Nigel Morrey, Technical Director at Promat, discusses passive fire protection, third-party certification and the long-term shift toward competence and accountability in construction

Nigel Morrey, Technical Director at Promat, has been on the frontlines of passive fire protection for more than 30 years.

His career began with a degree in timber technology and early manufacturing work across Africa and Australia, before returning to the UK and entering the cement and board industry—where he first encountered fire-resistant construction materials.

That initial interest led to a development-focused role in passive fire protection by 1992, working with systems used for compartmentation.

In 1994, he joined Cape, a business specialising in passive fire protection, gaining sector-specific experience in complex environments including marine, oil and gas and infrastructure tunnels.

Since 2002, Nigel has been with the Etex Group, taking on the technical director role at Promat, where he leads technical services and the development of fire protection systems.

He formalised his expertise with a Master’s in Fire Safety Engineering from the University of Ulster and is a Fellow of the Institution of Fire Engineers.

Nigel has also played a significant role in shaping the wider industry.

Through his long-standing involvement with the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP)—including roles as council member, chairman and part of the strategy group—he has been instrumental in raising standards and pushing for third-party certification of products and installations.

Recently recognised with the ASFP’s Lifetime Contribution Award, Nigel brings both deep technical knowledge and a long-standing commitment to competence and quality across the industry.

In this interview, he reflects on the evolution of passive fire protection, regulatory changes following the Grenfell Tower tragedy and what still needs to change to ensure buildings are protected by design, not just by regulation.

You’ve spent over 30 years in the industry. How has passive fire protection changed since you first started?

One of the biggest changes has been the introduction and wider acceptance of third-party certification.

In the early 2000s, the industry began to shift away from unregulated practices and towards certified systems.

This was significant in creating a more level playing field and introducing a reliable baseline for product quality and performance.

Certification also provided manufacturers with a way to validate improvements and helped contractors demonstrate compliance.

However, while the technical standards themselves have always been clear, enforcement has historically been inconsistent.

The issue has not been the content of standards, but whether they are followed in practice.

There were warning signs long before Grenfell—such as the Lakanal House fire in 2009, which resulted in six deaths—but recommendations from those investigations were not acted upon.

It took a highly visible and tragic event to prompt systemic change.

We’ve seen progress with legislation such as the Building Safety Act 2022, which introduces accountability through roles like the principal designer and principal contractor.

These roles need to work together, rather than in silos.

Construction has long been adversarial and part of the shift now is about encouraging collaboration to solve problems early.

We’re also seeing a move away from design-and-build models, which often undermine good specification work and towards traditional procurement routes where responsibilities are clearer.

But challenges remain—especially in transitioning to EN standards and adapting to earlier and more detailed design requirements under Gateway Two.

Following Grenfell and legislative updates, what are your views on recent and upcoming fire safety reforms?

I think the intended changes are largely sound and necessary, but we need to be realistic about the scale and timeframe involved.

The draft regulations, the inquiry recommendations and initiatives like the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) all point in the right direction.

However, the transformation required is substantial and will likely take 15 to 20 years, not two or three.

A major constraint is the skills gap.

Delivering on these initiatives requires a workforce with the right competencies—something that doesn’t develop overnight.

While funding and policy are beginning to address training and education, we’re still early in the process.

Manufacturers also face challenges, especially since only a third of construction products are currently covered by harmonised European standards or technical assessments.

As a manufacturer, we’re committed to initiatives like the CCPI and have already signed up through Etex companies such as Promat, FSi and EOS.

Still, uptake across the industry needs to grow.

One key message is that these recommendations should be viewed as minimum requirements.

Responsible manufacturers should be aiming higher—investing in people, testing, certification and standards development.

At the same time, the industry has to accept that doing fire safety properly will cost more.

This means changing the culture of value engineering and recognising that quality has a price.

What are the biggest challenges currently facing the passive fire protection sector?

The biggest challenge is competence—not just individual competence, but competence across every level of the supply chain.

It’s not enough for someone to sit a written exam.

We need people with the right blend of skills, knowledge, experience and behaviour.

That’s the only way to ensure that systems are properly designed, installed and maintained.

We use the acronym SKEB—skills, knowledge, experience and behaviour—to explain what real competence looks like.

At Etex, we support formal training and provide both standardised and bespoke courses in areas like structural protection, ductwork and compartmentation.

We also encourage learning through on-site experience.

But behaviour is key.

Even the best technical knowledge means nothing if the person doesn’t act with responsibility.

Competence includes having the confidence to challenge decisions when something doesn’t seem right—even if it’s not technically part of your job.

Delivering this takes time and money.

It means removing people from site to train them properly and building in opportunities for ongoing learning.

In our business, we’ve created formal pathways that show how individuals can grow in their roles.

That clarity helps with both recruitment and retention.

A business that invests in training becomes more attractive to new talent and more likely to keep the people it already has.

For this to work across the sector, competence needs to be seen as a strategic priority—and it must be discussed at board level.

With new materials and construction methods constantly developing, how does the industry ensure fire safety keeps pace?

Keeping pace requires closer integration between manufacturers, designers and construction teams.

One of the issues is that many modern methods of construction are being retrofitted into a traditional approach and that rarely works.

For modern methods to succeed—whether 2D or 3D prefabrication—the fire safety strategy needs to be considered from the outset.

At Etex, we’ve approached this by combining our manufacturing capabilities with in-house design expertise.

This allows us to think about systems holistically and develop solutions that consider off-site fabrication and fire performance from the beginning.

We still carry out standard fire testing for individual components, but we’re now also investing in integrated testing.

That means understanding how systems perform when combined—such as partitions, ceilings and steel protection coming together in one assembly.

There’s a practical reason for this.

Much of the industry’s fire testing is based on 2D assessments, but in real life, buildings are three-dimensional.

The moment components meet—whether in junctions, service penetrations or structural transitions—new variables are introduced.

We’re seeing more demand for this integrated testing because clients want to know how everything works together, not just in isolation.

For modern methods to gain wider adoption, fire safety has to be designed in, not treated as an afterthought.

Looking ahead, what do you think needs to happen next to improve fire safety in the built environment?

The next step is better enforcement.

We have standards, we have guidelines and we’re improving on both.

What we don’t yet have is consistent, visible enforcement.

The Building Safety Regulator needs to be more assertive.

That means carrying out inspections, pursuing prosecutions and holding senior leaders accountable when failures occur.

Change will only take root when accountability reaches the boardroom.

That’s where decisions about budgets and priorities are made.

Unless directors are made personally responsible for fire safety failings, we won’t see the shift that’s needed.

This mirrors how the Health and Safety Executive improved workplace safety—by showing that non-compliance has real consequences.

Visible prosecutions and fines forced organisations to take responsibility.

In the end, this isn’t about punishing mistakes—it’s about setting a culture where corners can’t be cut without consequence.

We’re still in a transitional period, with a lot of good intentions and new processes being introduced.

But without strong, public enforcement, these improvements risk becoming just another set of recommendations.

Accountability, backed by real action, is what will drive the next phase of change.

This article was originally published in the May 2025 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal – to read your FREE digital copy, click here.