The Department for Business and Trade announces an indefinite extension to the use of CE marking for UK businesses, but DLUHC (who regulate Construction Products) have indicated that this extension will not apply to construction products.
The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has announced today a package of smarter regulations designed to “ease business burden” that includes recognition of the CE mark in the UK beyond the 2024 deadline. This means British firms will be able to continue the use of CE marking alongside UKCA in perpetuity. But, FIS have been informed that this easement relates only to the 18 sectors that fall under DBT – it does not apply to construction products.
Announcing the change Business Minister Kevin Hollinrake stated:
“The Government is tackling red tape, cutting burdens for business, and creating certainty for firms – we have listened to industry, and we are taking action to deliver. By extending CE marking use across the UK, firms can focus their time and money on creating jobs and growing the economy.”
DLUHC have indicated to the Construction Products Association (who are leading representation on this matter through the Construction Leadership Council) that recognition for construction products will continue until 30th June 2025 ONLY. The rationale offered is that the Government remains committed to ensuring the testing regime for construction products is effective and inspires public and market confidence. DLIHC have indicated that they will set out their proposals for reform of the construction products regime in due course.
Commenting on this announcement FIS CEO Iain McIlwee stated:
“The logic is hard to follow here. All the arguments about red-tape, business burden, avoiding cliff edges and refocussing on innovation and growth that apply are replicated, even magnified, in the construction sector. The unnecessary re-testing of product that transitioning to UKCA necessitates is a waste of resource and, particularly in the case of fire safety, precious furnace time. The Government talk about pragmatism, but this is not extending to construction and that is disappointing and frustrating in equal measure. I only hope that “due course” considers, but doesn’t conflate the need to focus on product safety, which is a very separate and significantly more important issue to address.”