NFRC Response to General Safety Requirement Consultation

The views set out here reflect feedback gathered from across our membership during a webinar held on 12 May 2026, from written contributions submitted by members ahead of that event, and from NFRC's own policy analysis. We have coordinated with our supplier and contractor members throughout, and the positions set out below seek to represent the breadth of interests within our membership, including those who manufacture, distribute, specify, and install roofing and cladding products. 

NFRC broadly supports the objectives of these reforms. The Grenfell Tower tragedy made clear that the construction products regulatory regime was not working. We accept the need for substantive change, and we are committed to engaging constructively to help make that change effective. However, the strength of our support is conditional on the reforms being properly proportionate, being supported by adequate guidance and lead-in time, and being implemented in a way that does not disproportionately burden SMEs or expose contractors to liabilities they cannot reasonably discharge. 

Question GSR Q1: Do you agree that previously used products should be regulated in the same way as new products, unless the exemption applies? 

NFRC Response: Neither agree nor disagree, with qualifications. 

NFRC understands the logic of applying the GSR to previously used products that re-enter the market. However, we have significant concerns about how this will operate in practice within our sector. Roofing in particular includes a meaningful volume of reclaimed and salvaged materials, particularly slates, plain clay tiles, and natural stone, that are reused in refurbishment, heritage, and listed building projects. These materials are bought and sold by salvage merchants, specialist suppliers, and occasionally by building owners directly. The practical reality is that many such products cannot 'reasonably meet the highest safety standards' as the consultation specifies, but the proposed exemption, which requires a product to have been 'previously installed into construction works and clearly marketed as a used product requiring repair or reconditioning before use', is narrow and may not capture all legitimate use cases. 

We recommend that the exemption be drawn more broadly to include products that: 

• Are clearly marketed as reclaimed or salvaged, even where no explicit reference to repair or reconditioning is made, provided they are sold for use in refurbishment or heritage projects and are not critical to safe construction. 
• Are being re-used in the same building or structure from which they were salvaged, where the original performance characteristics are known to the installer and the products are not critical to safe construction. 

We also recommend that guidance be published on how the GSR applies to reclaimed materials used in the refurbishment of historic or listed buildings, where modern tested assemblies may not be available or appropriate, and where Historic England and planning requirements may constrain product choice. 

Finally, we note that roofing contractors are sometimes instructed by clients to reuse existing roofing products during a refurbishment project. Clarity is needed on where the legal responsibility lies if a contractor installs reused products at a client's instruction and those products subsequently fail. The contractor should not bear liability for the intrinsic safety of products they did not select. 

Question GSR Q2: Do you agree with the proposal set out above of an overarching safety requirement on economic operators? 

NFRC Response: Agree, with qualifications regarding the scope of fulfilment service provider and distributor obligations. 

NFRC broadly supports the introduction of an overarching safety duty on all economic operators within scope of the GSR. It is right that all parties in the construction product supply chain should have some responsibility for ensuring that products placed or made available on the market are safe. This is consistent with the principle that safety is the responsibility of the whole system, not just the manufacturer. 

However, we are concerned about the way in which the definition of 'distributor' may bring roofing contractors within scope of the GSR in ways they would not anticipate. The definition includes any party who 'displays products to customers or installers in the course of a commercial activity'. This is a very broad formulation. In the roofing and cladding context, a roofing contractor who shows a product sample to a client may find they have taken on distributor obligations that are more onerous than they realise or will realistically undertake without a major culture change. Clear guidance on where the distributor obligations bite and, in particular, on what 'displaying products' means in practice, is essential. 

Similarly, the definition of 'fulfilment service provider' may capture contractors who warehouse and dispatch products on behalf of manufacturers. Their obligations under the GSR should be limited to verifying the presence and completeness of manufacturer-provided documentation, not to making independent safety assessments or evaluations of the quality of said documentation. This should be explicit in the regulations. 

Question GSR Q3: Do you agree that the measures described as part of the process for assessing risk are reasonable and proportionate? 

NFRC Response: Neither agree nor disagree. The framework is acceptable in principle but requires substantial further clarity, guidance, and a realistic lead-in period. 

NFRC accepts that mandatory risk assessment is a reasonable and proportionate mechanism for ensuring that manufacturers take responsibility for the safety of their products before placing them on the market. The GSR risk assessment framework is broadly sensible. 

Concerns about implementation

However, we have concerns about whether the regime as described will be workable in practice, particularly for SME manufacturers in our sector who have no prior experience of formal regulatory compliance processes. Specific concerns include: 

• The current absence of standardised risk assessment templates or methodology. The consultation states that the government does not intend to prescribe how risk assessments should be conducted, relying instead on guidance from the national regulator and industry standards such as PAS 2000. While we understand the policy rationale, for SME manufacturers without regulatory experience, the absence of a clear template or methodology creates significant uncertainty. We recommend that the national regulator publish a standard risk assessment template, or at minimum a worked example for common product types, as early as possible and well before the GSR comes into force. Alternatively, the regulator should work closely with trade associations to encourage development of these templates. Numerous NFRC Members stated that they consider it essential that the regulator issues templates for risk assessments.  
• Monitoring of CABs' approach to risk assessments. The consultation notes that no standardised risk assessment methodology is prescribed. It does not, however, address how enforcement authorities will assess the quality and adequacy of risk assessments submitted by manufacturers. Without a standardised approach, there is a risk of inconsistent enforcement, where manufacturers face different expectations depending on which CAB or trading standards authority reviews their documentation. 
• The requirement to review risk assessments in response to new foreseeable safety risks, product changes, or incidents is reasonable in principle. However, the practical implications for manufacturers of roofing products, where a product may be installed in a very wide variety of combinations, substrates, and orientations across many building types, must be acknowledged. The guidance must clarify what constitutes a change significant enough to trigger a review and how a manufacturer should document the outcome of a review. 
• There are also concerns about the inclusion of a requirement to list where a product cannot be used. Numerous NFRC Members expressed that it should simply be stated that the product must not be used for any purposes other than those stated in the document unless written authorisation is acquired from the supplier/manufacturer. This must be balanced against manufacturers narrowing the scope of their product applications to avoid liability, but this may happen naturally if they wish to avoid constant requests for said written authoritsation.  

Recommendations on risk assessment templates

We note that trade associations are better placed than individual manufacturers to develop sector-specific risk assessment templates that reflect the real-world conditions of use of their members' products. NFRC would welcome the opportunity to work with the national regulator to develop a roofing and cladding sector-specific risk assessment framework as part of the implementation process.

Timing

We reiterate our concern about the proposed commencement date for the GSR. Guidance on the risk assessment process must be published at least 12 months before commencement. Given the scale of the sector, and given that many manufacturers will be engaging with formal risk assessment processes for the first time, we submit that the GSR should not come into force before 2028 at the earliest.

Question GSR Q4: Do you think the above list of criteria for product information is proportionate, as well as sufficient to support decisions to select the right product? If not, what further information do you think would be helpful? 

NFRC Response: Yes, broadly proportionate. 

NFRC broadly supports the proposed product information requirements. Clear, accurate, and complete product information is a prerequisite for safe product selection and installation. We note, however, the following qualifications: 

Focus on intended use rather than listing restricted uses

Several NFRC members have noted that the requirement to provide 'guidance on where or how the product should not be used', while understandable in principle, risks creating an open-ended obligation that is impossible to discharge in practice. It is not possible to outline every situation in which a product should not be used; the universe of inappropriate applications is effectively unlimited. We recommend that the primary obligation be on the manufacturer to clearly define the intended use of the product and the conditions in which it has been assessed as safe, or which are assumed to be safe (i.e. under less intensive scenarios with different surrounding materials). This is a more workable approach than attempting to list all restricted uses. 

COSHH and safety datasheets

The consultation does not address where COSHH safety datasheets sit within the product information requirements for the GSR. A significant number of roofing and cladding products have COSHH obligations. The GSR product information requirements should be designed to be consistent with, and not duplicate, existing COSHH obligations. Guidance should clarify the relationship between the two regimes. 

QR codes and digital access

The consultation proposes that product labelling include a QR code or other data carrier linking to digital product information. NFRC supports the principle of digital product information, but we have noted concern around digital upkeep. The digital infrastructure behind QR codes must be maintained for the life of the product's availability on the market and for the record-keeping period beyond it. Manufacturers must be clear about their obligations in this regard, and the guidance should address what happens when a company ceases trading or changes ownership. Maintenance of this digital infrastructure will be more burdensome for SMEs who would benefit from dedicated advice on digital upkeep.  

Question GSR Q5: Do you agree with the proposals on product labelling? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

NFRC agrees in principle with the proposed product labelling requirements. Traceability and the ability to identify a product and access its associated information are essential for effective corrective action, enforcement, and accountability. The inclusion of a unique identifier and a data carrier linked to digital product information is a proportionate and modern approach. 

• For products sold in bulk packaging, such as roofing slates, plain tiles, or bagged granules, labelling requirements must be workable at the packaging level rather than requiring individual product labelling, which would be impractical. The consultation acknowledges this for liquids and loose materials; there should be consideration for extending the same flexibility to products sold in packs or pallets. 
• A clear and affordable labelling solution must be available for micro and very small manufacturers who produce limited quantities of specialist products. The cost of commissioning a unique identifier system and QR code infrastructure should not be a barrier to market entry for small, innovative manufacturers. 
• There are numerous concerns relating to labelling for waterproofing products, common in roofing, and the inability of affixing them with a permanent label. Additionally, packaging will typically be discarded after use. In such cases, all information will need to be held in the O&M manual issued upon completion of works. 

Question GSR Q6: Do you agree that the manufacturer should maintain records of such actions for a period of 10 years beyond the last supply of the product? 

NFRC Response: Agree 

The building owner should also be obliged to maintain a copy of the O&M Manual and to make it available to relevant third parties upon request. All regular inspections and maintenance should be included as an annex in the O&M manual, along with records of any alterations or additions to the building. Connecting product information, alongside installation records, directly to the building is the most effective way of tracking important information.  

Question GSR Q7: Do you agree with the proposals for the responsibilities of importers? 

NFRC Response: Agree 

Question GSR Q9: Do you agree with the proposed requirements on importers to retain records as set out above? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

Question GSR Q10: Do you agree with the proposed requirements on distributors as set out above? 

NFRC Response: Agree, but with concerns about the scope of who constitutes a 'distributor'. 

NFRC supports the principle that distributors, including merchants, should verify that manufacturers and importers have met their GSR obligations before supplying a product. This is a proportionate role in the supply chain and does not require distributors to make independent technical assessments of product safety. 

However, as noted in our response to Question GSR 2, the definition of 'distributor' is broad and may catch parties who would not consider themselves to be distributors in a meaningful sense. Roofing contractors who purchase products and install them are not distributors, and the regime must be clear that their obligations relate to correct installation, not to product distribution. The guidance must set out clearly where the distributor obligations end and the contractor obligations begin, and must address the common scenario where a contractor purchases products for a specific project and installs them directly without reselling them. 

Question GSR Q11: Do you think the requirement of creating records of purchase and supply and retaining such records for 10 years to allow for traceability is proportionate? 

NFRC Response: Yes. Proportionate in principle but this will be burdensome for some smaller businesses. 

The guidance should address what form these records must take, whether a simple purchase order or delivery note is sufficient, or whether a more detailed record is required. 

Question GSR Q12: Do you agree with the proposed requirements on fulfilment service providers as set out above? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

We emphasise, however, that the obligation on a fulfilment service provider must be limited to checking the presence and transmission of manufacturer-provided documentation and labelling, rather than making technical judgements about GSR compliance. 

Question GSR Q13: Do you agree that we should require economic operators to make sure that the way they store, or transport, products does not cause them to become unsafe? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

For roofing and cladding products which already sit within harmonised standards, specific storage and transportation requirements already exist in manufacturer guidance for a wide range of products. Membranes must be stored at appropriate temperatures; slates and tiles must be palletised and banded to prevent breakage; liquid products have shelf-life requirements, for example. The GSR product information requirements should require manufacturers to provide clear storage and transportation guidance.  

Question GSR Q14: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals for economic operators to monitor construction products that have been placed on the market? 

NFRC Response: Agree, with concerns about how this will be executed.  

NFRC agrees that manufacturers and importers should monitor the safety of products they have placed on the market and should investigate and record complaints and safety incidents. This is a reasonable and necessary element of the overarching safety duty and is consistent with post-market surveillance obligations in other product safety regimes. 

We also note that distributors and merchants are required to 'assist manufacturers and importers' by passing on information about safety issues and complaints. The guidance must set out clearly what this obligation entails in practice (how information should be passed on, to whom, and in what timeframe) so that distributors understand what is expected of them and manufacturers have a reliable mechanism for receiving market intelligence. Otherwise, there is a risk that, if everyone is expected to monitor products once they are on the market, no one will do so properly.  

Question GSR Q15: Do you agree that economic operators should have a duty to co-operate and carry out actions when they are asked to by an enforcement authority? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

Question GSR Q16: Do you agree that enforcement authorities should be able to accept an undertaking instead of taking formal enforcement action? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

Question GSR Q17: Do you agree with the proposal to introduce civil monetary penalties for non-compliance with requirements under the GSR? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

The level of civil monetary penalties must be calibrated to the size and financial capacity of the business concerned. A penalty that is immaterial to a large manufacturer may be ruinous for an SME. The factors to be taken into account when setting a penalty amount, as set out in the consultation, include company size and financial capacity, which is a necessary and appropriate safeguard. 

Question GSR Q18: Do you agree with the proposal to not extend powers to issue civil monetary penalties to LATS under the GSR, recognising their reduced role in enforcing construction product regulations? 

NFRC Response: Agree. 

NFRC agrees with the proposal to not extend civil monetary penalty powers to local authority trading standards under the GSR. NFRC has consistently highlighted the limited capacity, expertise, and resources of LATS in relation to construction product enforcement, and the Green Paper and White Paper both acknowledge this. Providing LATS with civil penalty powers without the expertise and resources to exercise them proportionately and consistently would create a risk of inconsistent and potentially unfair enforcement outcomes across different local authority areas. 

Question GSR Q20: Do you have views on whether LATS should have powers to issue cost recovery notices, as well as the national regulator for construction products? 

NFRC Response: No.

Read NFRC's Response to Construction products Reform White Paper here.