NEWS New regulator may not be set up until 2021


DAME JUDITH Hackitt, who will oversee the new building safety regulator, has admitted that it is ‘not likely’ to be operating until 2021. The new regulator will be sited within the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and was to be ‘established immediately’, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick adding that the regulator will ‘give effective oversight of the design, construction and occupation’ of high risk buildings, as part of the HSE, which will ‘quickly begin to establish’ it ‘in shadow form immediately’, prior to establishment with legislation. The regulator will ‘raise building


safety and performance standards’ and oversee a ‘new, more stringent regime’ for higher risk buildings, and Dame Judith will chair a board to ‘oversee the transition’. The HSE was chosen for its ‘strong track record of working with industry and other regulators to improve safety’, and would ‘draw on experience and the capabilities of other regulators to implement the new regime’. However, Building reported on comments by Dame Judith that the regulator is ‘not likely to be up and running until 2021’, stating that the legislation that will underpin its formation ‘will not make it on to the statute books until next year’. She said that she was ‘determined’ to get it running in shadow form ‘as soon as possible’, and noted that its scope was ‘likely to be wider than originally envisaged’. She stated: ‘We get that the sooner people have certainty around what this is going to look like the better, so we really do want to start operating in shadow mode more quickly than waiting for the regulation. Even though the bill will be laid before Parliament this year, it’s going to be sometime in 2021 at least before the act is on the statute book.’


On the scope of projects to


be covered by the regulator, she added that these would ‘move beyond just high-rise residential buildings’, with those falling under the new regime to be determined by a range of risk factors and


a lack of real drive and collective commitment to make this happen. I still get this strong sense that this industry is waiting to be told what to do by this regulator. And I don’t know why. Because you know what you need to do. And I believe you can get on with it. I believe it is folly not to get on with it.’ During her review of building


the government having already broadened its scope by proposing the regulator cover buildings taller than 18m, ‘compared to the 30m originally proposed’. Dame Judith pointed out that


this was ‘not going to be based on height alone. It is about the number and the vulnerability of the people who are exposed to risk, that is what this is all about’. She also noted: ‘They [HSE] don’t tell you what to do. They ask you to demonstrate what you are doing, what is reasonable and what is practical. ‘You have every reason to


expect that they are going to operate in exactly the same way in relation to buildings. You also know how they [HSE] operate in terms of them being a firm but fair regulatory body – it won’t be a minor rap across the knuckles when you get it wrong any more.’ Building later reported on


Dame Judith’s comments at a construction industry conference, where she said that that sector ‘lacks the leadership to make the necessary changes to make itself safe’, while its common practices were ‘jaw-dropping’. She also claimed that the sector fell back on ‘excuses’ to justify an inability to improve, and complained that change was ‘happening too slowly’. She commented: ‘There are people who are already making moves and who are already doing the right things. But my observation would be that there’s not enough of it, there’s a lack of leadership, there’s


regulations and fire safety post Grenfell, she had found some of the practices undertaken industry wide ‘jaw-dropping’, while the lack of proper change management on projects was ‘nothing short of gob- smacking’, adding: ‘When people say to me things like “the architect’s not allowed on [the building] site”, I’m like, “What? Why? What’s going on?” Why would you exclude someone who came up with the concept [of a building] in the first place, unless you’re trying to cheat.’ Noting also that the industry’s


‘fragmentation’ – with tens of thousands of businesses across ‘multiple layers’ of subcontracting ‘even [on] small jobs’ – was used as an excuse ‘too often’ for not taking fire safety more seriously’, she called for less ‘adversarial practices’ and for recognition that project teams should collaborate around a ‘collective purpose’. Dame Judith continued: ‘We need a culture change in this industry. You need to care about the buildings that you are in the supply chain for. You need to care that the people who are going to live in them and work in them and sleep in them feel safe and are safe. Until you care, this system will not change and will not work. ‘There’s too many excuses and the one I hear more often than not is that this is such a fragmented industry. Well perhaps you need to change the level of fragmentation within the industry.’ She concluded by noting that


the current system of individuals and firms taking out professional indemnity insurance ‘wasn’t working in the interest of projects’ clients’, and called for more use of collective project insurance


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2020 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60