Building Regulations and Fire Safety Committee Select Committees

Good afternoon. Dame Judith welcome

to the committee this afternoon. As

chair of the independent review of

building regulations and fire

safety. To discuss your interim

report. Thank you very much for

coming. Before we get onto

questions, I want members to put on

record any interest they may have I

am the vice president of the Local

Government Association.

I'm a fellow

of the Royal chartered surveyors.

That puts on record particular

matters that may be relevant. Thank

you very much for coming this

afternoon on what is clearly a very

important issue following the

tragedy at Grenfell. And the

importance of making sure that we

have building regulations in this

country that are fit for purpose.

There are concerns the current ones

aren't fit for purpose. We haven't

had a chance as members of the

committee to read in detail your

report. But we have had a briefing

about it and look forward to what

you have to say in more detail over

this session. And I think to begin

with you would like to begin with an

opening statement.

I would indeed.

Thank you very much for that. I very

much welcome this opportunity to

share with the select committee the

findings debate of my interim review

of building regulations and fire

safety, in particular and now they

are applied to high-rise buildings.

As you said, my interim report was

published earlier today. And the

final report I fully expect to be

able to publish in the spring of

2018. At this interim stage of the

review I can confirm there is a

systemic failure here, which needs

to be addressed by a significant

culture change. And which will need

to involve the wide range of people

who are part of the system. That

means those who design, build and

maintain high-rise and complex

buildings. It includes regulators

and policymakers among others. The

system that we have in place today

has evolved. It is overly complex

and it is confusing. There is

confusion about roles and

responsibilities throughout. And a

general lack of confidence in

accreditation in many areas. We have

identified numerous ways in which

the system is gained or workaround

because of these factors. That is

how I have concluded that the

regulatory system is not fit for

purpose. In the interim report I

have been able to outline a

direction of travel for the future

which will lead to a simpler but

more effective system, which will

enable residents to be assured that

there are buildings are and will

continue to be safe to live in. We

can start the process of

implementing this culture change

without having to wait for a

regulatory change to be enacted, if

we enlist the support of

stakeholders. And to that end, this

interim report is a call to action

for those who are being invited to

attend a summit meeting on the 22nd

of January. That invitation is going

out as we speak. My work has been

and will continue to be independent

of the public enquiry process, which

will investigate the details of what

happened to cause the tragedy at

Grenfell Tower in June. However, the

regulatory review, I believe, will

be an important input into that

enquiry, and I will be sharing the

work of the review in full with the

enquiry team. Thank you.

Thank you

very much for that. That is a pretty

damning comment, I think, but the

current system and the failings of

it and what needs to be put right.

Do you feel you had a broad enough

range of evidence from a broad range

of different sources, to enable you

to get a complete overview of what

the current system is, its failures

and what needs to be put right?

I

do. I feel very confident in that we

have had, we issued a call for

evidence in September. We had more

than 250 responses to that call for

evidence. And in addition to that, I

have personally spoken to more than

300 people during the course of a

series of round table meetings that

we have held. So I think we have got

a very good cross sectional view

from all of the different

stakeholders. And what is clear to

me from all of those responses is a

very strong sense from all of those

that we are at a point where the

regulatory system in its entirety

needs an overhaul.

Sometimes when

calls for evidence go out, it is

those with professional knowledge

and expertise who can easily access

the systems and get their evidence

in. Others don't know how to go

about it. Do you feel therefore you

got more than the usual professional

people giving you evidence? In

particular have you heard evidence

from the survivors of the Grenfell

tragedy and others closely related

to it?

Bearing in mind that this

review has been looking at how

regulations apply to high-rise

buildings in the broader sense, I

would answer that by saying that we

have held, of those round table

meetings that I referred to, two of

those were specifically held for

residents' groups. We had residents

attending those. We had some

extremely good feedback. We held one

in Manchester and one in London. And

both of those were very well

attended, and we got some very good

input from people. And -- what it

was like to be in their position. As

I have noted in the report, some of

that evidence was some of the most

impact for evidence we have heard

about what it is like to be in that

position and what some of their

concerns are.

Specifically about

Grenfell and their survivors?

Not

specifically about Grenfell,

although we would have welcomed

responses from residents in

Grenfell. We did write to them on

Friday to inform them this report

was going to be coming out today.

And we have offered to talk them

through it as and when they are

ready, if they wish to do so.

So you

didn't have evidence directly from

them? Row --?

I don't believe so.

Unless they fed it in through

residents associations. We cannot

trace evidence from people who lived

at or near to Grenfell Tower.

Right.

But you are saying now that having

produced your interim report, you

will make a specific effort to

contact .Mac --...

We have already

done so. Yes.

OK. You also mentioned

the relationship with the public

enquiry. You are independent of

that. But he will feed into that. Is

there anything more that he wants to

add about the relationship between

the public enquiry and the work you

were doing, particularly the further

work you are going to do to produce

your final report?

As I have already

stated, the difference, I think, is

that this piece of work is

independent, and is independent of

the timing of the public enquiry.

What I have been asked to do by the

Secretary of State is to produce

some timely recommendations on how

the regulatory system can be

improved. It is my intention to work

to the timetable that I was asked to

meet. I see no difficulty in doing

that. We will share all of the

information with the public enquiry.

And I would expect it to inform

their work. I more than happy to

give evidence to them. I anticipate

having to do so. That is fine. What

I have also indicated is that if, at

the end of the public enquiry, there

is a need to look again at the

recommendations that I have made in

the light of the public enquiry, I

will be happy to do that as well.

Your timescale of the -- will not be

affected by the public enquiry?

It

will not be affected by the public

enquiry. My report will be published

in the spring. And will make

recommendations for how the

regulatory system can be adjusted.

The timing for implementation of

that, clearly, rests with others.

Amongst the terms of reference for

the enquiry is a comparison with

other international systems. I'm

interested to see how you would

follow that process and what shape

that is taking?

We've done that in a number of ways,

including through some professional

bodies. Early in the process we

enlisted the help and support of the

Royal Academy of Engineering to make

contact with engineering experts

elsewhere in their network to

provide us with details of

regulatory regimes and how they

operated elsewhere in the world. The

team that has been supporting me

within DCLG and the Home Office have

made contact with a number of other

Governments, both in European

countries and also further afield,

including Singapore, United Arab

Emirates and we have met with people

wo have been visiting here.

Including people from Australia. And

the United Arab Emirates and

reviewed in detail their experience

of fires in high-rise buildings and

the details of their regulatory

regimes and how they differ from

ours.

Is this a specific stream of

work to look at international

systems where these, particularly

where problems have not happened as

well as places where these things

have happened?

It's been a specific

stream of the review. And there is

specific texts within the interim

report that identifies some of the

findings so far and we will revisit

that again in due course when we

come on to the next phase of this

process which is when we will start

to look at what a revised regulatory

regime here in England would look

like. I should also add that we have

spoken and I have visited Wales and

we've talked to the Welsh Government

and we have had detailed

conversations with people in

Scotland as well.

Thank you.

In your report and opening remarks

you made clear the current system is

not fit for purpose. Could you

briefly highlight from the six areas

that you highlighted on both now and

the future direction of travel where

you think the principle problems

lie?

Of course, I would be happy to.

First of all, I think it's important

to recognise, and as we have stated

in the report, the regulatory system

depends more than what is written in

statute. How well a regulatory

system works depends on the

regulations themselves. It also

depends upon the people who are part

of the system and how things are

interpreted and the whole culture to

which that regulatory regime

applies. So far me the overriding

requirement of all of this is to

drive a culture change but to answer

your specific questions n the areas

of regulations and guidance I was

told when I started out on this

intersize that our regulatory system

was goals based. What I found is

there is a great deal of confusion

between what is regulation and what

is guidance. Many people refer to

the guidance as the regulations,

when it clearly isn't. And for the

future I would want to see a system

that was simpler, streamlined,

risk-based and proportionate. I

don't believe that the guidance, in

particular, has been writ within the

user in mind, at the moment. There

are too many sections of separate

guidance writ no-one tram lines and

that needs to be -- written in tram

lines and that needs to be brought

together in a coherent fashion,

rather than meeting several

different aspects of safety and

making buildings fit for purpose,

driving that towards a coherent

conclusion rather than several

different answers from different

sets of guidance I think would be

much more helpful to the user. In

terms of roles and responsibilities,

there is a need for greater clarity

and less ambiguity in the system.

I've still to find someone who can

point to me and say, that's the

person doing the work. And that's

someone who gets referred to an

awful lot in the regulations and the

guidance, because at any given time

that could be anybody. What we need

is a much clearer and unambiguous

system with senior people at

different stages in the process.

Remember I am talking not just about

the construction phase, but in the

on-going management of the life

cycle of a building. At every one of

those stages there needs to be a

clearly identified individual with

responsibility. Not having that

defuse among numerous people within

the system because part of the

problem currently is that people

point to others and say, well, I

think that is their job, not mine

and that we have to resolve in the

next phase.

I've said in the report there is a

lack of competent throughout the

system and that's in all areas. In

the construction industry, I think

whilst there are many competent

people, the system for identifying

and differentiating those who are

competent from those who are not is

ineffective. There is also a miss

match on the regulatory side between

where the regulatory system now

exists partly in local authorities

and partly in the private sector.

There's a requirement upon those

inspectors in building control who

are in the private sector to have a

level of competence, which is not

reflected in the requirements of

those who are employed by local

authority. Yeltsin -- yet on the

other hand it is those who take

enforcement, not in the private

sector. There is a need to raise

competence and Level Up between

those two groups of people as well

as creating greater independence.

That leads me on to my fourth point,

which is about the process and

enforcement of this.

We definitely need stronger

enforcement and more realistic

sanctions in this process. Currently

the disincentive for taking short

cuts in the system is, in my view,

so low that it encourages people to

hope they just won't get caught and

even if they do the worse that can

happen is they'll be asked to put it

right. There are no real penalties

in the system. Fifthly, we have

talked about the need for the

residents themselves to have a much

stronger voice in this process. I

said earlier that I was deeply

impacted by talking to residents and

what is quite clear is that they

don't know who to go to because of

the complex ownership models in many

of the properties that they live in.

It's very difficult for them to know

and particularly to raise some of

the sensitive issues that they are

concerned about.

Fear of eviction, fear of saying

things about their neighbours which

may not be kept in confidence as

well as not knowing where in the

system to go and not feeling that if

they are not heard by their landlord

or the building owner, where to go

after then, really is a mystery to

many of them.

And then finally, my sixth area of

recommendation is around quality

assurance and products. I think

again the system there is less than

clear. Which is a kinder way of

putting it. I think there is the

means of testing results in a result

of classifications and products but

the way which those products are

marketed again doesn't help to make

clear to those using the products

which what is suitable for what

applications and again an

intelligent approach to that, which

is much more aimed at helping the

user get the right answer, would

help to make this system much more

effective.

Thank you for that. Clearly there

are lots of issues there. Let me

perhaps touch on one. In your report

under I think item 1.17, you say,

there is a widespread culture in

relation to building and fire

standards of waiting to be told what

to do by regulators rather than

taking responsibility for building

to correct standings. Is that the

issue in terms of culture change

which you feel is important? I

appreciate there may be others but

that issue as to where

responsibility lies. Is that part of

this shifting culture you have

mentioned?

Indeed. I think you've

put your finger on one of the key

points for me, which has been quite

a surprise to me in looking at this

system. Which is the extent to which

we have arrived at a place where we

have a system where somehow

Government isn't expected to be the

one prescribing the detail of what

materials can be used where. To an

industry that ought to be the

experts in their own right.

For me, an effective regulatory

regime is one where Government sets

standards, sets the outcomes that I

talked about earlier, but where the

regulator then ensures that the

people doing the work and the people

who have clear responsibility for

that are assessing the risk and

demonstrating that the materials

that they are using are fit for

purpose. And that shift in

responsibility is absolutely

fundamental to where we need to go.

Thank you for that. Can I just ask

one question about immediate action?

You said at the start that you saw

this as a call to action.

Yes.

And

yet looking at certainly some of the

other, as it were, major spokesmen

in this field, they have argued from

this moment there should be a ban on

come bust table materials, in other

words, the Government should do

something now. I recognise there are

initial recommendations of some

changes here in your report but you

are not suggesting substantive

action by Government at this moment.

What is the reasoning for that?

Main

actions I am suggesting Government

need to take at this point are to

revisit the current guidance and to

simplify it significantly, as a step

towards moving that change in

ownership. But the reason that I

don't, I'm not yet at the point of

picking up those specifics is that

I, that would simply replicate the

flaw that we have just described

that if it remains with Government

to specify what can and can't be

used before we have moved people to

this place where we have a different

ownership model, we would simply be

re-enforcing the current approach

rather than taking people on that

journey to a different ownership

model, where the risk and the

responsibility lies clearly with

those constructing the building.

So

is the thinking behind your idea of

a summit beginning of next year,

that a wide range of people who have

a responsibility of Government and

the private sector and indeed local

Government, that all of them have to

gather in your summit - is that the

purpose of the summit?

Absolutely it

is. We will look to set up work

streams to take those things

forward, to take forward the

industry competency issues, to take

forward some of those areas of

looking at how products are

marketed. How products are tested

and so on. We will look to engage

industry and Government in taking a

number of work streams forward, in

parallel with us redesigning the

overall regulatory frame York.

Thank

you.

Just following from the questions, I

think you referred to an

outcome-based system you were

looking for, rather than

prescription. In your direction of

travel, second point, it should be a

shift away from Government solely

holding the burden for updating

guidance, isn't the risk with that,

we are back to where we are today,

was your own interpretations. Isn't

that something which has gone wrong

- people have interpreted the rules

and therefore it has not been clear

what people are supposed to do -

isn't that one of the difficult

tuties?

-- difficulties? Yes, it is.

It is one of the difficulties that

the complexity of the current

guidance is not helpful in terms of

people getting to the right answer.

But let me explain what I mean by

that. I mentioned that the guidance

is writ no-one a number of different

-- written in a number of different

sections. You can read through on

fire safety, which will give you

some indication of materials that

you can use. You can read a

different, completely separate

section of the guidance on thermal

insulation which will give you a

different set of, and somehow and at

some point those things have to be

brought together. I envisage a

system in the future where it will

be much easier for those people who

are specifying those materials to

find which materials meet all of

those criteria at the same time,

rather than them either knowingly or

unknowingly preferring one criteria

over another.

The EU -based system says you can

only use noncombustible materials,

for example. Isn't that open to

interpretation?

If you look at any

of the specifics in this and lifted

out of the regulation, it looks

pretty clear. It is only when you

look at the map of how this fits

together that you start to see how

complex it is. One of the problems

currently with this regulatory

system we have in place is that

there is the ability in their to

substitute one material for another

on the basis of what is called a

desktop review. The evidence that we

have gathered indicates that

sometimes those desktop reviews of

substitute materials are done

thoroughly. At other times what

happens is there is material that

has been tested and approved. There

is then a desktop reviewed done that

says something else. Another desk

review happens and is compared with

previous desktop reviews and you can

see how you start to drift away from

materials that were thoroughly

tested and approved for use. So

elsewhere in this report you will

see that we are recommending a real

thorough look at how and when

desktop reviews are allowed within

the system. But to come back to your

original question, which was about

how we make this effective, the new

system will become effective because

we will change the way in which it

is regulated. It will happen because

we will focus in the areas of

highest risk. That's why it needs to

be risk-based. So there is no

intention in my head or in my plan

for all of the things that I'm

suggesting here to be applied to

every house that is built. This

needs to be about multiple

occupancy, complex buildings were

large numbers of people are placed

at risk in the event of fire. We

need a different level of attention

in the regulatory arena on those

sorts of buildings.

To summarise

your findings, the rules and roles

are not clear. The assessment of

confidence was inadequate and the

compliance was weak. As well as

ascertaining that, did you look at

how we had arrived at a system like

that? It seems incredible that we

would be in a position like that in

2017. Do you look at how we

developed that level of inadequacy

in terms of how we specify and a

supervisor building regulations?

We

have looked at some of that. And I

allude to some of that in the

report. For example, there is

evidence that we present in the

report that shows there was clear

evidence that the number of deaths

in fires prior to Grenfell was

reducing year-on-year. But perhaps

suggests there was an element of

complacency building in. That people

no longer thought that really

catastrophic incidents the nature of

Grenfell Tower could happen. I think

there is an element of that in

there. I think there is also an

element in here that needs to do

with the complex ownership models

that we talked about earlier. You

have residents' associations,

housing associations, landlords...

In all sorts of different ownership

models. You have high rise buildings

were some of the flats are owned,

some are still rented. So it gets

very difficult to assign those

responsibilities, which is why we

have to address all of those issues.

In terms of looking forward, you

will be aware that building owners,

landlords, people in the

construction sector, are keen for a

clear guidance on how they can move

forward, yet you have urged not to

wait but consider what has already

been identified and tested as safe.

You probably can see that many are

reluctant to spend at this point

until they receive the full outcome

of your review. Could you comment on

what other people do today when they

are left with these difficult

choices?

I see no reason at all why

people should be waiting at this

point for further advice on what to

do if they are considering replacing

cladding. The guidance, not from me

but from the expert panel on what

has been tested and what is safe, is

clear. It is not ambiguous. There is

no reason at all why that cannot be

followed. The only caveat that I

have put on that in this report is

that in order to put in place a

system that has integrity, not only

do you need to use the right

materials, you need to ensure the

installation of that material. It is

those things together that will

ensure that you put on a proper

system.

Thank you.

Excuse me. I just wanted

to touch on two points that were

made when you are responding. One of

it was about the different types of

ten years you have in these complex

buildings. Surely in ensuring the

building itself is safe. The

responsibility of the owner of the

building? So if you own a flat in

Grenfell, you do own and pay for the

household. But the building itself

is not the owner's responsibility.

That was my first observation that I

would like some clarity on. The

second, when you are talking about

the cladding and the material and

other authority -- authorities

seeking some guidance, do you think

that leans more towards the

installation as opposed to the

material itself? The testing was on

the material. Of the installation of

the material was really important.

And I think sometimes in some

authorities, yes, we may -- may

highlight what materials are not

safe, but if they are installed

correctly with certain measures in

place, they no longer are unsafe. I

would like some clarity on that as

well.

OK. I will take the second one

first. Yes, the way in which

materials are installed is equally

important as to whether you are not

-- using the right materials. It is

a combination of the two that

provides integrity in the system. I

am very conscious of having said

that, there is a shortage of

confidence in the system. Some may

wonder whether that means some of

this cannot be done because there is

not enough competent people out

there. But certainly my experience

in the industry over many years,

where the other way of achieving

quality, insurance and installation,

is to ensure you have appropriate

levels of supervision. Many people

have commented as part of this

review that there has been a real

fall away in the numbers of projects

on which clerks of works are

employed to oversee the quality

assurance of all aspects of

modifications and construction work.

In terms of who is responsible for

which parts of buildings, I wish it

were that simple that it was easy to

trace who owns the building. In many

cases where there are housing

associations or tenants'

associations in place, owners will

be of sure. -- offshore. It may be a

financial organisation. We have come

across models like that. The roster

pin down the building owner who

takes responsibility, at this point

has proven quite difficult. We have

still got to do more work. But I am

sure of is wanted building has been

commissioned, and this is a very

important part, the first thing is

whoever is appointed at that time to

be the responsible person for the

whole building, as opposed to the

individual compartments, they must

be in possession of the information

they need in order to manage that

process. Right now, that information

at that point of handover of a

building is sadly lacking. And we

must not make any assumptions in

this system, because what we have

found is that you can start out with

a design of a building. By the time

the building is built, it has been

changed and those changes have not

been recorded. So for someone and

then to be charged with managing

that building for decades to come,

without knowing what they are

starting with, is handing somebody

an impossible task. There are so

many elements to this. That is why I

keep coming back to the fact this is

a systemic problem and there are

many elements of the system that

have to be fixed in order to regain

the level of integrity that we all

want to see.

If one may, just on

that point, when it comes to

ensuring the building, if people

don't have the relevant

documentation is, how is the

insurance, how is the building in

short?

We have talked to the

insurance industry. They have

indicated to us that they share our

concern about some of these, some of

the lack of information that is

available to them. But I think to be

absolutely fair to them, to give

them credit, they recognise their

social responsibility and were very

clear to us that they choose to

underwrite things, even though they

may not have all of the information

that they would want to have. They

think it would be irresponsible for

them to refuse to ensure -- ensure

buildings and leave the residents

therein exposed. -- insurer.

They

still the absence of the material

they require?

But they don't feel

comfortable. They are supportive of

this direction of travel, as are

most of the other people we have

spoken to.

Thank you.

You have

highlighted the problem of the lack

of consistent information from the

design through the building process

and on into the subsequent

management of the buildings. The

government has talked about having a

digitalisation of construction and

moving building information

modelling/ do you think there is a

role for a single shared digital

record, which then might be able to

incorporate the various systems you

have been referring to, and allow

the subsequent management of the

building to have a clear record of

every step of the design process

before?

Is that part of this? Yes, I

do indeed. I have spoken to the

people who are promoting and

building information modelling

systems. It is the ability to build

that information bank up overtime.

Whatever we have got is what we have

got. We can add to that as and when

more information is determined

through surveys or reviews as they

become available.

In the report you said you were

shocked by some of the practices you

had heard about in the construction

industry. However, you identify the

reforms are not simply down to a

revision of legislation. Are you

confident that the construction

industry is sufficiently competent?

You focus on competency throughout

the report. Are you confident they

can implement the regulations now

and in the future?

I'm confident

they are capable of doing it. And as

long as the will is there, I believe

it is eminently possible. Why is

that? Because I have already seen

them do it once. I spent ten years

as chair of the health and social --

health and safety executive. When I

started, construction had a rather

poor record for the safety of its

own employees. And it underwent a

transformation in that decade, which

resulted in us building the safest

Olympic project ever in 2012. That

was a massive culture change within

the construction industry in terms

of the way it cares for, looks after

and manages the safety of its own

employees. What we are actually

asking them to do in this report is

to repeat that, with their focus on

people who are going to live in the

buildings that they build for the

decades after they walk away from

those projects.

OK. How clear out the roles and

responsibilities of those... Sorry.

Of those certifying the roles and

responsibilities... How clear out

the roles and responsibilities of

those certifying the safety of

building works at the moment?

They

are not clear. In terms of what they

are saying a building is certified

for. And indeed I think we need to

be careful about the effectiveness

of that process. Again coming back

to the map, and I would urge you all

to look at that very complex map at

the back of this report, which

describes all the different steps

the process... What we know is that

there are a number of ways in which,

even if what you've got there is how

the system should work, there are a

number of weaknesses.

It is often compromised by a phased

handover process, where some parts

of the building are ak pied be fr

the rest is complete and we have

even come across cases where that

documentation, that certification

never appears in its final form.

Thank you.

Moving on to sprinklers - there's

been a lot of discussion and debate

about whether they should be fitted

to all high rise residential

buildings. And certainly some

councils have decided to go down

that road, often with the advise of

their Fire Services. Others haven't

and administers have made comments

and said it is for local authorities

to take advice and pursue the line

they think appropriate. You have not

made any recommendations on this in

your report. Have you any thoughts

on what should happen with regard to

retro fitting sprinklers?

I think

there's two things. There's a clear

case for looking at additional

layers of protection. The none

worsening approach that is taken to

older buildings in the regulation

that there is no requirement to try

to improve when you make

modifications but to ensure things

are no worse than they were before.

I would much prefer to see a system

where people are encouraged to do

what is reasonable and sensible and

affordable to improve protection

when they are making significant

changes to buildings. That's one of

the things we will be looking at in

the next phase. That could include

sprinklers. It could include a

number of other measures, including

addition Alistair cases. Additional

doors, different means of

protection, alarm systems. All of

those different ways of providing

added protection I think are valid

to be considered. What is clear to

me is there's not a simple one

answer to this that will apply to

every building. It depends upon the

nature of the building. The

residents who are occupying that

building, their vulnerability. We

have said clearly in here that we

have to look in some more detail of

this next phase of the review at

what constitutes this higher risk we

are looking at. It is not simply

about high rise, it is about

complexity of the building and the

residents who live in those

buildings and their capabilities.

OK, so what you are saying is when

modifications are made to buildings,

high-rise buildings, others where

there are challenges, then there

should billion a look at what more

needs to be done as well as the

modifications to maic those

buildings safer, which could involve

sprinklers or other changes?

Yes.

What about those buildings where no

modifications are planned to be made

- are you saying we should do

nothing? Not at all. Not at all.

What's clear to me is that the

current fire risk assessment that is

required to be done on a regular

basis is until many ways. There's no

specified time period. It also

doesn't have to be reported to

anyone, which I find rather strange.

At the very least I think a fire

safety risk assessment of every

complex building should be done

annually. Even if there are no

modifications and what is more, in

order to upgrade the quality of

those risk assessments, they ought

to be made available both to the

Fire and Rescue Service and to the

residents. So that they are aware of

the work and the review that has

been done of their building.

So even without modifications on a

regular basis, all these buildings

should be looked at?

Yes. Absolute.

I am saying modification should

trigger that process but that every

building should be subject to a

regular review, regardless of

whether it is modified or not.

And

as part of that regular review,

sprinklers may be looked at. You are

not saying they are the answer but

should be considered.

They should be

considered as one of the additional

layers of protection which is

affordable.

You talk about the review every year

and this sounds to be a really

positive step, but fwifen may assess

to have staircases, other

modifications, earlier you spoke

about the voice of residents being

heard, when the residents know

something may need to be done, there

will be a great clamour for it to be

done immediately. How will you

change that risk assessment into

action?

First of all, I've been

surprised in many ways by talking to

residents as part of this process.

And what has surprised me more than

anything is they are both pragmatic

and very reasonable. They understand

risk and I think we should be weary

of doing to them rather than

involving them in the decision about

what is done.

I think it's hugely important that

they are part of the decision about

what is done to their home and the

community, which is what they see

that building as being and I think

it is absolutely essential that they

are part of agreeing the solution

rather than being done to.

Just on that point, is it not

peculiar that many in most building

which are offices there are regular

fire drills, yet it does not seem to

be the case for most homes. The

opportunity to have an annual review

and for residents to see the outcome

of that seems a sensible notion, but

should the regulations not also

ensure that the ability of the

people who live in those buildings

to actually get out if there is an

emergency, be tested and not wait

until an incident occurs?

If I may

slightly modify what you're asking

me, do I think the urgency

procedures need to be tested for its

effectiveness? Absolutely, it does.

Part of the problem with residential

properties is a large number of

them, the emergency, the first

emergency response is to stay put in

your building until told to do

otherwise. So, the question of when

and if evacuation is required is put

further out than it would be in the

case of an office building. But

having said that, does the system

need to be tested? Does it need to

be reviewed as part of a regulatory

process to ensure that it would be

effective? Effective if it were ever

called into action? Yes, it does.

Because clearly, and I welcome that,

but clearly, I think many residents

will wanted to know, we are there

may be a good reason in certain

circumstances they should be

advised, which is the current Fire

Service approach to stay in their

building, but most would want to

know if something does go wrong,

they want to be clearer in their own

mind about their ability to get down

those stairs. I am thinking

particularly of the elderly and the

infirm on levels 20 or indeed five

and above.

Absolutely.

So regular

fire drills surely must be

incorporated inside this type of

property in the future, in terms of

your review of the fire safety

standards.

Regular tests of the

emergency procedures will be an

integral part of this. Whether that

goes all the way to evacuation,

given many of the challenges of that

in some cases, but being absolutely

sure that the emergency response

would work is clearly critical to

this. And it's critical to

rebuilding the confidence of those

residents. I think one issue we have

undoubtedly encountered amongst

residents we have spoken to is that

whole question of whether or not

they would stay put, in spite of

that being instruction, whether

human behaviour would override that

instruction at this point in time,

is a question that we have to

revisit in this next phase.

Dame Judith, you talk in your report

about the route of evidence concerns

to be addressed and raised is

unclear and inadequate. You talk

also about regulators having similar

problems the getting concerns

addressed. Do you think we need to

re-look at the approach, to both

listening to residents' concerns and

making sure there is follow up and

making sure they are addressed?

Yes.

I do. Absolutely, I agree with both

that there has to be a much more

effective way of getting those

concerns raised and raised beyond

the landlord or the agent if they

feel they are not being heard. Yes,

I do.

So there needs to be a common

pathway through which people can

take things outside then?

Yes. Yes.

Thank you. Do you think that when

they raise the concerns, residents

have access to sufficient

information to know whether their

concerns are reasonable or not? I am

thinking if...

An effective system

for resident voices to be heard will

not be effective if there's no

feedback loop. Is the simple answer

to that. I would go further. I think

part of what we have uncovered here

is that sometimes the information

that is provided to residents is

wholly inadequate. Residents

themselves have responsibilities in

this system. When you live in a high

rise complex building, in close

proximity to other people, you can

make changes and sometimes very

simple changes to your own

compartment, your property, which

can put you and other residents at

risk without you understanding that

simple changes like installing

broadband or changing your front

door is compromising that, the

integrity of that compartment, which

is fundamental to being able to stay

put. So part of what we have to do

as well is improve the information

that's provided to residents to

enable them to make informed

decisions about what they can and

should not do within their own

properties.

And were there maybe a difference

between a landlord and residents

about whether concerns are real or

not, do you think there's a case for

those residents also having access

to external support or external...

Yes and whether that is some form of

ombudsman or direct to the regulator

is to be what we look at in this

next phase. It this is an interim

report. I cannot give you details of

the new framework, other than in

direction of travel, but, yes, be

assured that is all part of our

thinking for what the new framework

needs to look like for the future.

Thank you.

Completely understanding this is an

interim report, do you think that

with regard to the need for resident

voices to be clearly heard there

might be a need for a new statutory

framework which established a

rights-based apro-even to residents

and their homes? Gives the right to

independent information, gives the

right to trigger reviews and confers

a responsibility on to landlords in

statute to respond to the findings

of an independent review that has

been triggered through that process?

I wouldn't, at this stage I couldn't

answer that. What I do know is

there's much more work that we need

to do in terms of looking at that.

Whilst I absolutely recognise all of

the concerns of residents, to give

this some balance, I think what I

also have to make, put alongside

that is some of the evidence that

we've heard from those who do try to

take a responsible approach to being

a landlord or an agent or whatever.

But who tell us in the team that

sometimes part of their difficulty

is gaining access to the properties

of people so that they can carry out

reviews that enable them to look at

whether there are problems within

individual properties that create a

problem for the whole. So there are

two sides to this. I think we've got

to look at both and how you bring

that together and what the best

framework is to ensure that everyone

gets access to the information.

Just

come back on that briefly, so the

rights to gain access, I mean, you

know, each from our own

constituencies there are cases where

access are difficult. The right is

established under tenancy and

leasehold situations, for landlords

to undertake reviews which are a

matter of fire safety. As far as

residents are concerned, there is an

imbalance in the rights that

residents have with regard to their

landlords? So there are processes

for raising concerns which are not

fully on a statutory basis another

the moment. I suggest it is that

rebalance I am seeking to?

It is too early for me to say

whether that be a rights -based

approach what it might look like.

Following on from the voices of

residents, have you taken evidence

from those representing those with

disabilities with regards to the

adequacy of safety regulations? And

is that within the report?

I have

indeed. Some of the people who have

attended round table meetings for

residents have themselves been

severely disabled. We have heard

from them directly. Again, some of

the stories that we have heard of

properties where they have been

placed, and the difficulty of being

able to get out of that building, is

heartbreaking. Yes, we have heard

from them. It has been part of that

very strong voice we have heard from

the residents.

Going back to the

point before with regards to

sprinklers not being the ultimate

answer, because some of those

disability groups have voiced

concerns with regards to evacuation

procedures. All this will be taken

into account?

Yes.

Do the current systems for testing

electrical appliances need to be

improved?

It's not something we have

looked at in detail at this stage of

the process. I know a little bit

about portable appliance testing

from my previous life. But no, we

have not looked in detail at the

testing of domestic appliances at

this stage. So I couldn't answer

that question at this point.

Thank you.

Is it something you might

like to look at?

We could certainly

give it consideration. And that is

one of the real reasons why we

wanted to issue an interim report at

this stage. If there are things

people feel we need to look at

before taking this to the its final

stage, now is the time to tell us.

That is why we are looking for

feedback. We can take it away and

look at it and get back to you. And

outline how we would accommodate

that in our review.

It seems to me as if there needs to

be awareness for residents. You have

spoken about broadband, possibly

testing of appliances, doors. These

are the things that people feel they

have charged over. Is there an

element of going into people's homes

specifically to check all of these

things are OK? It sounds intrusive.

Or is part of the culture change

that you want to bring forward about

people knowing what is OK in their

own house?

What is interesting is

that we focus a lot on how we need

to fix this where it is bad. What we

don't spend enough time talking

about is that there are some

extraordinary examples of good

practice out there, where some of

those things already happened. The

residents don't regard it as

intrusive because of the way in

which it is done. And what I would

hope we can do as part of bringing

about this culture change throughout

the system, is to bring together

those people who are already doing

these things well and sharing that

good practice more widely, to avoid

the risks of becoming

confrontational and intrusive.

Clearly that is a sensitivity we

have to avoid. I fully recognise

that.

Just following on from that point,

as we all know the awful tragedy at

Grenfell started in a fridge

freezer. The building regulations

passage that relates to the

installation of electrical goods

except in buildings, is something

this committee has felt for some

time needs to be modernised and

improved. We have been in

correspondence with ministers

concerned. They have told us that at

this point they are going to be

waiting for the outcome of your

review before they take any action

on this part of the regulations. Can

I ask, is the review going to be

looking specifically at bringing

that part of the regulations

up-to-date? It seems to me fairly

central to the origins of this

enquiry?

My review and my remade at

this point does not include any

details on other sections other than

fire safety and building

regulations. That said, what we are

going to be looking at is producing

a much more coherent and join dope

framework -- joined up framework. We

have already tasked people to start

looking at that and what it may look

like. And within that I would see no

reason why some of those other

sections can be more quickly updated

as part of producing guidance aimed

at helping people raise the standard

of a number of issues in this area

are all at the same time.

This part

of the building regulations... Does

your review logically that?

It

covers it in an umbrella sense in

terms of the overall framework. I

have not looked in detail at that

part and the electrical regulations

at this point. We will take that

away and come back to you.

OK. We

had a slightly different message

from the secretary of state.

We will

get back to you on an answer on the

extent at which we will be looking

at electrical regulations.

Just following on from learning from

other countries, I know obviously

you have said... Is there anything

specific we can take from other

countries that we can bring forward?

I think there are a number of

things, not least of which is that

from one of my early observations

would be that many other countries

have much more rigorous systems of

ensuring competence throughout the

system than we do. In many countries

people have to be licensed to do

some of these important

decision-making roles within the

system of building convex buildings.

We do not have that system here. --

complex buildings.

Is that something

you are likely to recommend? Is that

the direction that you want to move

in, a licensing system?

I have said

already that I think we have to have

a much more robust framework of

assuring competence. I think the

report quite clearly says we are

looking to the professional bodies

to come together very quickly and

come to us with a proposal. I would

hope that they would recognise there

needs to be a significantly more

robust system of regulation than

currently.

When I asked my questions earlier,

you said you wanted to look at more

outcomes -based approach rather than

systems approach. You agree that is

allowing people to make a judgment

or interpretation, is that not

correct?

It allows people to make

judgments. It also allows people to

come open with innovative solutions.

It also places the onus on them to

think about the consequences of

those decisions and what they take

and recognise their responsibilities

in making them. It also requires an

effective legislator to hold them to

account.

We don't just want

accountability. We want the correct

end point. We want to stop this

situation ever happening again. In

your first interim report findings

you said current regulations and

guidelines can lead to confusion and

misinterpretation. Isn't the

difficulty if you leave a system

open to interpretation, it will be

misinterpreted again?

Not if those

people who are then doing that

interpreting have to demonstrate to

an effective regulatory body the

integrity of the decisions that they

are making. That is why this is an

integrated -- inter-related system

were without a regulator there is a

risk in what you are suggesting and

why we have to fix a number of

elements of the system at the same

time.

Other any other countries with

effective systems that have not had

these problems, that are using a

system of interpretation rather than

a prescriptive approach?

It varies

enormously but yes, there are some

other systems out there that are

outcomes based. Were specifications

are produced a -- much more

involving industry rather than being

prescribed by government.

Which

country is using an outcomes -based

approach?

There are a group of

countries who meet on a regular

basis to talk about this, which

includes New Zealand and Australia.

I would need to come back to you

with details of which ones, out of

the ones we have looked at, have a

more outcomes -based approach.

I

would be very interested in that. In

France, for example, they simply

banned combustible materials on

high-rise buildings. Wouldn't that

be a simpler way to tackle the

problem we have seen at somewhere

like Grenfell?

I think we need to be

careful not to stray into focusing

on the specifics of what happened at

Grenfell as opposed to thinking

about what I subsequently been

demonstrated in terms of a number of

flaws in the system.

I accept that.

So simply to fix what we allow to be

put on the outside of the building

as cladding would only fix one

element of this system. What I would

hope that we have been able to

demonstrate from this mapping

exercise, and from the myriad

problems that we have found with

changes being made in an

uncontrolled fashion to Dorrans,

changes being made to the outside of

buildings, fire and rescue services

not being listened to when they make

recommendations, there is more to

this fixing the system than simply

specifying which cladding can and

can't macro be used.

I accept that.

But something either burns or it

doesn't burn. Noncombustible

material on the outside of Grenfell

would not have burned. Wouldn't that

have been a sensible conclusion to

arrive at very quickly? Some things

we have to be very prescriptive

about.

We have to be clear that

materials can only be used that have

been properly tested and meet

specification, however that is

defined, yes. Yes.

That is not what

you say at the moment. You are

intending an outcomes -based

approach.

Let's be clear, an

outcomes -based approach doesn't

mean you can do whatever you like.

Within any outcomes -based approach

there are some fundamental standards

that provide a framework.

Will you

prescribe at some point?

There maybe

some standards. It may not be me who

prescribes them but there will be

scope for certain things to be

prescribed where they are so

important that they cannot be left

to interpretation.

Thank you.

Clearly this is an important matter.

You spoke about the need for

licensing for complex buildings, the

construction of complex buildings.

Are you moving towards almost two

strands of construction. Ordinary

sector construction and complex

buildings separately. And if so,

regulations and rules going to be

applied just to that set of

buildings, just to complex

buildings?

Certainly I think we need

to recognise that more convex

buildings need people with their

higher degree of competence. --

complex.

So, yes, we are recommending a

risk-based approach. Whether it will

be two systems of r a graded system,

whereby different levels of risk

there'll be different requirements.

At this stage it is too early to

say. That is the phase two exercise,

to look at how we would set up that

risk-based approach.

I am wondering

whether or not there'll be building

construction businesses that will

sole I will be entitled to operate

in this field - in other words a

separate sector entirely?

It would

be dependant upon their level of

competence, yae. What I am very

conscious of in this is there is a

social need for housing in the UK

today and one of the things that I

am clearly not wanting to do is to

stand in the way of that process

going ahead, either because of cost

or resource or anything else. I am

convinced, and I firmly believe that

if we simplify this system and apply

a risk-based approach we will not

only make it more effective, we will

make it more efficient and

cost-effective in the long-haul.

Putting the time into getting the

deright will be more cost efficient

and effective for everyone.

On that

note of, it is very important

obviously that it is extremely safe,

so I want to go back to what my

colleague said, when you were

talking about an outcome based

approach, I just wanted some

clarification that what you're

saying is there'll be prescribed

terms as well as not instead of. So

if we feel that this needs to be

done, we would say, this needs to be

done and if you do think outside the

box and people come up with ideas

and suggestions, we can do both,

rather than... That would be subject

to scrutiny. Of course.

And would

have to be approved before a

different approach could be taken

and that would require the people

who come up with that different

approach to demonstrate that they

are putting all the necessary

thinking to, and were able to

demonstrate the effectiveness of the

system they were proposing.

I think

that the reason why I asked that

question was because to use non-come

bustable cladding doesn't seem like

it would be a negative thing, but

it's outcome-based and people can

come to us. I'm just trying to

clarify it's not instead of us

prescribing something, it is as well

as something which may be prescribed

- is that correct?

Yes.

Are you confident that your

conclusions will be implemented by

the Government, given past examples

of delays in this area?

I'm

reasonably confident, yes. Not least

because I think the overwhelming

evidence that we've gathered thus

far in this process is able to show

that there is a general recognition

of the need for change. I don't feel

that I'm going out on a limb

suggesting what I'm proposing in my

report today, that call for evidence

and that conversation, those

conversations we've had with

stakeholders clearly demonstrates

there is a wish to see this happen,

which I think is what gives me the

confidence that there is strong

support for the direction of travel

here.

As we go on to the second

stage of your review, you feel

confident that whatever you come

forward with will be implemented

without delay?

I'm optimistic. Thank

you.

Just coming on to one particular

issue, a general point, Fire And

Rescue Services, you referred to

them a number of times. Very often

they seem per riffly importance to

fire safety in high-rise properties.

Do you think in future they should

be integral about decisions made

about fire safety in blocks?

. That

is the easiest question of all. Yes.

I find it extraordinary they are

consulted at an early stage in the

process but one of the first pieces

of evidence that I heard from the

Fire And Rescue Services is their

advice is often not listened to. It

seems strange to me that the experts

who ultimately may have to fight

fires in these buildings offer their

advice and then it isn't taken on

board and it's very clear in this

report, this interim report that

that process needs to be

strengthened so their advice is

listened to and taken on board at

the earliest possible stage in a

building proposal.

So they would

have statutory right then to have

their advice acted on rather than...

We work out the detail of how it

needs to happen, but it needs to be

formalised, most definitely. Yes.

Just in terms of where we go to, I

mean there may be, there are

obviously many people living in

high-rise properties at present, and

what they will hear is we're going

to have another report, we're going

to have a summit. In the mean time I

am still in the same high rise block

with the same regulations in place,

which you said isn't fit for

purpose. Should people be

comfortable with that situation for

the next few days?

I have been asked

that question several times by the

media today. I think what we must do

is point residents to the many other

activities that are taking place and

not to see this review that I'm

conducting in isolation. There 's

been an extraordinary amount of work

done by those Fire And Rescue

Services, in conjunction with local

authorities and central Government,

to put in place measures to improve

their safety since Grenfell. What I

am trying to do is to build a better

system for the future. My report

does not say that all buildings are

unsafe. It's, there are, there's

clear evidence that many people

build to high standards, in spite of

the weaknesses and the flaws in the

regulatory sis tesmt what we have to

do is make that much more

widespread, much more effective, and

in particular, we have to keep that

process going throughout the life

cycle of the building, not just

during construction.

So even

awaiting for the change of system

that you will eventually

recommend... . They should take

ashurpss from the measures taken

place -- assurance from the measures

taken place. But there are further

measures to give them greater

assurance. That you suggested that I

should be doing, to make sure their

buildings are safe?

Yes.

OK, so what

sort of time frame have you in mind

for a new system to be fully in

place, which takes on board the

criticism that you are making of the

current system and puts it right?

I

would prefer to answer that question

after we've had this summit with the

stakeholders, because as I said in

my opening remarks, I think much of

this which is about change of

culture and shift in ownership and

recognition of responsibilities, are

things that can happen relatively

quickly. Culture change doesn't

happen overnight. I accept that. But

I think clarity of roles and

responsibilities, people taking a

different approach which recognises

that need to build safe buildings

that can be occupied safely for the

long-haul, that is a shift that can

take place relatively quickly. We

can shadow operate, without waiting

for regulation. So I think there are

many steps we can take in the next

six to 12 months that can start to

move us to a very different place in

terms of how we manage the building

and maintenance and management of

complex buildings.

So 12 months'

time we want to see in place a

different system - there'll probably

still try to change culture - that

will still be going on?

In 12

months' time I would hope that we

would see some change in culture.

Numerous practises. But we may be

waiting for the formal enactment of

legislation. There'll be some

changes as a result of this - yes.

Just in terms of where we get to

then, we have a change of system.

One of the things I think has been

raised as a matter of concern, it

took the tragedy of Grenfell to

actually have this review that you

are undertaking. Even when your

review is reported and the changes

are made, that shouldn't be a

situation where everyone sits back

and says, we've done it now. We've

got a new system in place, we can

all go away and forget about it.

Should there be regular reviews of

the system to make sure it is fit

for purpose, operating effectively

in the way we would want?

Yes. There

should be. I would emphasise that

the words you used are absolutely

the right ones. There should be

regular reviews of the efekiveness

of the system. -- effectiveness of

the system. A number of people have

said to me, should there not be

regular reviews of the regulations?

I draw a distinction between the

two. If we get the regulatory

framework right and it is effective,

and less prescriptive, then there

should be less need to keep updating

it, to keep pace with new changes

and innovations. But we need to

continue to keep its effectiveness

under review, yes.

It seems to me that at the heart of

much of what you are suggesting is

whatever is written on the page n

the end what matters is someone is

held to account for what they do. Is

that the argument about outcomes

based because I think obviously

people with a technical background

will grasp all of that, but for most

of our constituents it seems a

little vague.

There needs to be

clear... In the system. Yes.

Right.

And people need to feel that

responsibility.

Yes.

Thank you.

Anything else you'd like to add?

I

don't think so.

Thank you very much

indeed coming and answering a wide

range of questions. We obviously

look forward to your final report.

No doubt you will come back and talk

to us about that. We probably give

you one or two other aer yas to look

at, electrical appliances to add to

your considerations.

We will get

back to you where we are on those

things and yes, I will be happy to

come back and update you on when the

final report is.

Thank you very much

for coming along.

That brings us to

the end of our proceedings