Construction seems to be constantly under pressure to reform, with pressure heightening in the wake of disasters like the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy. These calls seem to fall mostly on deaf ears so the next thing heard is usually calls for the industry to have reform imposed upon it by legislation.
Some legislative interventions have had positive impacts. The legislation imposed adjudication regime has at least succeeded in freeing up some industry cash flow. Health and safety seems to have improved significantly, largely driven by legislation.
It has always been obvious that major changes in the design and construction of multi storey towers as well as supervision of site operations would be ushered in by public outrage over the scale of loss of life in the Grenfell disaster. The Dame Judith Hackitt review of fire safety legislation in May 2018 outlined changes that would have to be introduced by legislation. The review also contained recommendations on changes in practice that the industry could introduce in the meantime. Few, if any, of these appear to have been voluntarily adopted.
Dame Judith is now head of a transition board that will oversee introduction of the new Building Safety Regulator to be located within the Health and Safety Executive. Legislation setting it up will not be passed until next year but it will meanwhile operate as a shadow organisation without statutory powers. The industry is in for a major shake up, and perhaps not only in areas immediately or obviously related to Grenfell.
Specialist contractors have called on powers to be given to the new Building Safety Regulator to police procurement practices as well as health and safety. In her review Dame Judith said building safety was compromised by poor procurement practices such as a focus on lowest price. Adversarial contracts imposed too much risk on smaller firms in the supply chain. Her calls for adoption of collaborative partnerships and ‘fair treatment’ all along the supply chain chime with the sort of things the industry says it is looking for now.
There have been calls for the new regulator to produce a code of procurement related ethical behaviour with sanctions for breaches, and for teamworking to be promoted by the procurement process.
Dame Judith herself has recently mentioned procurement processes as in need of overhaul. At a conference in February she lambasted the industry for using its fragmentation as an excuse for a poor approach to fire safety. Change the level of fragmentation then, she said, a clear signal that old excuses won’t be accepted by the new safety regime.
She also spoke up for dropping adversarial practices and for more collaboration. She called for more use of project insurance rather than reliance on professional indemnity policies. The industry is just waiting to be told what to do by the new regulator, she accused, but the industry knows what it has to do and it would be folly not to get on with it.
The odds are still that the industry will wait for legislation and do what it is then forced to do, but an opportunity is being missed to lead the reform process itself.
Nick Barrett
Editor