Hackitt Review: Industry reactions

British Safety Council 

In a statement, The British Safety Council said that while it welcomed many of the report's recommendations, it had several concerns too. One was around the practicalities of creating a joint competent authority (JCA) to oversee fire and building safety. 

The Council said that this would require collaborative working across three separate regulatory functions and three responsible government departments, at a time when resources are already stretched. It also questioned the proposal to fund the JCA through a cost-recovery programme. 

In a statement it said: "There is a widespread feeling that the HSEs fee for intervention programme has significantly damaged relationships with duty holders and established a ‘parking ticket’ approach to regulation. We are also concerned that a chargeable regime could also introduce new non-regulatory burdens or ‘blue tape’."

The British Safety Council also said that it had "significant concerns" about the effectiveness of ‘self-certification’ schemes for building standards, and urged consideration of appropriate regulatory oversight in this important area.

"We propose that the sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences should also be extended to cover fire and building safety," it said.

Making guidance and monitoring the sole responsibility of industry bodies was another concern outlined by the Council. It suggested that it would be more effective to adopt a model similar to the one in place for health and safety, with a lead from the regulator.   

The review's recommendation for a digital record to serve as a lifelong log for each building was also questioned, as the public sector has "a poor record for roll out of large scale technology projects, and care should be taken to apply previous learning to inform this work".

Louise Ward, policy standards and communications director at the British Safety Council, said: “The inquiry’s recommendations, drawn on the principles established under the Health and Safety at Work Act, are ambitious and far reaching; they set the right tone for a new regulatory system that will be fit for purpose in 21st century Britain.

“The government should extrapolate this robust, effective and proven regime to inform the developing theme of residents safety. We feel that the adoption of a risk-based goal-setting model is appropriate and will underpin proportionality and flexibility. We urge the government to set an ambitious timeline for a second phase of work, which should extend to other buildings.”  

IOSH

The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) has urged the UK Government to act swiftly to implement the recommendations made in Dame Judith Hackitt’s review into building regulations and fire safety – adding that “lives are at stake”.

Richard Jones, head of policy and public affairs at IOSH, said that the plan "must be made publicly available and regular updates should be provided".

He added: “The recommended development of a single enforcement agency (the new Joint Competent Authority) should be part of this. The importance of effective enforcement cannot be overstated. It will help drive up standards, naming persons responsible so they understand that they are accountable.

“The Review’s recommendation of a new regulatory framework proposes stronger oversight of duty holders so they’re clear about, and they meet, required standards. If this does not happen, sanctions should be imposed, but in today’s report there is no indication as to what these may be.

“We suggest, in the interests of providing greater deterrence to non-compliance, they could be linked to the Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences sentencing guidelines.”

Jones added: “Concerns have been raised about there being no outright ban on combustible cladding and the Government have announced that they will consult on this.

“We need to see a culture change to ensure public confidence. We need to overcome the long-standing problem of pressure being put on designers and contractors to deliver in unrealistic timeframes, leading to cost- and corner-cutting.

“Fire safety must be ‘designed-in’ from the outset in all construction projects. This good practice will reduce costs further down the line."