National Federation of Glaziers

14/05/2026

10/05/2026

✭✭✭✭✭✭From Anthony Jones at NFG✭✭✭✭✭

Net Zero vs Reality: When Regulation Becomes the Problem, Not the Solution
National Federation of Glaziers – Policy Position
The UK accounts for just 1–1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet continues to pursue one of the most aggressive regulatory regimes in the world. Since 1990, emissions have already fallen by more than 50%—driven primarily by the decarbonisation of electricity generation, not by ever-tightening product regulations.
That success should prompt reflection. Instead, the policy response has been to double down on complexity, as predicted in 2002 when Building Regulations were imposed upon window installations.
For the glazing sector, the message from government is clear: more rules, more reporting, more cost. What is far less clear is whether any of this is delivering meaningful additional environmental benefit.
Against this backdrop, the National Federation of Glaziers (NFG) believes it is both reasonable and necessary to ask: are increasing regulatory demands on the glazing sector delivering proportionate environmental benefit?
A Regulatory System That No Longer Works
Glazing businesses are now expected to navigate an expanding web of requirements: Building Regulations Parts L, F and O, PAS 2035/2030, Environmental Product Declarations, and lifecycle carbon reporting and now the complex Future Homes Standard.
Each initiative is defensible in isolation. Taken together, they form a system that is increasingly incoherent, particularly for SMEs that do not have the luxury of in-house compliance teams.
The most obvious failure is the unresolved contradiction between Part L and Part F. One demands tighter, more energy-efficient buildings; the other requires increased ventilation. Policymakers have created the conflict, but it is installers and manufacturers who are left to absorb the cost, manage the risk, and make it work in practice.
This is not a joined-up but fragmented policy, with the consequences are being offloaded onto the supply chain.
The Reality Gap
There is also a fundamental flaw at the heart of the regulatory model: it is based on how buildings perform in theory, not how they perform in reality.
U-values and thermal metrics are measured under controlled, static conditions. Real homes are neither controlled nor static. Householders open windows, adjust ventilation, and behave in ways no model can fully predict.
Yet policy continues to tighten requirements based upon unrealistic “as-tested” performance, with little regard for “as-used” outcomes.
This raises a serious question: are we regulating for real-world impact, or for compliance on paper?
Pricing People Out of Net Zero
The cost implications are no longer marginal—they are systemic.
For glazing firms, compliance now requires ongoing investment in testing, certification, consultancy, and administration. For SMEs, this is not an inconvenience; it is a growing threat to viability.
Those costs are then passed on to households.
At a time of housing shortages, stalled retrofit rates, and persistent cost-of-living pressures, government policy is actively increasing the cost of energy efficiency improvements. Schemes such as ECO4 (£4 billion funded through levies on energy bills) compound the problem, asking consumers to pay more upfront for measures they may not be able to afford.
The outcome is predictable: reduced uptake, slower retrofit, and a widening gap between policy ambition and delivery.
You cannot deliver net zero by making it unaffordable.
Chasing Marginal Gains at Any Cost
The glazing sector has already delivered substantial gains in thermal performance. Modern glazing systems are dramatically more efficient than those of even 20 years ago.
But the law of diminishing returns now applies. Each additional increment of performance comes at significantly higher cost and complexity.
Policymakers need to confront an uncomfortable reality: the easy gains have already been made. Continuing to push for ever tighter product standards risks chasing marginal improvements at disproportionate cost.
Undermining UK Industry
There is also a broader economic risk that is being ignored.
As regulatory pressure intensifies, so too does the incentive to shift production overseas to markets with lower compliance costs. This is the classic pathway to carbon leakage.
The result? UK manufacturing declines, imports rise, and global emissions remain unchanged—or even increase. This is not climate leadership. It is economic self-harm dressed up as environmental policy.
Time for Political Honesty
The glazing sector supports net zero. It has already played a significant role in reducing emissions and stands ready to do more.
But the current regulatory trajectory is not sustainable.
What is required now is not another layer of regulation, but a fundamental reset—one that prioritises effectiveness over optics and delivery over bureaucracy.
That means:
• Ending the realistic approach to regulation and resolving conflicts such as Part L versus Part F.
• Subjecting new rules to rigorous, transparent cost-benefit scrutiny
• Basing policy on real-world performance, not laboratory assumptions
• Recognising that SMEs and consumers ultimately bear the cost of regulatory ambition
The political establishment must confront a simple truth: more regulation does not automatically mean more progress.
If net zero policy continues to ignore cost, complexity, and real-world behaviour, it will fail—not because the ambition is wrong, but because the approach is.
The risk now is clear. In the name of accelerating delivery, government is putting in place a system that may ultimately prevent it.
Website: www.nfoglon.org.uk
Email: [email protected]
Serving the Glazing Industry and the Consumer since 1991

Discover the National Federation of Glaziers, where excellence and integrity meet. Find professional glaziers near you, join our trusted community, and access high-quality glazing services across the industry.

07/05/2026

WE have taken a position on the current over-regulation we are seeing burdening glazing businesses:

Net Zero vs Reality: Is Regulation Undermining Delivery in the Glazing Sector?
National Federation of Glaziers – Policy Position
The UK is responsible for just 1–1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is pursuing one of the most aggressive decarbonisation agendas in the world. Since 1990, emissions have already fallen by more than 50% driven largely by the transition away from coal and the decarbonisation of electricity generation, not by increasingly complex product-level regulation.
This raises a fundamental question for policymakers: are we now over-regulating at the margins, while missing the bigger picture?
For the glazing sector, an industry that has already delivered major improvements in building energy efficiency, the answer is increasingly obvious. The current trajectory risks imposing disproportionate cost and complexity for diminishing environmental returns.
Against this backdrop, the National Federation of Glaziers (NFG) believes it is both reasonable and necessary to ask: are increasing regulatory demands on the glazing sector delivering proportionate environmental benefit?
A System Under Strain
The regulatory framework facing glazing businesses has expanded rapidly. Building Regulations Parts L (energy efficiency), F (ventilation), and O (overheating), PAS 2035/2030 retrofit rules, Environmental Product Declarations, and lifecycle carbon reporting, and the Future Homes Standard.
Individually, each policy has a rationale. Collectively, they are creating a system that is increasingly difficult to navigate, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the majority of the sector.
The most immediate example is the unresolved conflict between Part L and Part F. One drives tighter buildings with lower U-values; the other demands increased ventilation. In theory, these objectives can be balanced. In practice, that burden falls squarely on installers and manufacturers.
This is not smart regulation.
Policy vs Reality
There is also a growing disconnect between how performance is measured and how buildings actually function.
Thermal efficiency metrics are based on controlled test conditions; sealed units, closed vents, stable environments. Real homes do not operate like this. Householders open windows, adjust ventilation, and behave unpredictably. The result is that “as-tested” performance can differ significantly from “as-used” outcomes.
Yet policy continues to tighten targets based on theoretical models, not lived reality.
If regulation is not grounded in real-world performance, it risks becoming an exercise in compliance rather than a driver of meaningful environmental improvement.
The Cost of Complexity
For glazing firms, compliance is no longer a secondary issue; it is a core business cost. Meeting regulatory requirements now demands ongoing investment in technical expertise, certification, consultancy, and administration.
These costs do not disappear. They are passed directly to consumers.
This matters. The UK is already facing a housing shortage, an urgent need to scale up retrofit, and sustained cost-of-living pressures. At the same time, schemes such as ECO4, a £4 billion scheme funded through levies on household energy bills, are adding further financial strain.
The result is predictable: as costs rise, uptake falls.
If energy efficiency measures become unaffordable, they will not be delivered at scale, no matter how ambitious the policy framework.
Diminishing Returns
The glazing sector has already made significant strides. Modern double and triple glazing, low-emissivity coatings, and improved frame technologies have delivered substantial reductions in heat loss.
But as standards continue to tighten, each incremental gain becomes more expensive and more complex to achieve.
Policymakers must now ask a difficult but necessary question: are we still targeting the most effective opportunities for emissions reduction, or are we chasing ever smaller gains at ever greater cost?
Economic Consequences
There are also strategic risks. Increasing regulatory pressure raises the likelihood of carbon leakage, with manufacturing shifting to countries with lower environmental standards.
This does not reduce global emissions; it simply relocates them. At the same time, it weakens UK industry, increases reliance on imports, and undermines economic resilience.
In pursuing net zero, the UK must be careful not to export both its emissions and its manufacturing base.
A Call for Reset
The National Federation of Glaziers supports the UK’s net zero ambitions. The sector has been a key contributor to progress to date and remains committed to improving building performance.
But the current approach is becoming unbalanced.
What is needed now is not more regulation, but better, realistic regulation; grounded in evidence, aligned across policy areas, and deliverable in practice.
This should include:
• Rigorous, transparent cost-benefit analysis before introducing new requirements
• Urgent alignment between Part L and Part F to remove conflicting obligations
• Greater emphasis on real-world performance, not just laboratory metrics
• A policy framework that recognises the operational realities of SMEs and the financial constraints facing households
The glazing sector is not resisting change. It is warning that the current path risks undermining the very outcomes policymakers are trying to achieve.
Net zero will not be delivered through regulation alone, and certainly not through regulation that outpaces practicality.
Without a course correction, there is a real danger that policy designed to accelerate progress will instead slow it—by driving up costs, reducing participation, and limiting delivery where it matters most: on the ground.

15/12/2025

The Government department which oversees the Building Regulations does not see a conflict between Part F and Part L of the Building Regulations!
I suppose if we don’t want to see something we can close our eyes!!
However, there IS a conflict whether acknowledged or not.

To summarise:
Airtightness vs Background Ventilation
Part F recognises that modern buildings are increasingly airtight.
• New double-glazed windows are designed to improve airtightness and energy efficiency
• Installing trickle vents intentionally breaches the airtight envelope
• This conflicts with the wider Building Regulations objective of reducing energy demand (Part L)
Part F allows mechanical ventilation solutions specifically to avoid uncontrolled air leakage while still achieving ventilation targets.
BUT Trickle Vents Provide Uncontrolled and Unreliable Ventilation
Part F requires ventilation that is:
• Continuous
• Effective
• Usable by occupants
In practice:
• Trickle vents rely on wind and temperature differentials
• Airflow is inconsistent and cannot respond to occupancy or moisture levels
• Occupants frequently close vents due to draughts, noise, or cold
Once closed, the dwelling no longer meets Part F intent, despite being “designed” to.
Noise and External Pollution Considerations (Recognised by Part F)
Approved Document F acknowledges that external factors affect ventilation design, including:
• Noise
• Outdoor air quality
• Location (e.g. busy roads)
Trickle vents:
• Reduce acoustic performance of windows
• Allow ingress of noise and pollutants
• Are unsuitable in many urban or roadside environments
Part F does NOT require trickle vents to be installed on “busy urban roads” It is disservice to a customer in that situation to install trickle vents.

Support the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF GLAZIERS.

We continue to hold those responsible for imposing the 2022 Part F amendment on this industry to account and continue our campaign for its amendment and/or withdrawal.

Join us NOW.

Discover the National Federation of Glaziers, where excellence and integrity meet. Find professional glaziers near you, join our trusted community, and access high-quality glazing services across the industry.

20/10/2025

When will we have some common sense regarding trickle vents. Do not install them on busy main roads. They let in noise and vehicle pollution which causes illness.

29/09/2025

As Chairman of the National Federation of Glaziers, I have been asked to take part in a discussion at the Glazing Summit on 9th October.
I hope you will come along!
Here is an article published in the trade press which I hope you enjoy.
"A personal insight from my double-glazing journey; what is important for a successful business.
It was in January 1980 that I first walked into a double-glazing showroom. I had just been made redundant from a career in export/import. I was very fit then and was distributing leaflets to keep income coming in whilst I found another opportunity. It was a new showroom in the area for this company and the new local manager was, unknown to me, looking for sales people. He took the opportunity to ask if I was interested. Although my experience in sales was on the international stage business to business, I gave it try and have never looked back.
Now 45 years later, I wear three business hats: I run a Trade and Consumer Federation, the National Federation of Glaziers, I still work part time leading a family-owned SME in this industry, which I founded 37 years ago and study and lecture in Economics, a subject I became interested in the 1970’s. Some say I am an economist, which given the reputation of the subject these days I only reluctantly admit.
Having these different perspectives is I find helpful when I am asked for a broader view of business success.
From an economic point of view, the conventional approach is based upon ideas that have developed over the last 300 years and have only been challenged by even less successful ideas. We have found ourselves governed by an economic system devoid of morality. There is an obsession with growth and profit maximisation. When we remind ourselves that economics is about people, these are very narrow considerations.
For sure, to grow as a Human Being is certainly useful to ourselves and everyone else; to achieve this by participating in the glazing business is wonderful. So, this brings me to consider conduct in running a sustainable and resilient enterprise. What are the best principles? Is it all about making as much money as possible? Is it to keep our business growing?
In practice, we need profit, but I suggest a reasonable profit. When it becomes an end in itself, it can be seen to lead to unethical practices, such as high-pressure selling. Finding methods to obtain maximum profit from any situation is devoid of a larger view. There is the belief that we achieve so much solely by our own efforts, but the reality is that we need not just customers, we also need good suppliers, loyal and efficient employees and the benefits of the society we live in.
When we see this larger picture, the purpose of our enterprises expands to provide service to all those we work with. Our measure of success broadens and brings fulfilment and possibly real happiness!
There is a growing awareness, I notice of business ethics. What does this entail? Just keeping to the rules? Ticking a few boxes? Producing laudable and impressive company statements? It begins by treating others as we expect others to treat us. Our company has been successful by in practice treating everyone as a friend. Not everyone responds as we would like, but that’s life!
This leads me to my third hat; as Chairman of the National Federation of Glaziers. Here the emphasis is laid on best practice. By that we mean, putting ethics first, acting honestly and placing service first, before profits. It has always been my experience and I know of others that profits follow service, contrary to current economic ideas. Leading or participating in such a business is rewarding, and not solely as a financial transaction.
Over the years, we have seen many enterprises and individuals come and go. Unforeseen events do take place, but more often than not, I notice that those who stay in business for the long term have ethical principles at the heart of their business.
Economic theory has led us to a dysfunctional tax system which taxes individual enterprise and acts as a disincentive to work. It has also placed the placed the profit motive at the heart of our efforts, and even enshrined it in law!
This has led inevitably to much uncivilised behaviour such as the abuse of the Limited Liability Company status, taking excessive dividends from the business, and paying employees the least possible they will accept, not paying suppliers and employees on time as contracted.
What can we do? There are two positive steps that each of us can take. We all know, I suggest what it is to act with integrity and honesty. We need to have the courage to first act under those principles and secondarily refuse to transact with those who do not. Put the profit motive in its place. Do not allow “Economic Growth” be the ultimate measure of success. "

Anthony C Jones
Chairman
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF GLAZIERS

Any comments most welcome.