Construction product testing

Ahead of the publication of the construction products testing review, Paul Morrell gives his general impressions of the existing processes.

Last year I was, with Anneliese Day QC, commissioned by the Secretary of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (as it now is) to conduct a review into the construction product testing regime in the wake of the fire at Grenfell Tower, and some of the evidence emerging in the subsequent Public Inquiry.?

The core question is how the UK system for testing the safety of construction products, and the use of data from the system, could be strengthened to inspire confidence that those products are safe and will perform as labelled and marketed?

We never stop learning, and only fools think they can know it all. As the years advance, however, we do flatter ourselves that we do know the boundaries of our ignorance – at least the outline of knowing what we don’t know. More than 50 years after joining the industry, however (and, as the son of a builder, having walked the sites almost as soon as I could walk at all), it came as a real surprise to find just how little I knew about the testing of products, and the trust that can (or cannot) be placed in them.?

Like any specialism, this regime has its own rules and regulations, and its own language, and therein lies the first problem: that those who test and assess products and those who select, specify, install, and use them live in separate bubbles, with only a few people who would be comfortable in both worlds.

As part of the Fire Protection Association's continuing commitment to increase fire safety awareness across the built environment, a number of informative feature articles are available to read on our website.?You can read the full article here.