CLADDING & SHEETING
Grenfell was not
all about cladding
Following the publishing of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report in May,
which examined the role Building Regulations played in the Grenfell Tower fire, it has stirred up plenty of controversy
– and too many people are missing the point, says Andy Sneyd, managing director at M+W Hargreaves
The national headlines have been
full of calls for a complete ban
on combustible cladding
and, ultimately, they will
probably get their way – but the
inquiry, which was led by Dame
Judith Hackitt, was trying to look
much deeper than headlines and
scoring political points.
Her committee highlighted the
construction industry’s “systemic
problems” in the way projects are
designed, delivered and managed –
and the need for the industry to take
responsibility by improving competence
and compliance.
It is not the Building Regulations
themselves, but the ‘culture’ of ignoring
them in order to save money, which led to
the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The cladding
used to refurbish the tower breached
the regulations – it should not have been
used – so it was the enforcement regime
itself that failed.
In effect, we already have a ban on
that type of cladding, but we don’t have
a system that makes sure the right kind
of work is carried out in buildings using
appropriate workmanship and materials.
The Hackitt report puts the emphasis
on viewing buildings as a system, rather
than a collection of components, and it
calls on the industry to take responsibility
for delivering high-quality projects
delivered by competent teams.
Safety
Dame Judith Hackitt made
recommendations to address poor
procurement practices, and to drive
appropriate behaviour and practice,
including a focus on safety and risk
and on whole life-cost. This is all about
the process – not specific technical
details, all of which would be picked
up by a better system. After all, threats
to a building’s safety come from lots
of different places so you must have a
system in place that works.
However, the proposal to create
a new body to oversee competence
requirements could be the most critical
element of her review because any new
regulatory approach can only succeed if
you have a highly competent workforce
delivering the projects. Our industry’s
competent person schemes and training
Andy Sneyd,
managing
director, M+W
Hargreaves
regimes will have to step up to meet
this challenge.
However, we are suffering from a
crippling skills gap and there was a
25% fall in apprenticeship starts this
year, which led to heavy criticism of
the Apprenticeship Levy.
Many small and medium-sized
enterprises are struggling to access
the funding, and employers are often
critical of the training on offer from the
2,500 recognised providers under the
Levy system. The task now is to get the
funding out, via employers, to providers
capable of producing a workforce that
can cope with these new post-Grenfell
demands.
The principle of life-long learning
will be vital. The New Standard
apprenticeships, which are just getting up
and running, will have to be supported
by training providers who can offer
practical training – we cannot have a new
generation of classroom-based engineers
out there if we are to meet Dame Judith’s
competence challenge.
Our industry bodies like BESA must
step up the pressure on the Department
for Education to get funding into the
right places where it can properly
support employers.
The new-style apprenticeships – many
of which were developed by BESA
members like M+W Hargreaves – can
deliver a generation of workers with the
right skills and behaviours to operate as
part of a modern workforce. They will be
backed up by ‘qualifications for life’ that
can be regularly updated as markets and
technologies change.
Against this new challenging backdrop,
we cannot afford to have more of the
“dead-end courses” attacked recently by
the trade union, Unite. It found that just
10% of construction-related courses were
linked to an apprenticeship and most
were purely classroom-based.
Unite said the funding currently
going to colleges and private training
providers should be re-focused and used
to promote a greater number of “genuine
apprenticeships”. It said too many young
people were “having their hopes of a
construction career crushed”.
Challenge
The attraction of apprentices is one
challenge, but we have a much broader
crisis if business is to provide the answers to
the “systemic problems” in the way projects
are designed, delivered and managed.
I see a future where there must be
more individual accountability for work
completed. Technology will facilitate
this and businesses need a competent
workforce to action and deliver.
Finding cash to fund the education and
retraining of thousands of white and bluecollar
staff with the skills needed for the
future will be a priority for all responsible
businesses. This will come at a time when
billions of pounds have been taken >
36 www.rcimag.co.uk July 2018
/www.rcimag.co.uk
/www.rcimag.co.uk
