0:00:26 > 0:00:33Good afternoon. Dame Judith welcome to the committee this afternoon. As
0:00:33 > 0:00:39chair of the independent review of building regulations and fire
0:00:39 > 0:00:43safety. To discuss your interim report. Thank you very much for
0:00:43 > 0:00:54coming. Before we get onto questions, I want members to put on
0:00:54 > 0:01:00record any interest they may have I am the vice president of the Local
0:01:00 > 0:01:10Government Association.I'm a fellow of the Royal chartered surveyors.
0:01:12 > 0:01:18That puts on record particular matters that may be relevant. Thank
0:01:18 > 0:01:21you very much for coming this afternoon on what is clearly a very
0:01:21 > 0:01:27important issue following the tragedy at Grenfell. And the
0:01:27 > 0:01:31importance of making sure that we have building regulations in this
0:01:31 > 0:01:36country that are fit for purpose. There are concerns the current ones
0:01:36 > 0:01:40aren't fit for purpose. We haven't had a chance as members of the
0:01:40 > 0:01:43committee to read in detail your report. But we have had a briefing
0:01:43 > 0:01:47about it and look forward to what you have to say in more detail over
0:01:47 > 0:01:53this session. And I think to begin with you would like to begin with an
0:01:53 > 0:01:56opening statement.I would indeed. Thank you very much for that. I very
0:01:56 > 0:02:00much welcome this opportunity to share with the select committee the
0:02:00 > 0:02:04findings debate of my interim review of building regulations and fire
0:02:04 > 0:02:10safety, in particular and now they are applied to high-rise buildings.
0:02:10 > 0:02:13As you said, my interim report was published earlier today. And the
0:02:13 > 0:02:18final report I fully expect to be able to publish in the spring of
0:02:18 > 0:02:242018. At this interim stage of the review I can confirm there is a
0:02:24 > 0:02:28systemic failure here, which needs to be addressed by a significant
0:02:28 > 0:02:33culture change. And which will need to involve the wide range of people
0:02:33 > 0:02:39who are part of the system. That means those who design, build and
0:02:39 > 0:02:43maintain high-rise and complex buildings. It includes regulators
0:02:43 > 0:02:48and policymakers among others. The system that we have in place today
0:02:48 > 0:02:56has evolved. It is overly complex and it is confusing. There is
0:02:56 > 0:03:00confusion about roles and responsibilities throughout. And a
0:03:00 > 0:03:04general lack of confidence in accreditation in many areas. We have
0:03:04 > 0:03:09identified numerous ways in which the system is gained or workaround
0:03:09 > 0:03:14because of these factors. That is how I have concluded that the
0:03:14 > 0:03:18regulatory system is not fit for purpose. In the interim report I
0:03:18 > 0:03:21have been able to outline a direction of travel for the future
0:03:21 > 0:03:25which will lead to a simpler but more effective system, which will
0:03:25 > 0:03:31enable residents to be assured that there are buildings are and will
0:03:31 > 0:03:36continue to be safe to live in. We can start the process of
0:03:36 > 0:03:39implementing this culture change without having to wait for a
0:03:39 > 0:03:44regulatory change to be enacted, if we enlist the support of
0:03:44 > 0:03:48stakeholders. And to that end, this interim report is a call to action
0:03:48 > 0:03:56for those who are being invited to attend a summit meeting on the 22nd
0:03:56 > 0:04:00of January. That invitation is going out as we speak. My work has been
0:04:00 > 0:04:05and will continue to be independent of the public enquiry process, which
0:04:05 > 0:04:09will investigate the details of what happened to cause the tragedy at
0:04:09 > 0:04:15Grenfell Tower in June. However, the regulatory review, I believe, will
0:04:15 > 0:04:19be an important input into that enquiry, and I will be sharing the
0:04:19 > 0:04:24work of the review in full with the enquiry team. Thank you.Thank you
0:04:24 > 0:04:30very much for that. That is a pretty damning comment, I think, but the
0:04:30 > 0:04:37current system and the failings of it and what needs to be put right.
0:04:37 > 0:04:47Do you feel you had a broad enough range of evidence from a broad range
0:04:47 > 0:04:53of different sources, to enable you to get a complete overview of what
0:04:53 > 0:04:58the current system is, its failures and what needs to be put right?I
0:04:58 > 0:05:04do. I feel very confident in that we have had, we issued a call for
0:05:04 > 0:05:09evidence in September. We had more than 250 responses to that call for
0:05:09 > 0:05:15evidence. And in addition to that, I have personally spoken to more than
0:05:15 > 0:05:18300 people during the course of a series of round table meetings that
0:05:18 > 0:05:24we have held. So I think we have got a very good cross sectional view
0:05:24 > 0:05:29from all of the different stakeholders. And what is clear to
0:05:29 > 0:05:33me from all of those responses is a very strong sense from all of those
0:05:33 > 0:05:38that we are at a point where the regulatory system in its entirety
0:05:38 > 0:05:45needs an overhaul.Sometimes when calls for evidence go out, it is
0:05:45 > 0:05:48those with professional knowledge and expertise who can easily access
0:05:48 > 0:05:55the systems and get their evidence in. Others don't know how to go
0:05:55 > 0:05:59about it. Do you feel therefore you got more than the usual professional
0:05:59 > 0:06:05people giving you evidence? In particular have you heard evidence
0:06:05 > 0:06:08from the survivors of the Grenfell tragedy and others closely related
0:06:08 > 0:06:16to it?Bearing in mind that this review has been looking at how
0:06:16 > 0:06:20regulations apply to high-rise buildings in the broader sense, I
0:06:20 > 0:06:27would answer that by saying that we have held, of those round table
0:06:27 > 0:06:31meetings that I referred to, two of those were specifically held for
0:06:31 > 0:06:37residents' groups. We had residents attending those. We had some
0:06:37 > 0:06:42extremely good feedback. We held one in Manchester and one in London. And
0:06:42 > 0:06:46both of those were very well attended, and we got some very good
0:06:46 > 0:06:53input from people. And -- what it was like to be in their position. As
0:06:53 > 0:06:56I have noted in the report, some of that evidence was some of the most
0:06:56 > 0:07:00impact for evidence we have heard about what it is like to be in that
0:07:00 > 0:07:04position and what some of their concerns are.Specifically about
0:07:04 > 0:07:10Grenfell and their survivors?Not specifically about Grenfell,
0:07:10 > 0:07:12although we would have welcomed responses from residents in
0:07:12 > 0:07:18Grenfell. We did write to them on Friday to inform them this report
0:07:18 > 0:07:22was going to be coming out today. And we have offered to talk them
0:07:22 > 0:07:27through it as and when they are ready, if they wish to do so.So you
0:07:27 > 0:07:34didn't have evidence directly from them? Row --?I don't believe so.
0:07:34 > 0:07:40Unless they fed it in through residents associations. We cannot
0:07:40 > 0:07:45trace evidence from people who lived at or near to Grenfell Tower.Right.
0:07:45 > 0:07:48But you are saying now that having produced your interim report, you
0:07:48 > 0:07:55will make a specific effort to contact .Mac --...We have already
0:07:55 > 0:08:03done so. Yes.OK. You also mentioned the relationship with the public
0:08:03 > 0:08:11enquiry. You are independent of that. But he will feed into that. Is
0:08:11 > 0:08:16there anything more that he wants to add about the relationship between
0:08:16 > 0:08:19the public enquiry and the work you were doing, particularly the further
0:08:19 > 0:08:27work you are going to do to produce your final report?As I have already
0:08:27 > 0:08:35stated, the difference, I think, is that this piece of work is
0:08:35 > 0:08:39independent, and is independent of the timing of the public enquiry.
0:08:39 > 0:08:43What I have been asked to do by the Secretary of State is to produce
0:08:43 > 0:08:46some timely recommendations on how the regulatory system can be
0:08:46 > 0:08:51improved. It is my intention to work to the timetable that I was asked to
0:08:51 > 0:08:56meet. I see no difficulty in doing that. We will share all of the
0:08:56 > 0:09:04information with the public enquiry. And I would expect it to inform
0:09:04 > 0:09:07their work. I more than happy to give evidence to them. I anticipate
0:09:07 > 0:09:13having to do so. That is fine. What I have also indicated is that if, at
0:09:13 > 0:09:17the end of the public enquiry, there is a need to look again at the
0:09:17 > 0:09:20recommendations that I have made in the light of the public enquiry, I
0:09:20 > 0:09:26will be happy to do that as well. Your timescale of the -- will not be
0:09:26 > 0:09:30affected by the public enquiry?It will not be affected by the public
0:09:30 > 0:09:37enquiry. My report will be published in the spring. And will make
0:09:37 > 0:09:41recommendations for how the regulatory system can be adjusted.
0:09:41 > 0:09:52The timing for implementation of that, clearly, rests with others.
0:09:52 > 0:09:59Amongst the terms of reference for the enquiry is a comparison with
0:09:59 > 0:10:01other international systems. I'm interested to see how you would
0:10:01 > 0:10:07follow that process and what shape that is taking?
0:10:07 > 0:10:12We've done that in a number of ways, including through some professional
0:10:12 > 0:10:18bodies. Early in the process we enlisted the help and support of the
0:10:18 > 0:10:23Royal Academy of Engineering to make contact with engineering experts
0:10:23 > 0:10:28elsewhere in their network to provide us with details of
0:10:28 > 0:10:32regulatory regimes and how they operated elsewhere in the world. The
0:10:32 > 0:10:38team that has been supporting me within DCLG and the Home Office have
0:10:38 > 0:10:44made contact with a number of other Governments, both in European
0:10:44 > 0:10:49countries and also further afield, including Singapore, United Arab
0:10:49 > 0:10:54Emirates and we have met with people wo have been visiting here.
0:10:54 > 0:11:03Including people from Australia. And the United Arab Emirates and
0:11:03 > 0:11:07reviewed in detail their experience of fires in high-rise buildings and
0:11:07 > 0:11:10the details of their regulatory regimes and how they differ from
0:11:10 > 0:11:15ours.Is this a specific stream of work to look at international
0:11:15 > 0:11:19systems where these, particularly where problems have not happened as
0:11:19 > 0:11:24well as places where these things have happened?It's been a specific
0:11:24 > 0:11:32stream of the review. And there is specific texts within the interim
0:11:32 > 0:11:36report that identifies some of the findings so far and we will revisit
0:11:36 > 0:11:40that again in due course when we come on to the next phase of this
0:11:40 > 0:11:46process which is when we will start to look at what a revised regulatory
0:11:46 > 0:11:52regime here in England would look like. I should also add that we have
0:11:52 > 0:11:57spoken and I have visited Wales and we've talked to the Welsh Government
0:11:57 > 0:12:00and we have had detailed conversations with people in
0:12:00 > 0:12:05Scotland as well. Thank you.
0:12:07 > 0:12:13In your report and opening remarks you made clear the current system is
0:12:13 > 0:12:18not fit for purpose. Could you briefly highlight from the six areas
0:12:18 > 0:12:22that you highlighted on both now and the future direction of travel where
0:12:22 > 0:12:29you think the principle problems lie?Of course, I would be happy to.
0:12:29 > 0:12:36First of all, I think it's important to recognise, and as we have stated
0:12:36 > 0:12:41in the report, the regulatory system depends more than what is written in
0:12:41 > 0:12:46statute. How well a regulatory system works depends on the
0:12:46 > 0:12:52regulations themselves. It also depends upon the people who are part
0:12:52 > 0:12:58of the system and how things are interpreted and the whole culture to
0:12:58 > 0:13:02which that regulatory regime applies. So far me the overriding
0:13:02 > 0:13:05requirement of all of this is to drive a culture change but to answer
0:13:05 > 0:13:12your specific questions n the areas of regulations and guidance I was
0:13:12 > 0:13:19told when I started out on this intersize that our regulatory system
0:13:19 > 0:13:24was goals based. What I found is there is a great deal of confusion
0:13:24 > 0:13:28between what is regulation and what is guidance. Many people refer to
0:13:28 > 0:13:34the guidance as the regulations, when it clearly isn't. And for the
0:13:34 > 0:13:42future I would want to see a system that was simpler, streamlined,
0:13:42 > 0:13:46risk-based and proportionate. I don't believe that the guidance, in
0:13:46 > 0:13:51particular, has been writ within the user in mind, at the moment. There
0:13:51 > 0:13:55are too many sections of separate guidance writ no-one tram lines and
0:13:55 > 0:14:01that needs to be -- written in tram lines and that needs to be brought
0:14:01 > 0:14:04together in a coherent fashion, rather than meeting several
0:14:04 > 0:14:10different aspects of safety and making buildings fit for purpose,
0:14:10 > 0:14:13driving that towards a coherent conclusion rather than several
0:14:13 > 0:14:17different answers from different sets of guidance I think would be
0:14:17 > 0:14:23much more helpful to the user. In terms of roles and responsibilities,
0:14:23 > 0:14:30there is a need for greater clarity and less ambiguity in the system.
0:14:30 > 0:14:34I've still to find someone who can point to me and say, that's the
0:14:34 > 0:14:38person doing the work. And that's someone who gets referred to an
0:14:38 > 0:14:43awful lot in the regulations and the guidance, because at any given time
0:14:43 > 0:14:50that could be anybody. What we need is a much clearer and unambiguous
0:14:50 > 0:14:53system with senior people at different stages in the process.
0:14:53 > 0:14:58Remember I am talking not just about the construction phase, but in the
0:14:58 > 0:15:01on-going management of the life cycle of a building. At every one of
0:15:01 > 0:15:05those stages there needs to be a clearly identified individual with
0:15:05 > 0:15:12responsibility. Not having that defuse among numerous people within
0:15:12 > 0:15:15the system because part of the problem currently is that people
0:15:15 > 0:15:19point to others and say, well, I think that is their job, not mine
0:15:19 > 0:15:23and that we have to resolve in the next phase.
0:15:23 > 0:15:27I've said in the report there is a lack of competent throughout the
0:15:27 > 0:15:35system and that's in all areas. In the construction industry, I think
0:15:35 > 0:15:40whilst there are many competent people, the system for identifying
0:15:40 > 0:15:46and differentiating those who are competent from those who are not is
0:15:46 > 0:15:54ineffective. There is also a miss match on the regulatory side between
0:15:54 > 0:15:57where the regulatory system now exists partly in local authorities
0:15:57 > 0:16:02and partly in the private sector. There's a requirement upon those
0:16:02 > 0:16:07inspectors in building control who are in the private sector to have a
0:16:07 > 0:16:12level of competence, which is not reflected in the requirements of
0:16:12 > 0:16:22those who are employed by local authority. Yeltsin -- yet on the
0:16:22 > 0:16:26other hand it is those who take enforcement, not in the private
0:16:26 > 0:16:30sector. There is a need to raise competence and Level Up between
0:16:30 > 0:16:35those two groups of people as well as creating greater independence.
0:16:35 > 0:16:39That leads me on to my fourth point, which is about the process and
0:16:39 > 0:16:45enforcement of this. We definitely need stronger
0:16:45 > 0:16:50enforcement and more realistic sanctions in this process. Currently
0:16:50 > 0:16:58the disincentive for taking short cuts in the system is, in my view,
0:16:58 > 0:17:02so low that it encourages people to hope they just won't get caught and
0:17:02 > 0:17:06even if they do the worse that can happen is they'll be asked to put it
0:17:06 > 0:17:10right. There are no real penalties in the system. Fifthly, we have
0:17:10 > 0:17:14talked about the need for the residents themselves to have a much
0:17:14 > 0:17:19stronger voice in this process. I said earlier that I was deeply
0:17:19 > 0:17:24impacted by talking to residents and what is quite clear is that they
0:17:24 > 0:17:29don't know who to go to because of the complex ownership models in many
0:17:29 > 0:17:33of the properties that they live in. It's very difficult for them to know
0:17:33 > 0:17:37and particularly to raise some of the sensitive issues that they are
0:17:37 > 0:17:44concerned about. Fear of eviction, fear of saying
0:17:44 > 0:17:47things about their neighbours which may not be kept in confidence as
0:17:47 > 0:17:52well as not knowing where in the system to go and not feeling that if
0:17:52 > 0:17:57they are not heard by their landlord or the building owner, where to go
0:17:57 > 0:18:01after then, really is a mystery to many of them.
0:18:01 > 0:18:06And then finally, my sixth area of recommendation is around quality
0:18:06 > 0:18:10assurance and products. I think again the system there is less than
0:18:10 > 0:18:19clear. Which is a kinder way of putting it. I think there is the
0:18:19 > 0:18:23means of testing results in a result of classifications and products but
0:18:23 > 0:18:27the way which those products are marketed again doesn't help to make
0:18:27 > 0:18:32clear to those using the products which what is suitable for what
0:18:32 > 0:18:34applications and again an intelligent approach to that, which
0:18:34 > 0:18:40is much more aimed at helping the user get the right answer, would
0:18:40 > 0:18:42help to make this system much more effective.
0:18:42 > 0:18:46Thank you for that. Clearly there are lots of issues there. Let me
0:18:46 > 0:18:52perhaps touch on one. In your report under I think item 1.17, you say,
0:18:52 > 0:18:56there is a widespread culture in relation to building and fire
0:18:56 > 0:19:01standards of waiting to be told what to do by regulators rather than
0:19:01 > 0:19:06taking responsibility for building to correct standings. Is that the
0:19:06 > 0:19:10issue in terms of culture change which you feel is important? I
0:19:10 > 0:19:13appreciate there may be others but that issue as to where
0:19:13 > 0:19:17responsibility lies. Is that part of this shifting culture you have
0:19:17 > 0:19:22mentioned?Indeed. I think you've put your finger on one of the key
0:19:22 > 0:19:26points for me, which has been quite a surprise to me in looking at this
0:19:26 > 0:19:33system. Which is the extent to which we have arrived at a place where we
0:19:33 > 0:19:37have a system where somehow Government isn't expected to be the
0:19:37 > 0:19:41one prescribing the detail of what materials can be used where. To an
0:19:41 > 0:19:47industry that ought to be the experts in their own right.
0:19:47 > 0:19:51For me, an effective regulatory regime is one where Government sets
0:19:51 > 0:19:56standards, sets the outcomes that I talked about earlier, but where the
0:19:56 > 0:20:01regulator then ensures that the people doing the work and the people
0:20:01 > 0:20:05who have clear responsibility for that are assessing the risk and
0:20:05 > 0:20:09demonstrating that the materials that they are using are fit for
0:20:09 > 0:20:13purpose. And that shift in responsibility is absolutely
0:20:13 > 0:20:21fundamental to where we need to go. Thank you for that. Can I just ask
0:20:21 > 0:20:23one question about immediate action? You said at the start that you saw
0:20:23 > 0:20:30this as a call to action.Yes.And yet looking at certainly some of the
0:20:30 > 0:20:40other, as it were, major spokesmen in this field, they have argued from
0:20:40 > 0:20:45this moment there should be a ban on come bust table materials, in other
0:20:45 > 0:20:48words, the Government should do something now. I recognise there are
0:20:48 > 0:20:52initial recommendations of some changes here in your report but you
0:20:52 > 0:20:55are not suggesting substantive action by Government at this moment.
0:20:55 > 0:21:01What is the reasoning for that?Main actions I am suggesting Government
0:21:01 > 0:21:08need to take at this point are to revisit the current guidance and to
0:21:08 > 0:21:12simplify it significantly, as a step towards moving that change in
0:21:12 > 0:21:17ownership. But the reason that I don't, I'm not yet at the point of
0:21:17 > 0:21:23picking up those specifics is that I, that would simply replicate the
0:21:23 > 0:21:26flaw that we have just described that if it remains with Government
0:21:26 > 0:21:30to specify what can and can't be used before we have moved people to
0:21:30 > 0:21:37this place where we have a different ownership model, we would simply be
0:21:37 > 0:21:42re-enforcing the current approach rather than taking people on that
0:21:42 > 0:21:47journey to a different ownership model, where the risk and the
0:21:47 > 0:21:51responsibility lies clearly with those constructing the building.So
0:21:51 > 0:21:56is the thinking behind your idea of a summit beginning of next year,
0:21:56 > 0:22:01that a wide range of people who have a responsibility of Government and
0:22:01 > 0:22:05the private sector and indeed local Government, that all of them have to
0:22:05 > 0:22:14gather in your summit - is that the purpose of the summit?Absolutely it
0:22:14 > 0:22:18is. We will look to set up work streams to take those things
0:22:18 > 0:22:22forward, to take forward the industry competency issues, to take
0:22:22 > 0:22:28forward some of those areas of looking at how products are
0:22:28 > 0:22:32marketed. How products are tested and so on. We will look to engage
0:22:32 > 0:22:38industry and Government in taking a number of work streams forward, in
0:22:38 > 0:22:41parallel with us redesigning the overall regulatory frame York.Thank
0:22:41 > 0:22:49you. Just following from the questions, I
0:22:49 > 0:22:54think you referred to an outcome-based system you were
0:22:54 > 0:22:56looking for, rather than prescription. In your direction of
0:22:56 > 0:23:01travel, second point, it should be a shift away from Government solely
0:23:01 > 0:23:04holding the burden for updating guidance, isn't the risk with that,
0:23:04 > 0:23:09we are back to where we are today, was your own interpretations. Isn't
0:23:09 > 0:23:13that something which has gone wrong - people have interpreted the rules
0:23:13 > 0:23:16and therefore it has not been clear what people are supposed to do -
0:23:16 > 0:23:21isn't that one of the difficult tuties?-- difficulties? Yes, it is.
0:23:21 > 0:23:27It is one of the difficulties that the complexity of the current
0:23:27 > 0:23:30guidance is not helpful in terms of people getting to the right answer.
0:23:30 > 0:23:35But let me explain what I mean by that. I mentioned that the guidance
0:23:35 > 0:23:40is writ no-one a number of different -- written in a number of different
0:23:40 > 0:23:45sections. You can read through on fire safety, which will give you
0:23:45 > 0:23:50some indication of materials that you can use. You can read a
0:23:50 > 0:23:55different, completely separate section of the guidance on thermal
0:23:55 > 0:23:58insulation which will give you a different set of, and somehow and at
0:23:58 > 0:24:03some point those things have to be brought together. I envisage a
0:24:03 > 0:24:10system in the future where it will be much easier for those people who
0:24:10 > 0:24:14are specifying those materials to find which materials meet all of
0:24:14 > 0:24:25those criteria at the same time, rather than them either knowingly or
0:24:25 > 0:24:28unknowingly preferring one criteria over another.
0:24:34 > 0:24:40The EU -based system says you can only use noncombustible materials,
0:24:40 > 0:24:46for example. Isn't that open to interpretation?If you look at any
0:24:46 > 0:24:49of the specifics in this and lifted out of the regulation, it looks
0:24:49 > 0:24:55pretty clear. It is only when you look at the map of how this fits
0:24:55 > 0:24:59together that you start to see how complex it is. One of the problems
0:24:59 > 0:25:02currently with this regulatory system we have in place is that
0:25:02 > 0:25:08there is the ability in their to substitute one material for another
0:25:08 > 0:25:14on the basis of what is called a desktop review. The evidence that we
0:25:14 > 0:25:22have gathered indicates that sometimes those desktop reviews of
0:25:22 > 0:25:26substitute materials are done thoroughly. At other times what
0:25:26 > 0:25:30happens is there is material that has been tested and approved. There
0:25:30 > 0:25:36is then a desktop reviewed done that says something else. Another desk
0:25:36 > 0:25:40review happens and is compared with previous desktop reviews and you can
0:25:40 > 0:25:44see how you start to drift away from materials that were thoroughly
0:25:44 > 0:25:49tested and approved for use. So elsewhere in this report you will
0:25:49 > 0:25:59see that we are recommending a real thorough look at how and when
0:25:59 > 0:26:05desktop reviews are allowed within the system. But to come back to your
0:26:05 > 0:26:11original question, which was about how we make this effective, the new
0:26:11 > 0:26:14system will become effective because we will change the way in which it
0:26:14 > 0:26:20is regulated. It will happen because we will focus in the areas of
0:26:20 > 0:26:26highest risk. That's why it needs to be risk-based. So there is no
0:26:26 > 0:26:32intention in my head or in my plan for all of the things that I'm
0:26:32 > 0:26:37suggesting here to be applied to every house that is built. This
0:26:37 > 0:26:41needs to be about multiple occupancy, complex buildings were
0:26:41 > 0:26:46large numbers of people are placed at risk in the event of fire. We
0:26:46 > 0:26:49need a different level of attention in the regulatory arena on those
0:26:49 > 0:26:57sorts of buildings.To summarise your findings, the rules and roles
0:26:57 > 0:27:00are not clear. The assessment of confidence was inadequate and the
0:27:00 > 0:27:05compliance was weak. As well as ascertaining that, did you look at
0:27:05 > 0:27:11how we had arrived at a system like that? It seems incredible that we
0:27:11 > 0:27:18would be in a position like that in 2017. Do you look at how we
0:27:18 > 0:27:27developed that level of inadequacy in terms of how we specify and a
0:27:27 > 0:27:35supervisor building regulations?We have looked at some of that. And I
0:27:35 > 0:27:46allude to some of that in the report. For example, there is
0:27:46 > 0:27:52evidence that we present in the report that shows there was clear
0:27:52 > 0:27:57evidence that the number of deaths in fires prior to Grenfell was
0:27:57 > 0:28:05reducing year-on-year. But perhaps suggests there was an element of
0:28:05 > 0:28:12complacency building in. That people no longer thought that really
0:28:12 > 0:28:18catastrophic incidents the nature of Grenfell Tower could happen. I think
0:28:18 > 0:28:22there is an element of that in there. I think there is also an
0:28:22 > 0:28:24element in here that needs to do with the complex ownership models
0:28:24 > 0:28:31that we talked about earlier. You have residents' associations,
0:28:31 > 0:28:39housing associations, landlords... In all sorts of different ownership
0:28:39 > 0:28:43models. You have high rise buildings were some of the flats are owned,
0:28:43 > 0:28:49some are still rented. So it gets very difficult to assign those
0:28:49 > 0:28:54responsibilities, which is why we have to address all of those issues.
0:28:54 > 0:29:02In terms of looking forward, you will be aware that building owners,
0:29:02 > 0:29:05landlords, people in the construction sector, are keen for a
0:29:05 > 0:29:13clear guidance on how they can move forward, yet you have urged not to
0:29:13 > 0:29:17wait but consider what has already been identified and tested as safe.
0:29:17 > 0:29:23You probably can see that many are reluctant to spend at this point
0:29:23 > 0:29:26until they receive the full outcome of your review. Could you comment on
0:29:26 > 0:29:30what other people do today when they are left with these difficult
0:29:30 > 0:29:37choices?I see no reason at all why people should be waiting at this
0:29:37 > 0:29:40point for further advice on what to do if they are considering replacing
0:29:40 > 0:29:47cladding. The guidance, not from me but from the expert panel on what
0:29:47 > 0:29:54has been tested and what is safe, is clear. It is not ambiguous. There is
0:29:54 > 0:29:58no reason at all why that cannot be followed. The only caveat that I
0:29:58 > 0:30:03have put on that in this report is that in order to put in place a
0:30:03 > 0:30:08system that has integrity, not only do you need to use the right
0:30:08 > 0:30:16materials, you need to ensure the installation of that material. It is
0:30:16 > 0:30:18those things together that will ensure that you put on a proper
0:30:18 > 0:30:27system. Thank you.Excuse me. I just wanted
0:30:27 > 0:30:34to touch on two points that were made when you are responding. One of
0:30:34 > 0:30:37it was about the different types of ten years you have in these complex
0:30:37 > 0:30:46buildings. Surely in ensuring the building itself is safe. The
0:30:46 > 0:30:51responsibility of the owner of the building? So if you own a flat in
0:30:51 > 0:30:56Grenfell, you do own and pay for the household. But the building itself
0:30:56 > 0:31:03is not the owner's responsibility. That was my first observation that I
0:31:03 > 0:31:07would like some clarity on. The second, when you are talking about
0:31:07 > 0:31:13the cladding and the material and other authority -- authorities
0:31:13 > 0:31:17seeking some guidance, do you think that leans more towards the
0:31:17 > 0:31:20installation as opposed to the material itself? The testing was on
0:31:20 > 0:31:24the material. Of the installation of the material was really important.
0:31:24 > 0:31:30And I think sometimes in some authorities, yes, we may -- may
0:31:30 > 0:31:33highlight what materials are not safe, but if they are installed
0:31:33 > 0:31:38correctly with certain measures in place, they no longer are unsafe. I
0:31:38 > 0:31:43would like some clarity on that as well.OK. I will take the second one
0:31:43 > 0:31:49first. Yes, the way in which materials are installed is equally
0:31:49 > 0:31:53important as to whether you are not -- using the right materials. It is
0:31:53 > 0:31:58a combination of the two that provides integrity in the system. I
0:31:58 > 0:32:01am very conscious of having said that, there is a shortage of
0:32:01 > 0:32:06confidence in the system. Some may wonder whether that means some of
0:32:06 > 0:32:09this cannot be done because there is not enough competent people out
0:32:09 > 0:32:18there. But certainly my experience in the industry over many years,
0:32:18 > 0:32:24where the other way of achieving quality, insurance and installation,
0:32:24 > 0:32:27is to ensure you have appropriate levels of supervision. Many people
0:32:27 > 0:32:34have commented as part of this review that there has been a real
0:32:34 > 0:32:40fall away in the numbers of projects on which clerks of works are
0:32:40 > 0:32:45employed to oversee the quality assurance of all aspects of
0:32:45 > 0:32:52modifications and construction work. In terms of who is responsible for
0:32:52 > 0:33:00which parts of buildings, I wish it were that simple that it was easy to
0:33:00 > 0:33:08trace who owns the building. In many cases where there are housing
0:33:08 > 0:33:11associations or tenants' associations in place, owners will
0:33:11 > 0:33:20be of sure. -- offshore. It may be a financial organisation. We have come
0:33:20 > 0:33:27across models like that. The roster pin down the building owner who
0:33:27 > 0:33:31takes responsibility, at this point has proven quite difficult. We have
0:33:31 > 0:33:38still got to do more work. But I am sure of is wanted building has been
0:33:38 > 0:33:44commissioned, and this is a very important part, the first thing is
0:33:44 > 0:33:47whoever is appointed at that time to be the responsible person for the
0:33:47 > 0:33:52whole building, as opposed to the individual compartments, they must
0:33:52 > 0:33:56be in possession of the information they need in order to manage that
0:33:56 > 0:34:00process. Right now, that information at that point of handover of a
0:34:00 > 0:34:08building is sadly lacking. And we must not make any assumptions in
0:34:08 > 0:34:12this system, because what we have found is that you can start out with
0:34:12 > 0:34:17a design of a building. By the time the building is built, it has been
0:34:17 > 0:34:22changed and those changes have not been recorded. So for someone and
0:34:22 > 0:34:25then to be charged with managing that building for decades to come,
0:34:25 > 0:34:30without knowing what they are starting with, is handing somebody
0:34:30 > 0:34:36an impossible task. There are so many elements to this. That is why I
0:34:36 > 0:34:40keep coming back to the fact this is a systemic problem and there are
0:34:40 > 0:34:44many elements of the system that have to be fixed in order to regain
0:34:44 > 0:34:48the level of integrity that we all want to see.If one may, just on
0:34:48 > 0:34:54that point, when it comes to ensuring the building, if people
0:34:54 > 0:35:01don't have the relevant documentation is, how is the
0:35:01 > 0:35:08insurance, how is the building in short?We have talked to the
0:35:08 > 0:35:15insurance industry. They have indicated to us that they share our
0:35:15 > 0:35:20concern about some of these, some of the lack of information that is
0:35:20 > 0:35:25available to them. But I think to be absolutely fair to them, to give
0:35:25 > 0:35:29them credit, they recognise their social responsibility and were very
0:35:29 > 0:35:33clear to us that they choose to underwrite things, even though they
0:35:33 > 0:35:38may not have all of the information that they would want to have. They
0:35:38 > 0:35:44think it would be irresponsible for them to refuse to ensure -- ensure
0:35:44 > 0:35:52buildings and leave the residents therein exposed. -- insurer.They
0:35:52 > 0:35:56still the absence of the material they require?But they don't feel
0:35:56 > 0:36:00comfortable. They are supportive of this direction of travel, as are
0:36:00 > 0:36:09most of the other people we have spoken to.Thank you.You have
0:36:09 > 0:36:13highlighted the problem of the lack of consistent information from the
0:36:13 > 0:36:16design through the building process and on into the subsequent
0:36:16 > 0:36:21management of the buildings. The government has talked about having a
0:36:21 > 0:36:25digitalisation of construction and moving building information
0:36:25 > 0:36:29modelling/ do you think there is a role for a single shared digital
0:36:29 > 0:36:35record, which then might be able to incorporate the various systems you
0:36:35 > 0:36:39have been referring to, and allow the subsequent management of the
0:36:39 > 0:36:43building to have a clear record of every step of the design process
0:36:43 > 0:36:48before?Is that part of this? Yes, I do indeed. I have spoken to the
0:36:48 > 0:36:55people who are promoting and building information modelling
0:36:55 > 0:37:09systems. It is the ability to build that information bank up overtime.
0:37:09 > 0:37:13Whatever we have got is what we have got. We can add to that as and when
0:37:13 > 0:37:18more information is determined through surveys or reviews as they
0:37:18 > 0:37:20become available.
0:37:25 > 0:37:29In the report you said you were shocked by some of the practices you
0:37:29 > 0:37:39had heard about in the construction industry. However, you identify the
0:37:39 > 0:37:42reforms are not simply down to a revision of legislation. Are you
0:37:42 > 0:37:50confident that the construction industry is sufficiently competent?
0:37:50 > 0:37:56You focus on competency throughout the report. Are you confident they
0:37:56 > 0:38:03can implement the regulations now and in the future?I'm confident
0:38:03 > 0:38:07they are capable of doing it. And as long as the will is there, I believe
0:38:07 > 0:38:11it is eminently possible. Why is that? Because I have already seen
0:38:11 > 0:38:17them do it once. I spent ten years as chair of the health and social --
0:38:17 > 0:38:23health and safety executive. When I started, construction had a rather
0:38:23 > 0:38:29poor record for the safety of its own employees. And it underwent a
0:38:29 > 0:38:32transformation in that decade, which resulted in us building the safest
0:38:32 > 0:38:39Olympic project ever in 2012. That was a massive culture change within
0:38:39 > 0:38:42the construction industry in terms of the way it cares for, looks after
0:38:42 > 0:38:46and manages the safety of its own employees. What we are actually
0:38:46 > 0:38:50asking them to do in this report is to repeat that, with their focus on
0:38:50 > 0:38:54people who are going to live in the buildings that they build for the
0:38:54 > 0:38:56decades after they walk away from those projects.
0:38:56 > 0:39:12OK. How clear out the roles and responsibilities of those... Sorry.
0:39:12 > 0:39:17Of those certifying the roles and responsibilities... How clear out
0:39:17 > 0:39:20the roles and responsibilities of those certifying the safety of
0:39:20 > 0:39:32building works at the moment?They are not clear. In terms of what they
0:39:32 > 0:39:38are saying a building is certified for. And indeed I think we need to
0:39:38 > 0:39:45be careful about the effectiveness of that process. Again coming back
0:39:45 > 0:39:49to the map, and I would urge you all to look at that very complex map at
0:39:49 > 0:39:52the back of this report, which describes all the different steps
0:39:52 > 0:39:58the process... What we know is that there are a number of ways in which,
0:39:58 > 0:40:02even if what you've got there is how the system should work, there are a
0:40:02 > 0:40:10number of weaknesses.
0:40:10 > 0:40:16It is often compromised by a phased handover process, where some parts
0:40:16 > 0:40:21of the building are ak pied be fr the rest is complete and we have
0:40:21 > 0:40:28even come across cases where that documentation, that certification
0:40:28 > 0:40:34never appears in its final form. Thank you.
0:40:34 > 0:40:39Moving on to sprinklers - there's been a lot of discussion and debate
0:40:39 > 0:40:45about whether they should be fitted to all high rise residential
0:40:45 > 0:40:51buildings. And certainly some councils have decided to go down
0:40:51 > 0:40:59that road, often with the advise of their Fire Services. Others haven't
0:40:59 > 0:41:03and administers have made comments and said it is for local authorities
0:41:03 > 0:41:07to take advice and pursue the line they think appropriate. You have not
0:41:07 > 0:41:12made any recommendations on this in your report. Have you any thoughts
0:41:12 > 0:41:18on what should happen with regard to retro fitting sprinklers?I think
0:41:18 > 0:41:23there's two things. There's a clear case for looking at additional
0:41:23 > 0:41:38layers of protection. The none worsening approach that is taken to
0:41:38 > 0:41:48older buildings in the regulation that there is no requirement to try
0:41:48 > 0:41:52to improve when you make modifications but to ensure things
0:41:52 > 0:41:57are no worse than they were before. I would much prefer to see a system
0:41:57 > 0:42:04where people are encouraged to do what is reasonable and sensible and
0:42:04 > 0:42:07affordable to improve protection when they are making significant
0:42:07 > 0:42:11changes to buildings. That's one of the things we will be looking at in
0:42:11 > 0:42:18the next phase. That could include sprinklers. It could include a
0:42:18 > 0:42:26number of other measures, including addition Alistair cases. Additional
0:42:26 > 0:42:30doors, different means of protection, alarm systems. All of
0:42:30 > 0:42:34those different ways of providing added protection I think are valid
0:42:34 > 0:42:39to be considered. What is clear to me is there's not a simple one
0:42:39 > 0:42:46answer to this that will apply to every building. It depends upon the
0:42:46 > 0:42:53nature of the building. The residents who are occupying that
0:42:53 > 0:42:57building, their vulnerability. We have said clearly in here that we
0:42:57 > 0:43:05have to look in some more detail of this next phase of the review at
0:43:05 > 0:43:09what constitutes this higher risk we are looking at. It is not simply
0:43:09 > 0:43:14about high rise, it is about complexity of the building and the
0:43:14 > 0:43:21residents who live in those buildings and their capabilities.
0:43:21 > 0:43:29OK, so what you are saying is when modifications are made to buildings,
0:43:29 > 0:43:34high-rise buildings, others where there are challenges, then there
0:43:34 > 0:43:40should billion a look at what more needs to be done as well as the
0:43:40 > 0:43:44modifications to maic those buildings safer, which could involve
0:43:44 > 0:43:51sprinklers or other changes?Yes. What about those buildings where no
0:43:51 > 0:43:54modifications are planned to be made - are you saying we should do
0:43:54 > 0:44:01nothing? Not at all. Not at all. What's clear to me is that the
0:44:01 > 0:44:12current fire risk assessment that is required to be done on a regular
0:44:12 > 0:44:17basis is until many ways. There's no specified time period. It also
0:44:17 > 0:44:23doesn't have to be reported to anyone, which I find rather strange.
0:44:23 > 0:44:29At the very least I think a fire safety risk assessment of every
0:44:29 > 0:44:35complex building should be done annually. Even if there are no
0:44:35 > 0:44:40modifications and what is more, in order to upgrade the quality of
0:44:40 > 0:44:44those risk assessments, they ought to be made available both to the
0:44:44 > 0:44:50Fire and Rescue Service and to the residents. So that they are aware of
0:44:50 > 0:44:55the work and the review that has been done of their building.
0:44:55 > 0:44:58So even without modifications on a regular basis, all these buildings
0:44:58 > 0:45:06should be looked at?Yes. Absolute. I am saying modification should
0:45:06 > 0:45:10trigger that process but that every building should be subject to a
0:45:10 > 0:45:12regular review, regardless of whether it is modified or not.And
0:45:12 > 0:45:18as part of that regular review, sprinklers may be looked at. You are
0:45:18 > 0:45:22not saying they are the answer but should be considered.They should be
0:45:22 > 0:45:26considered as one of the additional layers of protection which is
0:45:26 > 0:45:33affordable. You talk about the review every year
0:45:33 > 0:45:43and this sounds to be a really positive step, but fwifen may assess
0:45:43 > 0:45:46to have staircases, other modifications, earlier you spoke
0:45:46 > 0:45:50about the voice of residents being heard, when the residents know
0:45:50 > 0:45:55something may need to be done, there will be a great clamour for it to be
0:45:55 > 0:45:59done immediately. How will you change that risk assessment into
0:45:59 > 0:46:07action?First of all, I've been surprised in many ways by talking to
0:46:07 > 0:46:13residents as part of this process. And what has surprised me more than
0:46:13 > 0:46:22anything is they are both pragmatic and very reasonable. They understand
0:46:22 > 0:46:27risk and I think we should be weary of doing to them rather than
0:46:27 > 0:46:31involving them in the decision about what is done.
0:46:31 > 0:46:35I think it's hugely important that they are part of the decision about
0:46:35 > 0:46:41what is done to their home and the community, which is what they see
0:46:41 > 0:46:47that building as being and I think it is absolutely essential that they
0:46:47 > 0:46:55are part of agreeing the solution rather than being done to.
0:46:55 > 0:47:02Just on that point, is it not peculiar that many in most building
0:47:02 > 0:47:07which are offices there are regular fire drills, yet it does not seem to
0:47:07 > 0:47:10be the case for most homes. The opportunity to have an annual review
0:47:10 > 0:47:16and for residents to see the outcome of that seems a sensible notion, but
0:47:16 > 0:47:20should the regulations not also ensure that the ability of the
0:47:20 > 0:47:25people who live in those buildings to actually get out if there is an
0:47:25 > 0:47:33emergency, be tested and not wait until an incident occurs?If I may
0:47:33 > 0:47:37slightly modify what you're asking me, do I think the urgency
0:47:37 > 0:47:43procedures need to be tested for its effectiveness? Absolutely, it does.
0:47:43 > 0:47:50Part of the problem with residential properties is a large number of
0:47:50 > 0:47:54them, the emergency, the first emergency response is to stay put in
0:47:54 > 0:48:04your building until told to do otherwise. So, the question of when
0:48:04 > 0:48:08and if evacuation is required is put further out than it would be in the
0:48:08 > 0:48:12case of an office building. But having said that, does the system
0:48:12 > 0:48:18need to be tested? Does it need to be reviewed as part of a regulatory
0:48:18 > 0:48:23process to ensure that it would be effective? Effective if it were ever
0:48:23 > 0:48:28called into action? Yes, it does. Because clearly, and I welcome that,
0:48:28 > 0:48:32but clearly, I think many residents will wanted to know, we are there
0:48:32 > 0:48:35may be a good reason in certain circumstances they should be
0:48:35 > 0:48:39advised, which is the current Fire Service approach to stay in their
0:48:39 > 0:48:42building, but most would want to know if something does go wrong,
0:48:42 > 0:48:46they want to be clearer in their own mind about their ability to get down
0:48:46 > 0:48:51those stairs. I am thinking particularly of the elderly and the
0:48:51 > 0:48:58infirm on levels 20 or indeed five and above.Absolutely.So regular
0:48:58 > 0:49:02fire drills surely must be incorporated inside this type of
0:49:02 > 0:49:06property in the future, in terms of your review of the fire safety
0:49:06 > 0:49:10standards.Regular tests of the emergency procedures will be an
0:49:10 > 0:49:15integral part of this. Whether that goes all the way to evacuation,
0:49:15 > 0:49:21given many of the challenges of that in some cases, but being absolutely
0:49:21 > 0:49:26sure that the emergency response would work is clearly critical to
0:49:26 > 0:49:31this. And it's critical to rebuilding the confidence of those
0:49:31 > 0:49:38residents. I think one issue we have undoubtedly encountered amongst
0:49:38 > 0:49:44residents we have spoken to is that whole question of whether or not
0:49:44 > 0:49:49they would stay put, in spite of that being instruction, whether
0:49:49 > 0:49:52human behaviour would override that instruction at this point in time,
0:49:52 > 0:50:00is a question that we have to revisit in this next phase.
0:50:00 > 0:50:06Dame Judith, you talk in your report about the route of evidence concerns
0:50:06 > 0:50:13to be addressed and raised is unclear and inadequate. You talk
0:50:13 > 0:50:17also about regulators having similar problems the getting concerns
0:50:17 > 0:50:22addressed. Do you think we need to re-look at the approach, to both
0:50:22 > 0:50:25listening to residents' concerns and making sure there is follow up and
0:50:25 > 0:50:29making sure they are addressed?Yes. I do. Absolutely, I agree with both
0:50:29 > 0:50:35that there has to be a much more effective way of getting those
0:50:35 > 0:50:40concerns raised and raised beyond the landlord or the agent if they
0:50:40 > 0:50:45feel they are not being heard. Yes, I do.So there needs to be a common
0:50:45 > 0:50:49pathway through which people can take things outside then?Yes. Yes.
0:50:49 > 0:50:55Thank you. Do you think that when they raise the concerns, residents
0:50:55 > 0:51:00have access to sufficient information to know whether their
0:51:00 > 0:51:05concerns are reasonable or not? I am thinking if...An effective system
0:51:05 > 0:51:09for resident voices to be heard will not be effective if there's no
0:51:09 > 0:51:15feedback loop. Is the simple answer to that. I would go further. I think
0:51:15 > 0:51:20part of what we have uncovered here is that sometimes the information
0:51:20 > 0:51:27that is provided to residents is wholly inadequate. Residents
0:51:27 > 0:51:33themselves have responsibilities in this system. When you live in a high
0:51:33 > 0:51:37rise complex building, in close proximity to other people, you can
0:51:37 > 0:51:43make changes and sometimes very simple changes to your own
0:51:43 > 0:51:48compartment, your property, which can put you and other residents at
0:51:48 > 0:51:52risk without you understanding that simple changes like installing
0:51:52 > 0:51:58broadband or changing your front door is compromising that, the
0:51:58 > 0:52:01integrity of that compartment, which is fundamental to being able to stay
0:52:01 > 0:52:08put. So part of what we have to do as well is improve the information
0:52:08 > 0:52:12that's provided to residents to enable them to make informed
0:52:12 > 0:52:16decisions about what they can and should not do within their own
0:52:16 > 0:52:24properties. And were there maybe a difference
0:52:24 > 0:52:27between a landlord and residents about whether concerns are real or
0:52:27 > 0:52:33not, do you think there's a case for those residents also having access
0:52:33 > 0:52:38to external support or external... Yes and whether that is some form of
0:52:38 > 0:52:43ombudsman or direct to the regulator is to be what we look at in this
0:52:43 > 0:52:49next phase. It this is an interim report. I cannot give you details of
0:52:49 > 0:52:53the new framework, other than in direction of travel, but, yes, be
0:52:53 > 0:52:57assured that is all part of our thinking for what the new framework
0:52:57 > 0:53:04needs to look like for the future. Thank you.
0:53:04 > 0:53:08Completely understanding this is an interim report, do you think that
0:53:08 > 0:53:12with regard to the need for resident voices to be clearly heard there
0:53:12 > 0:53:18might be a need for a new statutory framework which established a
0:53:18 > 0:53:23rights-based apro-even to residents and their homes? Gives the right to
0:53:23 > 0:53:28independent information, gives the right to trigger reviews and confers
0:53:28 > 0:53:33a responsibility on to landlords in statute to respond to the findings
0:53:33 > 0:53:39of an independent review that has been triggered through that process?
0:53:39 > 0:53:43I wouldn't, at this stage I couldn't answer that. What I do know is
0:53:43 > 0:53:49there's much more work that we need to do in terms of looking at that.
0:53:49 > 0:53:55Whilst I absolutely recognise all of the concerns of residents, to give
0:53:55 > 0:54:00this some balance, I think what I also have to make, put alongside
0:54:00 > 0:54:05that is some of the evidence that we've heard from those who do try to
0:54:05 > 0:54:10take a responsible approach to being a landlord or an agent or whatever.
0:54:10 > 0:54:15But who tell us in the team that sometimes part of their difficulty
0:54:15 > 0:54:21is gaining access to the properties of people so that they can carry out
0:54:21 > 0:54:26reviews that enable them to look at whether there are problems within
0:54:26 > 0:54:29individual properties that create a problem for the whole. So there are
0:54:29 > 0:54:34two sides to this. I think we've got to look at both and how you bring
0:54:34 > 0:54:39that together and what the best framework is to ensure that everyone
0:54:39 > 0:54:43gets access to the information.Just come back on that briefly, so the
0:54:43 > 0:54:50rights to gain access, I mean, you know, each from our own
0:54:50 > 0:54:56constituencies there are cases where access are difficult. The right is
0:54:56 > 0:55:01established under tenancy and leasehold situations, for landlords
0:55:01 > 0:55:07to undertake reviews which are a matter of fire safety. As far as
0:55:07 > 0:55:11residents are concerned, there is an imbalance in the rights that
0:55:11 > 0:55:16residents have with regard to their landlords? So there are processes
0:55:16 > 0:55:20for raising concerns which are not fully on a statutory basis another
0:55:20 > 0:55:28the moment. I suggest it is that rebalance I am seeking to?
0:55:33 > 0:55:37It is too early for me to say whether that be a rights -based
0:55:37 > 0:55:42approach what it might look like. Following on from the voices of
0:55:42 > 0:55:50residents, have you taken evidence from those representing those with
0:55:50 > 0:55:56disabilities with regards to the adequacy of safety regulations? And
0:55:56 > 0:56:03is that within the report?I have indeed. Some of the people who have
0:56:03 > 0:56:06attended round table meetings for residents have themselves been
0:56:06 > 0:56:12severely disabled. We have heard from them directly. Again, some of
0:56:12 > 0:56:17the stories that we have heard of properties where they have been
0:56:17 > 0:56:26placed, and the difficulty of being able to get out of that building, is
0:56:26 > 0:56:29heartbreaking. Yes, we have heard from them. It has been part of that
0:56:29 > 0:56:37very strong voice we have heard from the residents.Going back to the
0:56:37 > 0:56:41point before with regards to sprinklers not being the ultimate
0:56:41 > 0:56:46answer, because some of those disability groups have voiced
0:56:46 > 0:56:51concerns with regards to evacuation procedures. All this will be taken
0:56:51 > 0:56:54into account? Yes.
0:56:59 > 0:57:06Do the current systems for testing electrical appliances need to be
0:57:06 > 0:57:18improved?It's not something we have looked at in detail at this stage of
0:57:18 > 0:57:24the process. I know a little bit about portable appliance testing
0:57:24 > 0:57:30from my previous life. But no, we have not looked in detail at the
0:57:30 > 0:57:37testing of domestic appliances at this stage. So I couldn't answer
0:57:37 > 0:57:42that question at this point. Thank you.Is it something you might
0:57:42 > 0:57:50like to look at?We could certainly give it consideration. And that is
0:57:50 > 0:57:53one of the real reasons why we wanted to issue an interim report at
0:57:53 > 0:57:58this stage. If there are things people feel we need to look at
0:57:58 > 0:58:01before taking this to the its final stage, now is the time to tell us.
0:58:01 > 0:58:08That is why we are looking for feedback. We can take it away and
0:58:08 > 0:58:15look at it and get back to you. And outline how we would accommodate
0:58:15 > 0:58:21that in our review. It seems to me as if there needs to
0:58:21 > 0:58:28be awareness for residents. You have spoken about broadband, possibly
0:58:28 > 0:58:35testing of appliances, doors. These are the things that people feel they
0:58:35 > 0:58:39have charged over. Is there an element of going into people's homes
0:58:39 > 0:58:44specifically to check all of these things are OK? It sounds intrusive.
0:58:44 > 0:58:52Or is part of the culture change that you want to bring forward about
0:58:52 > 0:58:56people knowing what is OK in their own house?What is interesting is
0:58:56 > 0:59:03that we focus a lot on how we need to fix this where it is bad. What we
0:59:03 > 0:59:06don't spend enough time talking about is that there are some
0:59:06 > 0:59:10extraordinary examples of good practice out there, where some of
0:59:10 > 0:59:14those things already happened. The residents don't regard it as
0:59:14 > 0:59:17intrusive because of the way in which it is done. And what I would
0:59:17 > 0:59:21hope we can do as part of bringing about this culture change throughout
0:59:21 > 0:59:27the system, is to bring together those people who are already doing
0:59:27 > 0:59:31these things well and sharing that good practice more widely, to avoid
0:59:31 > 0:59:37the risks of becoming confrontational and intrusive.
0:59:37 > 0:59:40Clearly that is a sensitivity we have to avoid. I fully recognise
0:59:40 > 0:59:45that. Just following on from that point,
0:59:45 > 0:59:48as we all know the awful tragedy at Grenfell started in a fridge
0:59:48 > 0:59:56freezer. The building regulations passage that relates to the
0:59:56 > 1:00:00installation of electrical goods except in buildings, is something
1:00:00 > 1:00:04this committee has felt for some time needs to be modernised and
1:00:04 > 1:00:08improved. We have been in correspondence with ministers
1:00:08 > 1:00:11concerned. They have told us that at this point they are going to be
1:00:11 > 1:00:16waiting for the outcome of your review before they take any action
1:00:16 > 1:00:20on this part of the regulations. Can I ask, is the review going to be
1:00:20 > 1:00:25looking specifically at bringing that part of the regulations
1:00:25 > 1:00:29up-to-date? It seems to me fairly central to the origins of this
1:00:29 > 1:00:41enquiry?My review and my remade at this point does not include any
1:00:41 > 1:00:44details on other sections other than fire safety and building
1:00:44 > 1:00:48regulations. That said, what we are going to be looking at is producing
1:00:48 > 1:01:00a much more coherent and join dope framework -- joined up framework. We
1:01:00 > 1:01:04have already tasked people to start looking at that and what it may look
1:01:04 > 1:01:10like. And within that I would see no reason why some of those other
1:01:10 > 1:01:13sections can be more quickly updated as part of producing guidance aimed
1:01:13 > 1:01:20at helping people raise the standard of a number of issues in this area
1:01:20 > 1:01:28are all at the same time.This part of the building regulations... Does
1:01:28 > 1:01:33your review logically that?It covers it in an umbrella sense in
1:01:33 > 1:01:37terms of the overall framework. I have not looked in detail at that
1:01:37 > 1:01:40part and the electrical regulations at this point. We will take that
1:01:40 > 1:01:46away and come back to you.OK. We had a slightly different message
1:01:46 > 1:01:52from the secretary of state.We will get back to you on an answer on the
1:01:52 > 1:01:57extent at which we will be looking at electrical regulations.
1:02:01 > 1:02:08Just following on from learning from other countries, I know obviously
1:02:08 > 1:02:14you have said... Is there anything specific we can take from other
1:02:14 > 1:02:19countries that we can bring forward? I think there are a number of
1:02:19 > 1:02:24things, not least of which is that from one of my early observations
1:02:24 > 1:02:31would be that many other countries have much more rigorous systems of
1:02:31 > 1:02:35ensuring competence throughout the system than we do. In many countries
1:02:35 > 1:02:37people have to be licensed to do some of these important
1:02:37 > 1:02:42decision-making roles within the system of building convex buildings.
1:02:42 > 1:02:54We do not have that system here. -- complex buildings.Is that something
1:02:54 > 1:02:59you are likely to recommend? Is that the direction that you want to move
1:02:59 > 1:03:06in, a licensing system?I have said already that I think we have to have
1:03:06 > 1:03:14a much more robust framework of assuring competence. I think the
1:03:14 > 1:03:17report quite clearly says we are looking to the professional bodies
1:03:17 > 1:03:21to come together very quickly and come to us with a proposal. I would
1:03:21 > 1:03:27hope that they would recognise there needs to be a significantly more
1:03:27 > 1:03:29robust system of regulation than currently.
1:03:38 > 1:03:46When I asked my questions earlier, you said you wanted to look at more
1:03:46 > 1:03:51outcomes -based approach rather than systems approach. You agree that is
1:03:51 > 1:03:55allowing people to make a judgment or interpretation, is that not
1:03:55 > 1:04:04correct?It allows people to make judgments. It also allows people to
1:04:04 > 1:04:10come open with innovative solutions. It also places the onus on them to
1:04:10 > 1:04:16think about the consequences of those decisions and what they take
1:04:16 > 1:04:21and recognise their responsibilities in making them. It also requires an
1:04:21 > 1:04:27effective legislator to hold them to account.We don't just want
1:04:27 > 1:04:31accountability. We want the correct end point. We want to stop this
1:04:31 > 1:04:34situation ever happening again. In your first interim report findings
1:04:34 > 1:04:40you said current regulations and guidelines can lead to confusion and
1:04:40 > 1:04:46misinterpretation. Isn't the difficulty if you leave a system
1:04:46 > 1:04:51open to interpretation, it will be misinterpreted again?Not if those
1:04:51 > 1:04:55people who are then doing that interpreting have to demonstrate to
1:04:55 > 1:05:03an effective regulatory body the integrity of the decisions that they
1:05:03 > 1:05:10are making. That is why this is an integrated -- inter-related system
1:05:10 > 1:05:15were without a regulator there is a risk in what you are suggesting and
1:05:15 > 1:05:18why we have to fix a number of elements of the system at the same
1:05:18 > 1:05:23time.Other any other countries with effective systems that have not had
1:05:23 > 1:05:28these problems, that are using a system of interpretation rather than
1:05:28 > 1:05:32a prescriptive approach?It varies enormously but yes, there are some
1:05:32 > 1:05:38other systems out there that are outcomes based. Were specifications
1:05:38 > 1:05:45are produced a -- much more involving industry rather than being
1:05:45 > 1:05:49prescribed by government.Which country is using an outcomes -based
1:05:49 > 1:05:55approach?There are a group of countries who meet on a regular
1:05:55 > 1:06:02basis to talk about this, which includes New Zealand and Australia.
1:06:02 > 1:06:06I would need to come back to you with details of which ones, out of
1:06:06 > 1:06:11the ones we have looked at, have a more outcomes -based approach.I
1:06:11 > 1:06:19would be very interested in that. In France, for example, they simply
1:06:19 > 1:06:22banned combustible materials on high-rise buildings. Wouldn't that
1:06:22 > 1:06:26be a simpler way to tackle the problem we have seen at somewhere
1:06:26 > 1:06:36like Grenfell?I think we need to be careful not to stray into focusing
1:06:36 > 1:06:44on the specifics of what happened at Grenfell as opposed to thinking
1:06:44 > 1:06:47about what I subsequently been demonstrated in terms of a number of
1:06:47 > 1:06:54flaws in the system.I accept that. So simply to fix what we allow to be
1:06:54 > 1:06:58put on the outside of the building as cladding would only fix one
1:06:58 > 1:07:03element of this system. What I would hope that we have been able to
1:07:03 > 1:07:07demonstrate from this mapping exercise, and from the myriad
1:07:07 > 1:07:10problems that we have found with changes being made in an
1:07:10 > 1:07:19uncontrolled fashion to Dorrans, changes being made to the outside of
1:07:19 > 1:07:25buildings, fire and rescue services not being listened to when they make
1:07:25 > 1:07:31recommendations, there is more to this fixing the system than simply
1:07:31 > 1:07:35specifying which cladding can and can't macro be used.I accept that.
1:07:35 > 1:07:39But something either burns or it doesn't burn. Noncombustible
1:07:39 > 1:07:44material on the outside of Grenfell would not have burned. Wouldn't that
1:07:44 > 1:07:50have been a sensible conclusion to arrive at very quickly? Some things
1:07:50 > 1:07:56we have to be very prescriptive about.We have to be clear that
1:07:56 > 1:08:00materials can only be used that have been properly tested and meet
1:08:00 > 1:08:07specification, however that is defined, yes. Yes.That is not what
1:08:07 > 1:08:14you say at the moment. You are intending an outcomes -based
1:08:14 > 1:08:18approach.Let's be clear, an outcomes -based approach doesn't
1:08:18 > 1:08:22mean you can do whatever you like. Within any outcomes -based approach
1:08:22 > 1:08:26there are some fundamental standards that provide a framework.Will you
1:08:26 > 1:08:32prescribe at some point?There maybe some standards. It may not be me who
1:08:32 > 1:08:36prescribes them but there will be scope for certain things to be
1:08:36 > 1:08:38prescribed where they are so important that they cannot be left
1:08:38 > 1:08:51to interpretation.Thank you. Clearly this is an important matter.
1:08:51 > 1:08:57You spoke about the need for licensing for complex buildings, the
1:08:57 > 1:09:00construction of complex buildings. Are you moving towards almost two
1:09:00 > 1:09:06strands of construction. Ordinary sector construction and complex
1:09:06 > 1:09:11buildings separately. And if so, regulations and rules going to be
1:09:11 > 1:09:14applied just to that set of buildings, just to complex
1:09:14 > 1:09:23buildings?Certainly I think we need to recognise that more convex
1:09:23 > 1:09:26buildings need people with their higher degree of competence. --
1:09:26 > 1:09:31complex.
1:09:31 > 1:09:37So, yes, we are recommending a risk-based approach. Whether it will
1:09:37 > 1:09:42be two systems of r a graded system, whereby different levels of risk
1:09:42 > 1:09:45there'll be different requirements. At this stage it is too early to
1:09:45 > 1:09:50say. That is the phase two exercise, to look at how we would set up that
1:09:50 > 1:09:56risk-based approach.I am wondering whether or not there'll be building
1:09:56 > 1:10:00construction businesses that will sole I will be entitled to operate
1:10:00 > 1:10:06in this field - in other words a separate sector entirely?It would
1:10:06 > 1:10:13be dependant upon their level of competence, yae. What I am very
1:10:13 > 1:10:17conscious of in this is there is a social need for housing in the UK
1:10:17 > 1:10:22today and one of the things that I am clearly not wanting to do is to
1:10:22 > 1:10:27stand in the way of that process going ahead, either because of cost
1:10:27 > 1:10:33or resource or anything else. I am convinced, and I firmly believe that
1:10:33 > 1:10:38if we simplify this system and apply a risk-based approach we will not
1:10:38 > 1:10:44only make it more effective, we will make it more efficient and
1:10:44 > 1:10:50cost-effective in the long-haul. Putting the time into getting the
1:10:50 > 1:10:58deright will be more cost efficient and effective for everyone.On that
1:10:58 > 1:11:01note of, it is very important obviously that it is extremely safe,
1:11:01 > 1:11:06so I want to go back to what my colleague said, when you were
1:11:06 > 1:11:11talking about an outcome based approach, I just wanted some
1:11:11 > 1:11:15clarification that what you're saying is there'll be prescribed
1:11:15 > 1:11:21terms as well as not instead of. So if we feel that this needs to be
1:11:21 > 1:11:26done, we would say, this needs to be done and if you do think outside the
1:11:26 > 1:11:30box and people come up with ideas and suggestions, we can do both,
1:11:30 > 1:11:37rather than... That would be subject to scrutiny. Of course.And would
1:11:37 > 1:11:39have to be approved before a different approach could be taken
1:11:39 > 1:11:43and that would require the people who come up with that different
1:11:43 > 1:11:47approach to demonstrate that they are putting all the necessary
1:11:47 > 1:11:52thinking to, and were able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
1:11:52 > 1:11:57system they were proposing.I think that the reason why I asked that
1:11:57 > 1:12:03question was because to use non-come bustable cladding doesn't seem like
1:12:03 > 1:12:09it would be a negative thing, but it's outcome-based and people can
1:12:09 > 1:12:16come to us. I'm just trying to clarify it's not instead of us
1:12:16 > 1:12:20prescribing something, it is as well as something which may be prescribed
1:12:20 > 1:12:30- is that correct?Yes. Are you confident that your
1:12:30 > 1:12:34conclusions will be implemented by the Government, given past examples
1:12:34 > 1:12:40of delays in this area?I'm reasonably confident, yes. Not least
1:12:40 > 1:12:45because I think the overwhelming evidence that we've gathered thus
1:12:45 > 1:12:48far in this process is able to show that there is a general recognition
1:12:48 > 1:12:55of the need for change. I don't feel that I'm going out on a limb
1:12:55 > 1:13:00suggesting what I'm proposing in my report today, that call for evidence
1:13:00 > 1:13:04and that conversation, those conversations we've had with
1:13:04 > 1:13:06stakeholders clearly demonstrates there is a wish to see this happen,
1:13:06 > 1:13:11which I think is what gives me the confidence that there is strong
1:13:11 > 1:13:17support for the direction of travel here.As we go on to the second
1:13:17 > 1:13:22stage of your review, you feel confident that whatever you come
1:13:22 > 1:13:31forward with will be implemented without delay?I'm optimistic. Thank
1:13:31 > 1:13:39you. Just coming on to one particular
1:13:39 > 1:13:43issue, a general point, Fire And Rescue Services, you referred to
1:13:43 > 1:13:51them a number of times. Very often they seem per riffly importance to
1:13:51 > 1:13:55fire safety in high-rise properties. Do you think in future they should
1:13:55 > 1:14:01be integral about decisions made about fire safety in blocks?. That
1:14:01 > 1:14:05is the easiest question of all. Yes. I find it extraordinary they are
1:14:05 > 1:14:08consulted at an early stage in the process but one of the first pieces
1:14:08 > 1:14:12of evidence that I heard from the Fire And Rescue Services is their
1:14:12 > 1:14:18advice is often not listened to. It seems strange to me that the experts
1:14:18 > 1:14:22who ultimately may have to fight fires in these buildings offer their
1:14:22 > 1:14:27advice and then it isn't taken on board and it's very clear in this
1:14:27 > 1:14:31report, this interim report that that process needs to be
1:14:31 > 1:14:34strengthened so their advice is listened to and taken on board at
1:14:34 > 1:14:39the earliest possible stage in a building proposal.So they would
1:14:39 > 1:14:44have statutory right then to have their advice acted on rather than...
1:14:44 > 1:14:48We work out the detail of how it needs to happen, but it needs to be
1:14:48 > 1:14:53formalised, most definitely. Yes. Just in terms of where we go to, I
1:14:53 > 1:14:58mean there may be, there are obviously many people living in
1:14:58 > 1:15:05high-rise properties at present, and what they will hear is we're going
1:15:05 > 1:15:09to have another report, we're going to have a summit. In the mean time I
1:15:09 > 1:15:12am still in the same high rise block with the same regulations in place,
1:15:12 > 1:15:16which you said isn't fit for purpose. Should people be
1:15:16 > 1:15:21comfortable with that situation for the next few days?I have been asked
1:15:21 > 1:15:26that question several times by the media today. I think what we must do
1:15:26 > 1:15:31is point residents to the many other activities that are taking place and
1:15:31 > 1:15:36not to see this review that I'm conducting in isolation. There 's
1:15:36 > 1:15:41been an extraordinary amount of work done by those Fire And Rescue
1:15:41 > 1:15:45Services, in conjunction with local authorities and central Government,
1:15:45 > 1:15:51to put in place measures to improve their safety since Grenfell. What I
1:15:51 > 1:15:57am trying to do is to build a better system for the future. My report
1:15:57 > 1:16:02does not say that all buildings are unsafe. It's, there are, there's
1:16:02 > 1:16:07clear evidence that many people build to high standards, in spite of
1:16:07 > 1:16:12the weaknesses and the flaws in the regulatory sis tesmt what we have to
1:16:12 > 1:16:16do is make that much more widespread, much more effective, and
1:16:16 > 1:16:20in particular, we have to keep that process going throughout the life
1:16:20 > 1:16:25cycle of the building, not just during construction.So even
1:16:25 > 1:16:29awaiting for the change of system that you will eventually
1:16:29 > 1:16:33recommend... . They should take ashurpss from the measures taken
1:16:33 > 1:16:37place -- assurance from the measures taken place. But there are further
1:16:37 > 1:16:43measures to give them greater assurance. That you suggested that I
1:16:43 > 1:16:49should be doing, to make sure their buildings are safe?Yes.OK, so what
1:16:49 > 1:16:56sort of time frame have you in mind for a new system to be fully in
1:16:56 > 1:16:59place, which takes on board the criticism that you are making of the
1:16:59 > 1:17:03current system and puts it right?I would prefer to answer that question
1:17:03 > 1:17:08after we've had this summit with the stakeholders, because as I said in
1:17:08 > 1:17:12my opening remarks, I think much of this which is about change of
1:17:12 > 1:17:17culture and shift in ownership and recognition of responsibilities, are
1:17:17 > 1:17:21things that can happen relatively quickly. Culture change doesn't
1:17:21 > 1:17:28happen overnight. I accept that. But I think clarity of roles and
1:17:28 > 1:17:31responsibilities, people taking a different approach which recognises
1:17:31 > 1:17:36that need to build safe buildings that can be occupied safely for the
1:17:36 > 1:17:41long-haul, that is a shift that can take place relatively quickly. We
1:17:41 > 1:17:45can shadow operate, without waiting for regulation. So I think there are
1:17:45 > 1:17:50many steps we can take in the next six to 12 months that can start to
1:17:50 > 1:17:56move us to a very different place in terms of how we manage the building
1:17:56 > 1:18:00and maintenance and management of complex buildings.So 12 months'
1:18:00 > 1:18:05time we want to see in place a different system - there'll probably
1:18:05 > 1:18:10still try to change culture - that will still be going on?In 12
1:18:10 > 1:18:15months' time I would hope that we would see some change in culture.
1:18:15 > 1:18:19Numerous practises. But we may be waiting for the formal enactment of
1:18:19 > 1:18:24legislation. There'll be some changes as a result of this - yes.
1:18:24 > 1:18:30Just in terms of where we get to then, we have a change of system.
1:18:30 > 1:18:35One of the things I think has been raised as a matter of concern, it
1:18:35 > 1:18:40took the tragedy of Grenfell to actually have this review that you
1:18:40 > 1:18:47are undertaking. Even when your review is reported and the changes
1:18:47 > 1:18:51are made, that shouldn't be a situation where everyone sits back
1:18:51 > 1:18:56and says, we've done it now. We've got a new system in place, we can
1:18:56 > 1:19:00all go away and forget about it. Should there be regular reviews of
1:19:00 > 1:19:04the system to make sure it is fit for purpose, operating effectively
1:19:04 > 1:19:11in the way we would want?Yes. There should be. I would emphasise that
1:19:11 > 1:19:14the words you used are absolutely the right ones. There should be
1:19:14 > 1:19:18regular reviews of the efekiveness of the system. -- effectiveness of
1:19:18 > 1:19:23the system. A number of people have said to me, should there not be
1:19:23 > 1:19:29regular reviews of the regulations? I draw a distinction between the
1:19:29 > 1:19:36two. If we get the regulatory framework right and it is effective,
1:19:36 > 1:19:40and less prescriptive, then there should be less need to keep updating
1:19:40 > 1:19:47it, to keep pace with new changes and innovations. But we need to
1:19:47 > 1:19:53continue to keep its effectiveness under review, yes.
1:19:53 > 1:19:58It seems to me that at the heart of much of what you are suggesting is
1:19:58 > 1:20:03whatever is written on the page n the end what matters is someone is
1:20:03 > 1:20:08held to account for what they do. Is that the argument about outcomes
1:20:08 > 1:20:13based because I think obviously people with a technical background
1:20:13 > 1:20:17will grasp all of that, but for most of our constituents it seems a
1:20:17 > 1:20:22little vague.There needs to be clear... In the system. Yes.
1:20:22 > 1:20:26Right.And people need to feel that responsibility.
1:20:26 > 1:20:33Yes.Thank you. Anything else you'd like to add?I
1:20:33 > 1:20:39don't think so.Thank you very much indeed coming and answering a wide
1:20:39 > 1:20:46range of questions. We obviously look forward to your final report.
1:20:46 > 1:20:49No doubt you will come back and talk to us about that. We probably give
1:20:49 > 1:20:57you one or two other aer yas to look at, electrical appliances to add to
1:20:57 > 1:21:01your considerations.We will get back to you where we are on those
1:21:01 > 1:21:05things and yes, I will be happy to come back and update you on when the
1:21:05 > 1:21:11final report is.Thank you very much for coming along.That brings us to
1:21:11 > 1:21:12the end of our proceedings