黑洞社区

The housing minister has promised that the government鈥檚 response to the Morrell report on construction product testing is to come soon but refused to say exactly when. 

Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day鈥檚 landmark review, published last April, was ordered in the wake of shocking evidence from material manufacturers who testified at the Grenfell Inquiry. 

The 174-page report sets out plans for sweeping reforms which would bring construction products under the scope of the new National Regulator for Construction Products, which currently oversees just a third of all construction products in manufacture. 

As long ago as last July, industry bodies such as the Construction Products Association were asking for clarity from the government on when it would begin to action the recommendations of the review. 

In a letter to a Labour MP last summer, Morrell himself raised concerns that the lack of a full government response to his report could 鈥渇reeze the progress that might otherwise be made by the industry in improving the safety of products and their applications鈥� and said he hoped Michael Gove would announce a date for a 鈥渟ubstantive response鈥�. 

But appearing in front of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, Lee Rowley refused to be drawn on a specific timeline. 

He called the report a 鈥渧ery substantive document鈥� and promised the department would begin laying out its plans 鈥渟oon鈥� but noted that this 鈥渕ight be multi-stage rather than a single document鈥�. 

Explaining the complexity of reforming the regulatory framework, he gave the example of a simple construction product like a screw or a nail. 

Rowley said the system has to be built to effectively oversee the use of such products in complex and safety-critical contexts, while not becoming overburdensome to ordinary consumers.  

>>See also: 黑洞社区 bridges: how Paul Morrell would fix our broken products testing system 

>>See also: What you need to know about Morrell鈥檚 鈥榮eminal鈥� review into products testing

鈥淲e have also got to make sure that when my Dad buys a pile of nails to knock into a fence, we are not creating a disproportionate requirement upon the product manufacturers to give a whole heap of information for something which is not safety critical,鈥� he said. 

鈥淭hat is a very challenging balance to strike [鈥�] I鈥檓 hoping we are going to be able to come out with further information very soon鈥�. 

The minister also promised that 鈥渋n the coming weeks鈥� he would release research commissioned by the department in 2020 into more than 3,000 product standards associated with testing. 

鈥淲e are going to release that, there is no reason not to, I鈥檓 not sure why it is not [public] already,鈥� he said. 

Asked by one committee member why the promised establishment of a Construction Products Standards Committee had been delayed, Rowley said the original purpose of the committee had been 鈥渟uperseded鈥�. 

Chandru Dissanayeke, director of regulatory reform at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, explained that its original purpose was to give advice on whether instances of EU product harmonisation should be adopted into UK law too, but that this role had ultimately been taken by the Office for Product Safety and Standards. 

鈥淭he idea of an independent committee is not something we have necessarily parked,鈥� said Dissanayeke.  

鈥淚t is part of our ongoing thinking and reform, but we want to do that in conjunction with the national construction products regulator and make sure that sits well within an overall system of oversight鈥�. 

Asked whether the practice of product manufacturers 鈥渟hopping around鈥� for testing centres that will approve their products was widespread, Dissanayeke said there was 鈥渘o evidence for this. 

However, he admitted there was a 鈥渃onflict of interest鈥� where test houses are 鈥渦nwilling to share information where they knew products were bad because they were subject to commercial confidentiality agreements鈥� and said the department was looking at this issue.