Dame Judith Hackitt has said she was “truly shocked” by standards in the construction industry when researching her report, Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, published earlier ths year.
She also warned that another “catastrophic event” cannot be ruled out if regulatory changes aren’t made.
Hackitt was speaking at IOSH 2018, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s annual international conference. She told delegates that she encountered construction companies trying to do things as cheaply as possible rather than worrying about quality when she embarked on her review after last year’s Grenfell Tower disaster.
She added that it was vital a culture change was implemented as soon as possible while Grenfell was still fresh in people’s minds.
Hackitt said: “When I looked from the outside into standards in the built environment, what I encountered was truly shocking. The system for fire safety in high-rise and complex buildings was weak and ineffective.
“People actually said things like ‘we always knew something like this would happen’. They knew the system wasn’t working but didn’t know how to fix it. There was a race to the bottom. Companies were looking to do things as cheap as possible, getting around the rules. It was about cost, not quality.
“Unless we fix the system, we have no way of guaranteeing that there won’t be another catastrophic event.
“We need to get to a point where people those who construct a building are as responsible for those who use it over the next ten or 20 years as they are employee safety. What we are calling for is collaboration and joined-up thinking across the built environment sector, not self-interested groups protecting their own turf, something I have seen a lot of.”
Hackitt said some industry groups and the government are already looking at how to implement some of the measures recommended in her final report, including bringing together bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, local authority building control and fire and rescue authorities and having the same risk-based approach as there is across other industries.
But there also needed to be stronger powers of enforcement, to provide more deterrent to cost-cutting, she added.
“Right now, the level of penalties when people are caught out is not strong enough,” she said. “There is no deterrent.
“We also need a system where people can raise concerns in the knowledge they will be acted on. The same goes for within industry, for example we don’t want people thinking they don’t know who to tell if there are concerns.”
Comments
Comments are closed.
Why penalties and deterrents, this is an opportunity for construction to hand back the design risk. Once in a generation opportunity to tear up design and build contracts. Supervision of quality should lie with professionals, the architects, structural engineers, etc. This won’t happen and why – because the current system is cheap and attracts investment. I do feel for the future construction staff sat in Wentworth wondering where it all went wrong. At very least the conditions for appointing a contractor under the design and build contract should be legislated. There needs to be a pre qual specifically developed for the design and build contract.
Couldn’t agree more. The industry needs to change and change fast.
How many more lives will be lost before we all realize that poor quality standards are unacceptable. The industry needs to work together to improve standards and avoid the race to the bottom.
Benjamin Franklin once said – The bitterness of poor quality is long remembered after the sweetness of a low price is forgotten.
The RIBA have taken steps to propose a complete industry shake-up to eradicate some of the malpractices that have evolved over the last decade or so. The Plan of Work for Fire Safety makes recommendations for changes across the whole design, construction and occupation stages of projects including earlier regulatory gateways. This can be adopted by all participants as an industry protocol for fire safety until a new statutory regime is agreed and legislation introduced. Its success can be monitored to influence any future statutes.
We look for comments from industry to support and refine this cultural shift which in principle reflects a process previously adopted decades ago.
It’s a subject to some fairly simple and straightforward games.
One of them, the Contractor, trying to save money, says to the consultants “show me where it says”. If the consultant cannot show them, or if it isn’t anything but perfectly clear, i.e. there is no scope for opinion, the Contractor then moves onto “it’s ambiguous”, and then demands to be instructed, before arguing and demanding to be instructed. Proceeds to play the same game to the end of the project, possibly avoiding doing the necessary work on the way.
Another tactic is to argue that it doesn’t matter what a regulation says, the contract doesn’t specifically say something so it’s not the Contractors problem.
Or, present information like shop drawings missing a consider number of safety features, then ask for approval. If the Consultant missed it in their review, despite their own drawings, specifications or schedules saying it’s required, then it must be the consultants fault.
Until playing games like this, irritating but at times quite serious, is stopped with heavy fines levied on individuals who are responsible but who manipulate situations to save money, then I don’t see much happening.
Given we are however talking in many cases about clear signs of psychopathy, who are usually adept at manipulating their way around such restrictions, I’m not really clear that is possible either.
It’s not just Hi-Rise buildings. It’s endemic throughout the whole industry. The standards in low rise residential housing is extremely variable.
Having worked as a contractor, yes I’ve played all the games above to an extent. Although when it comes to regulation a competent contractor should have allowed for anything required under the law.
Is anyone here asking about a client’s responsibility? The Client sets the tone for the whole project and retains responsibility for project safety under CDM. In Grenfell’s case It was the Client that VE’d the sprinklers and rockwool-based cladding. I agree that they were badly advised and that the regulations are so lax and vague as to be confusing and virtually worthless. Also remember that Building Control, and the Architect signed the building off. I look forward to some very pointed questions being put to the Client, Contractor and professional team at the Inquiry.
During the 1970’s, The Architect had a – Clerk of Work’s who monitor Building Standards, every working day on Materials, and all building works. Now the contractor have their own, and Certify their Completion Certificate for Building Control.