Written evidence submitted by Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [BSB 377]
1.1 Sir Robert McAlpine (SRM) welcomes the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny on the Draft Building Safety Bill and is grateful for this opportunity to respond to your call for evidence.
1.2 SRM are passionate about building safety and quality control through all stages of the design and construction of our projects, which is why we welcome the Government’s commitment to improve standards and create more accountability on every project. There should be an emphasis on ensuring the right frameworks and procedures are in place to judge building competence and safety fairly and ensure offenders receive robust penalties.
1.3 We welcome the Bill’s recognition of the issues and support the sentiments outlined in the draft legislation. Our response to the Committee’s questions largely focus on areas in which we would be grateful for further detail and clarification to ensure that the construction industry can adequately implement and deliver the new measures.
2.1 Sir Robert McAlpine is a family-owned building and civil engineering company operating from 12 offices across the UK. Established in 1869, we have been a ubiquitous construction leader over two centuries. We are honoured to have worked on some of Britain’s most iconic buildings and projects, such as the Olympic Stadium, O2 Arena, Emirates Stadium, the Eden Project, Victoria Gate Shopping Centre in Leeds, the M74 Completion in Glasgow, and Victoria Square in Woking.
2.2 The values at the heart of our operations include a commitment to the highest standards of safety, quality, engineering excellence, sustainability, and an unswerving focus on the needs and aspirations of our clients, with an overall aim to make a positive impact on the communities and the environment in which we operate.
3.1 We believe the draft Bill will create sufficient scope in order to allow for a robust new regulatory system, however, we also believe that there are certain aspects of the proposed legislation which require further clarification to aid the construction industry.
3.2 The definition of a ‘high risk building’ is a building over 6 storeys or 18 metres. At SRM, we would appreciate understanding whether there is scope within the Bill to expand the current definition of “high risk building” to include new and updated definitions over time. For example, Building Regulation 7 (2) which models high risk buildings is currently being consulted on and could extend the definition of high-risk buildings. We would like to see scope within the Bill for the current definition of ‘high risk building’ to be expanded to take account for updated definitions.
3.3 Furthermore, we would like to see the definition of ‘high risk building’ to be able to be expanded to include the undertaking of particular building practices, such as the use of Modern Methods of Construction and modular buildings, or buildings with timber frameworks.
3.4 We would also like to see clarification in the Bill included on whether the occupants of the building will be considered when assessing if it is ‘high risk’. For example, would a low-rise school, care home or hospital be considered “high risk” buildings, given the vulnerable nature of their tenants.
3.5 We think it is worth the Committee considering whether this Bill should apply to all building to form a consistent approach across the industry that ensures buildings are safe and constructed to the correct specification to ensure fire compliance.
4.1 Whilst the Bill proposes a solid system of accountability and will help to ensure rigorous building safety as well as a high level of standards, we believe that questions remain around the definition of ‘competence’ and how this will be assessed in the system. For instance, will it comprise of a mix between professional building qualifications and experience, or will an individual reach a level of ‘competence’ if they pass certain evaluations. To ensure a rigorous process and that individuals are kept up to date with industry developments, we believe that they should be required to demonstrate their competence, for example through testing every few years.
4.2 In order to make the system of accountability as outlined in the Bill as robust as possible, there needs to be a greater definition as to how site competence is assessed and evaluated. We do not believe it should be left up to individual companies to interpret and define. We would like to see the Building Safety Regulator set out a clear definition and competence levels, to ensure consistency across the sector. Doing so will enhance the strength of the system to determine where responsibility for building failures lie.
5.1 SRM is content that the sanctions for those who do not meet their responsibilities outlined in the draft legislation are sufficient to ensure robust levels of building safety.
5.2 We would like to see greater clarification in the Bill on a procedure for whistleblowing and how concerns will be investigated. To protect whistle-blowers, it is important that the Bill provides them with appropriate avenues to raise their concerns. We would like to see the Building Safety Regulator given powers to investigate whistleblowing complaints and conduct a fair process for both sides. Enshrining powers, procedures and process for whistleblowing investigation in legislation would be a valuable step towards improving the building safety.
6.1 SRM agrees that the Bill will improve the product testing regime, however there are steps that we believe could be taken by the Building Safety Regulator which will further support the system and provide the sector with greater confidence. Whilst product testing will be improved- what is lacking is a proper full system test for a building façade.
6.2 Designated standards will help us by making the process easier to understand if a product has been tested. We would like to see a system of a central catalogue of “approved” materials, hosted such that staff can simply log-in to check whether it is approved when a new product is brought to the table by a manufacturer. We have concerns however that manufacturers will use this opportunity to increase prices, as we saw when timber standards were introduced which led to a price rise of 10%.
6.3 We would like to see the Building Safety Regulator provide guidance to the sector on mixing components to ensure that the system is safe and robust. When shortages occur on certain products, there is sometimes the need for construction companies to mix components to deliver a project. In these instances, we need to know what products we can and cannot substitute and believe the Building Safety Regulator could play a role in supporting this. We understand that all products need to be non-combustible.
6.4 As an example, one of the intumescent mastics used for sprinkler pipes to provide fire protection for buildings has strong fire protection qualities, however overtime the mastic degrades the sprinkler pipe and can cause it to split. Whilst this may appeal fire safe initially, it has a detrimental impact over time. Standardisation and guidance with manufacturers working together to provide information to contractors on mixing components, with a streamlined process, would provide the sector with greater confidence on what products can be used together.
6.5 We would like the Building Safety Regulator to guide manufacturers on how they can work together on improving the compatibility of products. We would like to see that labelling on the compatible products are in place and are very clear, and easy to understand.
7 Is it right that the new Building Safety Regulator be established under the Health & Safety Executive, and how should it be funded?
7.1 Sir Robert McAlpine believe that in order to ensure the highest levels of building safety, it is correct that the new Building Safety Regulator should be established under the current Health and Safety Executive. Doing so allows for knowledge and experience sharing between the two organisations, whilst the credibility of the new institution will be further enhanced by the backing of the HSE.
7.2 We believe that it is most appropriate for the Building Safety Regulator to be funded by the project developer. Doing so will ensure that developers take an equal share of responsibility for ensuring building safety, and do not place undue pressure on the Principal Contractors. By making clients and developers provide a financial contribution to the establishment of the new regulatory function, they will automatically become stakeholders with a vested interest in its success and credibility. In turn, this will crucially ensure that clients and developers do not pressure contractors to sacrifice safety measures in order to deliver projects ahead of time or under budget.
7.3 As the Principal Contractors will be responsible for risk control during the construction of the building it is important to make both the client and developer share responsibility for safety onsite, guaranteeing a more robust regulator.