state how product perform, tested or assessed, Conformity Assessment Bodies and reviewed by UKAS, and how UKAS. The framework for standard development is good, but slow, with insufficient and of variable quality output. Thus many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent; and research questions the fitness for purpose of a number of standards critical for testing products for resistance and reaction to fire.
		+
		+	=== Complexity ===
		+
		+	5 different routes and 6 steps, shows CPR assessment is complex that so few understand it. A disconnect between assessment and the design and construct buildings. Criteria for different levels of the system unclear, and sometimes inconsistent. Opaque not easily understood, can be taken advantage of through the lack of transparency.
		+
		+	=== Capacity ===
		+
		+	System (setting standards, conformity assessment and oversight) overloaded and slow. It represents a threat to quality and reform, specific urgency relating to the ending of recognition of CE marking in January 2023.
		+
		+	=== Enforcement ===
		+
		+	Enforcement almost totally non-existent, there have been no prosecutions under CPR305/11 since it was enacted, only a limited number of investigations (by Trading Standards in England, Scotland and Wales, Environmental Health in Northern Ireland). No central database of investigations or risk products impacts the market.

	== Individual conduct and performance ==		== Individual conduct and performance ==
		+
		+	=== Beyond the remit of review ===

	Matters of individual or corporate conduct and performance reflected in the allegations made in the Public Inquiry beyond the remit of this review.		Matters of individual or corporate conduct and performance reflected in the allegations made in the Public Inquiry beyond the remit of this review.
		+
		+	=== Widespread issues ===

	However, performance failures are as widespread as suggested, it indicates the current regime is failing to prevent them – in the coverage or processes of conformity assessment by Approved Bodies (or, for voluntary certification schemes, of Conformity Assessment Bodies acting outside the coverage of the CPR); and/or the inherent limitations of the existing processes; and/or the accreditation, re- assessment and oversight of the Approved Bodies/CABs themselves by UKAS.		However, performance failures are as widespread as suggested, it indicates the current regime is failing to prevent them – in the coverage or processes of conformity assessment by Approved Bodies (or, for voluntary certification schemes, of Conformity Assessment Bodies acting outside the coverage of the CPR); and/or the inherent limitations of the existing processes; and/or the accreditation, re- assessment and oversight of the Approved Bodies/CABs themselves by UKAS.
		+
		+	=== Greater transparency ===

	Beyond the assessment process itself, and irrespective of any strengthening of the regime, there will always be over-arching requirements for honest conduct, compliance with effectively enforced regulations and competent execution. This focus therefore been on proposals to underpin assurance by effective system and greater transparency.		Beyond the assessment process itself, and irrespective of any strengthening of the regime, there will always be over-arching requirements for honest conduct, compliance with effectively enforced regulations and competent execution. This focus therefore been on proposals to underpin assurance by effective system and greater transparency.
Line 70:		Line 86:
	Strengthen by new regulatory regime, including two new regulators: a National Regulator for Construction Products, based in OPSS within DBT, who will work with a new Building Safety Regulator based in the HSE; and requirements for manufacturers to share technical documentation and information with the National Regulator for Construction Products and/or enforcement authorities.		Strengthen by new regulatory regime, including two new regulators: a National Regulator for Construction Products, based in OPSS within DBT, who will work with a new Building Safety Regulator based in the HSE; and requirements for manufacturers to share technical documentation and information with the National Regulator for Construction Products and/or enforcement authorities.

−	Objective must be to set clear requirements that call for honesty on the part of manufacturers in respect of full disclosure to the Approved Body conducting the assessment, in the Declaration of Performance, in technical information to accompany the product, and in all marketing information and other communications relating to the product, with a breach of any part of this duty being an offence subject to new sanctions available to the Regulator, and with effective enforcement action being taken where an offence is committed. Concerns highlighted complexity, fragmentation, continuity, responsibility, effectiveness and a ~~iscussion~~ around that of the "duty holder".	+	Objective must be to set clear requirements that call for honesty on the part of manufacturers in respect of full disclosure to the Approved Body conducting the assessment, in the Declaration of Performance, in technical information to accompany the product, and in all marketing information and other communications relating to the product, with a breach of any part of this duty being an offence subject to new sanctions available to the Regulator, and with effective enforcement action being taken where an offence is committed. Concerns highlighted complexity, fragmentation, continuity, responsibility, effectiveness and a discussion around that of the "duty holder".

	== Safety-critical products ==		== Safety-critical products ==
Line 98:		Line 114:
	The critical need for industry engagement and for a more comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge renforces the vital importance of Government continuing to engage, at the right level and in a practical way beyond the role of legislator and regulator, in the programmed development of the knowledge, skills and tools by which building safety will be more securely delivered.		The critical need for industry engagement and for a more comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge renforces the vital importance of Government continuing to engage, at the right level and in a practical way beyond the role of legislator and regulator, in the programmed development of the knowledge, skills and tools by which building safety will be more securely delivered.

−	= Response from Gove =	+	= Response from M.Gove =

	In a statement to the House of Commons, DLUHC Secretary of State Michael Gove, said: “I would like to thank the reviewers for the comprehensive and thorough assessment of the current system and for their report and recommendations. We recognise that more needs to be done and are carefully considering the recommendations put forward by the independent reviewers.		In a statement to the House of Commons, DLUHC Secretary of State Michael Gove, said: “I would like to thank the reviewers for the comprehensive and thorough assessment of the current system and for their report and recommendations. We recognise that more needs to be done and are carefully considering the recommendations put forward by the independent reviewers.

Editor at 05:21, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T05:21:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 24 April 2023
Line 38:		Line 38:
	Susceptibility to failure of the process is attributable to matters that are either (a) systemic or (b) relate to individual conduct and performance.		Susceptibility to failure of the process is attributable to matters that are either (a) systemic or (b) relate to individual conduct and performance.

−	== Systemic issues ~~include:~~ ==	+	== Systemic issues ==

	(1) Coverage. Only construction products with a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation, anecdotally one-third of all construction products approx 20-30,000 products unregulated.		(1) Coverage. Only construction products with a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation, anecdotally one-third of all construction products approx 20-30,000 products unregulated.
Line 78:		Line 78:
	However, if genuinely diagnostic, workable and legally robust criteria can be set for categorising products in certain applications as safety-critical (and the creation of such a distinct and comprehensive category covering all higher risk products matching those criteria is made an objective), then we believe that it would put the regulatory focus where it should be: on the potential for serious harm.		However, if genuinely diagnostic, workable and legally robust criteria can be set for categorising products in certain applications as safety-critical (and the creation of such a distinct and comprehensive category covering all higher risk products matching those criteria is made an objective), then we believe that it would put the regulatory focus where it should be: on the potential for serious harm.

−	Missing ~~elemenst~~ of proposed legislation	+	= Missing elements of proposed legislation =

−	(1) Government, UKAS and ~~the oversight of~~ CABs~~. Report would have~~ expected more definitive understanding of what might have gone wrong in ~~the~~ process that led to ~~failures at the~~ Grenfell Tower, ~~insofar as that might relate to~~ conformity assessment~~. A~~ more ambitious role for UKAS.	+	(1) Government, UKAS and CABs, expected to have given more definitive understanding of what might have gone wrong in process that led to Grenfell Tower, in terms of conformity assessment, possible more ambitious role for UKAS.

	(2) The purpose of UKCA marking. Freedom to develop standards to suit national priorities, a mark that signifies conformity with those standards could stand as a mark of safety, or quality, or whatever those priorities might be.		(2) The purpose of UKCA marking. Freedom to develop standards to suit national priorities, a mark that signifies conformity with those standards could stand as a mark of safety, or quality, or whatever those priorities might be.
Line 90:		Line 90:
	(5) Product manufacturers. There are also two significant opportunities for self-regulation on the part of product manufacturers:- increased use of voluntary third-party certification schemes and Code for Construction Product Information developed by the industry.		(5) Product manufacturers. There are also two significant opportunities for self-regulation on the part of product manufacturers:- increased use of voluntary third-party certification schemes and Code for Construction Product Information developed by the industry.

−	(6) Government procurement. Government should use its buying power as an incentive to adopt good practice by setting out how the following could be accepted as criteria in consultant, contractor or product selection:-	+	(6) Government procurement. Government should use its buying power as an incentive to adopt good practice by setting out how the following could be accepted as criteria in consultant, contractor or product selection.

−	* designers and contractors demonstrating how they propose to produce safe building	+	(7) A joint Government/industry action plan. The success of the Building Safety Act depends upon a certain amount of “machinery” being in place, most of which should primarily be the business of industry, but which will call for a continuing engagement by Government. with traing and awareness.
−	* outcomes, approaching the building as a system;	+
−	* designers specifying and contractors procuring products from suppliers who are	+
−	* committed to complying with the Code for Construction Product Information;	+
−	* contractors signing up to the Building A Safer Future Charter and committing to verification.	+
−		+
−	(7) A joint Government/industry action plan. The success of the Building Safety Act depends upon a certain amount of “machinery” being in place, most of which should primarily be the business of industry, but which will call for a continuing engagement by Government.	+
−		+
−	* an awareness/education programme to reconnect the world of design and construction with ~~the world of standards, testing~~ and ~~certification, and to promote~~ awareness ~~of the process by which products are regulated and assessed for conformity;~~	+
−	* the prioritised review of product and testing standards including the development of new standards where necessary, the elimination of flaws and inconsistencies in existing standards and the means by which standards are developed and kept up to date	+

	(8) Body of knowledge. The safety of a building does not just relate to fire, and issues relating to structure are as important. However, the body of knowledge about fire in particular is as fragmented and dispersed as the many organisations engaged in this specialism. This body of knowledge needs to be pulled together as part of the joint action plan, made accessible and kept under review, with a centre of excellence and the public interest at its core.		(8) Body of knowledge. The safety of a building does not just relate to fire, and issues relating to structure are as important. However, the body of knowledge about fire in particular is as fragmented and dispersed as the many organisations engaged in this specialism. This body of knowledge needs to be pulled together as part of the joint action plan, made accessible and kept under review, with a centre of excellence and the public interest at its core.
Line 139:		Line 130:
	* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.		* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.

−	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]	+	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Policy]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]]

Editor at 05:17, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T05:17:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 24 April 2023
Line 126:		Line 126:

	Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”		Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”
		+
		+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =
		+
		+	* ACM cladding.
		+	* Building safety bill.
		+	* Building Safety Regulator.
		+	* Grenfell Tower articles.
		+	* Grenfell Tower Fire.
		+	* Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
		+	* Grenfell Tower working group.
		+	* Hackitt review..
		+	* Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.

	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]		[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]

Editor at 05:16, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T05:16:53Z

Show changes

Editor at 03:56, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T03:56:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:56, 24 April 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	= In brief =

		+	The long-awaited Independent Review of the Construction Product Testing Regime has been published by the DLUHC, and was led by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day.
		+
		+	The review provides widespread criticism of current systems, including the existing Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which was set-up in 2013 through European regulations and currently regulates UK construction products. It highlights that currently some 20,000-30,000 products remain unregulated.
		+
		+	“The most obvious gap in the current system is that only construction products for which there is a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation”. The review was primarily instigated, following the Grenfell disaster, to examine the UK’s system for testing the safety of construction products and key messages are
		+
		+	"Many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent." P. Morell
		+
		+	= Background =
		+
		+	June 2017, an independent review into the building regulations and fire safety was commissioned by the government directly following the Grenfell tragedy.
		+
		+	December 2017 the interim findings of what was known as the Hackitt review were published.
		+
		+	May 2018 the final report 'Building a Safer Future’ by Dame Judith Hackitt, often referred to at the Hackett report, was published and heavily criticised construction product testing regimes and called for a review of these.
		+
		+	July 2020 - the government published in draft the Building Safety Bill setting out reforms to building safety regulation and including provisions to strengthen and extend the scope of the powers available to government to regulate construction products.
		+
		+	January 2021 - the government announced that it would establish a National Regulator for Construction Products to enforce these rules, established within the Office of Product Safety and Standards. The regulator given powers to remove any product from the market that presents a significant safety risk, prosecute and fine any company. It also announced a review to examine how to strengthen the system for testing the safety of construction products.
		+
		+	April 2021 Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick appointed former Chief Construction Adviser Paul Morrell as chair of an independent panel to lead the review along with Anneliese Day QC. Jenrick said: “I am pleased to appoint Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day QC to lead this independent review of the system for testing construction products that will build on the significant progress we have already made to make buildings safer.” Terms of reference https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-the-construction-products-testing-regime
		+
		+	April 2023 "Testing for a Safer Future; An Independent Review of the Construction Products Testing Regime." was published.
		+
		+	= Key Points of the report =
		+
		+	Paul Morrell
		+
		+	The main legislation through which products are currently regulated is the Construction Products Regulations (CPR), implemented in the UK in 2013 through EU regulations, along with a surveillance and enforcement system.
		+
		+	But the 174-page review provides widespread criticism of the current regime.
		+
		+	Current product testing system
		+
		+	It said that “the most obvious gap in the current system is that only construction products for which there is a designated standard are covered by the Construction Products Regulation” which accounts for only one-third of all construction products in manufacture, leaving 20,000-30,000 products unregulated.
		+
		+	The report said that “many standards are outdated, inconsistent or non-existent” while 2020 research on behalf of DLUHC questions “the fitness for purpose of a number of standards critical for testing products for resistance and reaction to fire”.
		+
		+	It added there are “five different routes and up to six steps through the system”, which makes the CPR assessment process so complex that few people properly understand it. There is also “a concerning disconnect between those involved in the assessment process and those who design and construct buildings”.
		+
		+	Meanwhile, enforcement has been “almost totally non-existent”, with no prosecutions under the CPR since it was enacted, and only a limited number of investigations.
		+
		+	Proposed remedies
		+
		+	The Morrell review offers several solutions.
		+
		+	All construction products will be brought into the scope of the current CPR through a ‘general safety requirement’. This is derived from the EU General Product Safety Regulation which will extend its principles from consumer goods to construction products.
		+
		+	Some products not currently covered will be brought into the CPR regime by a new designated standard or by being added to a list of “safety-critical” products to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State.
		+
		+	There will be a new National Regulator for Construction Products, based in the Office for Product Safety within the Department for Business and Trade, who will work with the new Building Safety Regulator, based in the Health and Safety Executive.
		+
		+	The report issued a “call for honesty” on the part of manufacturers and “full disclosure” to the approved body conducting the product assessment, in the declaration of performance, technical information, and all marketing information relating to the product. Any breach of this duty will be an offence subject to new sanctions available to the regulator.
		+
		+	Gove response
		+
		+	In a statement to the House of Commons, DLUHC Secretary of State Michael Gove, said: “I would like to thank the reviewers for the comprehensive and thorough assessment of the current system and for their report and recommendations. We recognise that more needs to be done and are carefully considering the recommendations put forward by the independent reviewers.
		+
		+	“I will also consider how our regulatory regime can ensure that only responsible businesses can make and sell construction products. It is unacceptable that cladding and insulation manufacturers have neither acknowledged their part in the legacy of unsafe buildings in the United Kingdom, nor contributed to the cost of remediating buildings.
		+
		+	“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.”
		+
		+	Industry reaction
		+
		+	Dame Judith Hackitt, who heavily criticised construction product testing in her 2018 report ‘Building a Safer Future’, said the Morrell review “marks a major step forward in mapping the complexity and opacity of the current construction product regime and also identifies ways in which significant improvements can and should be made”.
		+
		+	She added: “We must move from a state where: up to two-thirds of products are unregulated, there is lack of clarity around purpose of testing, the fitness for purpose of current standards is questioned and there is no enforcement to implement a process that delivers quality and confidence.
		+
		+	“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.”
		+
		+	Last month, Hackitt set out a new performance framework for construction products and told CM, “there is a high level of consistency with our framework and Paul’s report”.
		+
		+	Eddie Tuttle, director of policy, external affairs and research at CIOB, said: “This report is welcome and is clear that the testing regime for construction products must be effective to reassure the public. The failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy are all too apparent and this report makes it clear that change is necessary.”
		+
		+	Background the review

	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]		[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]

Editor: Created page with " Category:Articles_needing_more_work"

2023-04-24T03:35:06Z

Created page with " Category:Articles_needing_more_work"

New page

[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]