Behind The Built Environment Episode 24

David: This is Behind The Built Environment, and I'm David Frise. Today I'm joined by Mussa Awaleh, Head of Self-certification Schemes and Reform of Building Regulatory Guidance at the Building Safety Regulator. Mussa is helping to shape the future of competence, self-certification and building regulation. As expectations around building safety continue to evolve, his work is influencing how installers, contractors and certification schemes demonstrate compliance, improve standards and build public confidence.

Today we'll explore why competence has become central to building safety and examine the role of self-certification schemes, formerly known as competent person schemes. We will look at how they can raise standards and what the latest regulatory reforms mean for businesses across the building services sector. Mussa, welcome.

Mussa: Thank you for having me.

David: There was quite a lot of alliteration in that this time. A bit of a tongue-twister.

Mussa: Yes, yes.

David: I think you've seen some of these before. We always kick off with quickfire questions, and then I'm going to ask whether you chose the career or the career chose you. But let's start with the quickfire questions. Yes or no, please.

Mussa: Right, I'm ready.

David: Is competence now more important than ever?

Mussa: Yes.

David: Can self-certification improve building safety?

Mussa: Yes.

David: Do self-certification schemes, the former competent person schemes, benefit both contractors and consumers?

Mussa: Yes.

David: Will regulation continue to raise the bar for the industry?

Mussa: Yes.

David: Is compliance becoming a commercial advantage as well as a legal requirement?

Mussa: Yes.

David: We should have had a few nos in there this time. Note to the producers. But they were very affirmative, which is what we like to see. So, first question, just about yourself. Did you choose the career or did the career choose you?

Mussa: It's a bit of both. I always call myself a standards man, David. I started off working on the National Qualifications Framework and National Occupational Standards at the Construction Industry Council. Before that, I was in IT and more involved in database building. But having left university, my calling was probably to work in the sector skills environment or the sector skills council environment.

With ConstructionSkills, I was primarily focused on developing the qualifications framework for the sector, the professions and the trades. Having been there for a few years, I moved to the British Standards Institution and became a standards man there, leading on construction products regulation and regulatory standards. Having worked with the department for a number of years, I then applied to work at MHCLG, looking at the post-Grenfell Tower world from 2019 onwards.

And that's where I've been working on policy related to the Grenfell Tower tragedy and its aftermath, really.

David: It sounds like there's a bit of a calling in there.

Mussa: I think there is. It's quite tricky. I never knew it at the time, but having stepped into the industry and been involved for probably 15 to 20 years, the network I've built and the people I've worked with have had an impact on me and left an imprint on me at both a personal and professional level.

So I think my journey is a journey that's pretty unique, I guess, but definitely something that I understand to be beneficial. Because of the network of people that I know and the journey that I've been on over the last 15, 20 years in the sector, it's changed dramatically.

David: I always think that anybody who's been in the industry for any period of time and wasn't affected by Grenfell and the inquiry should ask what they are doing. That's the kind of calling that makes you want a better industry.

Mussa: Agreed. Some of my friends lived in the tower. I live in West London and I'm from the Shepherd's Bush area, and some of my friends were living in the tower at the time of the tragedy. I have that personal connection with the tragedy at one level. At another, I was involved in the sector and understood its challenges, so I saw an opportunity to contribute to the evolution of the regime.

And that's something that merged the personal with the professional at the time. And I've been on that journey for the last 7 years.

David: And in that 7 years, do you think the industry gets it, the significance of Grenfell?

Mussa: I think they do. I think they are very reflective of the most significant regulatory change since the 1984 Act. There is an appreciation that where we were before June 2017 and where we are today are two different spaces. But I think the challenge for us from a government perspective is really communication, David.

It is about taking the industry with us on that journey. I think it's a long journey, not an on and off scenario. A lot of that comes down to how we engage with the industry. As you know, the industry has a very long tail.

David: Yes.

Mussa: And there are hard-to-reach groups in the industry that we know are hard to reach by definition. So it's really about how we engage with those organisations that do the work.

David: So it's a combination of leading people, but there are also some you leave behind.

Mussa: Agreed, agreed, agreed. And that's inevitable.

David: Why is competence such a central issue, particularly for building engineering services?

Mussa: For me, there is a life safety dimension here. Especially with competence criteria related to electrical and combustion safety, you are looking at types of work that are critical to delivering the government's agenda for decarbonising homes and to protecting the health and wellbeing of the people living in them.

I largely deal with the domestic retrofit sector, and that is where all the tension is in this respect. Consumers clearly need to engage competent contractors, so it is about making them aware of who the competent contractors are across the building engineering services professions and trades.

And that dynamic, I think, is written through a number of consultations that are out at present.

David: What does good look like in a competence scheme?

Mussa: From our perspective, good looks like a scheme with a transparent and robust approach to verifying the competence of its registered businesses. That should stand up to the scrutiny applied by the regulator. The regulator sets rules that schemes must follow.

There are requirements in the building regulations that must be met. Ultimately, the dutyholder regime places a duty on the operatives working in the sector. I would say that dynamic is still at an early stage and is evolving as we go through the process. But a system that is open to scrutiny and challenge is definitely important.

For example, there is now a real focus on assessing registered businesses and installers. How do you verify, revalidate and reassess the competence of installers in the sector? That dynamic is challenging for the large cohort of people who have been on the tools for many years.

Having a clear and transparent way of doing so, as a scheme operator and as an organisation, really helps translate the message we want to send from the centre to installers.

David: And what is the role of self-certification schemes in this process?

Mussa: It is a really interesting question. They are central to this.

BESA operates a ventilation and air conditioning competent person scheme. In that context, the department, MHCLG, sets the criteria that must be met within a framework. These include financial probity, operational capability, the technical assessor base and the relationship between the contractor and the consumer. All of this is intended to support the building regulatory regime.

You're talking about more than 130,000 registered businesses operating across 14 or 15 installation schemes and carrying out most of what constitutes building work in the sector. That includes millions of jobs, such as replacing boilers and windows in people's homes. The schemes are central to the delivery of the building regulatory regime.

The recent review of the system was really a conversation about how we bring it into the building safety world.

David: Just as a side point, what led to the change in name from competent person scheme to self-certification scheme?

Mussa: We received a number of emails, as we do as the regulator, asking: if I'm a competent plumber, do I have to be a member of a competent person scheme? You do not. We then had to have an internal conversation about what these schemes are principally intended to deliver. Their members should be self-certifying that their work meets the requirements of the regulations.

That needs to be made clear and placed front and centre. The scheme operators we engaged with agreed. I think this rebrand is necessary to place the schemes within the building regulatory regime.

David: That makes sense. We had many conversations about rebranding because it wasn't about the person.

Mussa: Agreed.

David: It always felt like that. The name didn't support what the scheme was.

Mussa: No.

David: And so what's the role of the Building Safety Regulator in this process?

Mussa: We monitor their performance. We engage with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which carries out annual audits of scheme operators against the criteria and conditions. In effect, we are the steward of the system and how it currently operates. The Building Safety Regulator and MHCLG, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, carry out that function across all of those schemes.

You have to remember that those schemes are also TrustMark registered scheme providers operating in government enabled schemes under DESNZ. It is the same with the Microgeneration Certification Scheme accreditation system and the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, for example. We are talking about organisations that operate on a dual or triple function basis.

So I think there's some tension there, and through the consultation we're trying to address that.

David: And do you see those schemes evolving over time?

Mussa: Most definitely. There is a conversation taking place about the proportionality of the current regime and whether the list of work under Schedule 3, which covers the schemes' scope and purpose, should be reviewed. That conversation started with the consultation we carried out and will continue.

I also think that the work of the Industry Competence Committee, and in particular the Industry Competence Steering Group, will feed into the evolution of this system.

David: What are the biggest compliance challenges you see for contractors?

Mussa: I think we go back to the communication piece. Are contractors aware of their responsibilities? Are we placing a responsibility on scheme operators that may not be delivered at the coalface? That is the challenge. We engage with scheme operators regularly, but our relationship with the community of installers and contractors is not the same.

I feel that we're getting better at this, and that is where the focus will be. It is about how we oversee that relationship, how their function evolves in the system and whether there are opportunities for the system to grow. Numbers have largely remained static, but my understanding of the Warm Homes Plan and what is coming through it necessitates a conversation about workforce capacity and the skills agenda across the building engineering services professions.

David: Many installers don't realise that work on a controlled service must be notified. How is that going to change? How are you going to make them aware? Is it through enforcement or marketing?

Mussa: You can see in the Single Construction Regulator prospectus consultation a discussion about what might be described as a professional strategy. In the DESNZ consultation about consumer protection and how it will evolve, there is a discussion about a register of professions or retrofit professionals. I think the way forward will be about how that dynamic works and how it may function in relation to contractors' responsibilities.

That is critical. We saw in the National Audit Office report on the challenges with the Energy Company Obligation scheme that this dynamic was an issue. Going forward, we have to improve our communications, but our expectations of contractors also have to be met through another mechanism.

Is there a conversation about a register of professions or a register of trades? I think that is the direction of travel.

David: If you are an installer and this is the first time you have learned about self-certification schemes, what advice would you give?

Mussa: I would advise them to consider how they see themselves operating within such a scheme and determine how they meet the criteria set through the mandatory technical competence frameworks. It is not only through the self-certification scheme route that they can be deemed competent.

They have to consider how they could meet the criteria through other means. They could operate under a government enabled scheme, for example. There could be a merging of these different schemes under one umbrella body. I think that is the direction of travel. There are opportunities for sole traders and microbusinesses, but it is all about educating yourself.

David: So the train is leaving the station on evidencing competence and compliance. You need to get on board now.

Mussa: Agreed. I think that is where the focus will be going forward.

David: The government is proposing a single construction regulator. What difference will that make?

Mussa: It is a really interesting conversation that is happening as we speak, David. The consultation response was published two weeks ago. You may have noted that it included a discussion about the regulator's functions. The Building Safety Regulator is effectively the cornerstone of this new regulator. MHCLG will be its steward, with the regulator operating independently in its enforcement and regulatory functions.

Will the National Construction Products Regulator come into play? Will other functions of the system come under the umbrella of the single construction regulator? That is still being debated, but the consultation definitely indicates that these functions could be brought under one organisational entity.

David: One thing we hear a lot is: it doesn't apply to us, and the Building Safety Act doesn't apply to us at all. Is that something you're still hearing?

Mussa: I think so. We are being asked the same questions that you are probably being asked, and that indicates the message may not be landing. We publish guidance on GOV.UK and consultations on the same pages. We need to discuss how we reach beyond the typical approach and process.

I think that's a major challenge.

David: I think you're right. We divide the industry into thirds. One third gets it straight away. One third has no idea why they are being asked to do things, but they are compliant, so they do them. The final third says there is a rule or regulation for this. The middle group is fairly easy to deal with, but then you have the rump.

Mussa: Agreed.

David: No intention.

Mussa: Yes.

David: It's how you deal with them.

Mussa: Yes. We are obviously asked about enforcement, David, and whether we will take action against bad actors in the system. I think that conversation is part of how the new regulator will be established and how the review will move forward.

The ECO4 experience and the findings from the National Audit Office report also pointed towards this. It is about how we promote organisations operating within the parameters of the system and doing so to a high standard, while taking action against those that are breaking the law.

In effect, if you're not meeting the requirements of the regulations, you are breaching the law.

David: I always feel that, for enforcement to work, the people it is aimed at have to be able to picture themselves in that scenario. If someone is fined or even sent to prison, they need to think that could be them. Until there is some empathy there, it doesn't really work.

Mussa: Yes, the sword of Damocles scenario that people think about. The challenge, David, is that we're constantly receiving feedback from homeowners who have had negative experiences. That challenge is real. Do they go to Trading Standards? Do they go to Building Control?

Do they go to the individual contractor? The routes for redress are unclear, and I think that is a big challenge for us.

David: We touched on this over coffee, but there are some consumers who cannot and will not be satisfied. These schemes tend to be overregulated to protect a consumer who cannot be protected. There need to be protections both ways for the good installer who has done a good job but, for example, cannot get paid.

Is it going to work both ways?

Mussa: It is an interesting question. Much of the correspondence we receive is from consumers who are unfamiliar with the system and frustrated by their experience. We need to consider the options. The Industry Competence Committee is producing guidance for informed and uninformed clients, with the domestic client being the main focus of the latter.

Could engaging with those clients and groups such as Citizens Advice and Consumer Scotland help to address issues they have previously identified in the system? I think that is how the conversation may move forward. Perfection is probably beyond reach and can be the enemy of the good.

You're never going to get 100%. The challenge for us is about how we communicate this message to that audience.

David: Products and competence are intrinsically linked. The client doesn't buy a product shrink-wrapped on a pallet. It is incorporated within a system. How does the Construction Products Reform White Paper affect this?

Mussa: I think the recategorisation of products to widen the scope of the existing regulatory regime is really important. At present, 450 harmonised European standards are the focus, or locus, of the existing system. This could expand to include a vast number of construction products that are not within the current system.

That is an important development for contractors and specifiers involved in selecting products. The general safety requirement will apply to all products used. In terms of declaration, selection and intended use, I think these duties will pass to the dutyholders in the principal designer and principal contractor roles.

It is another level of regulation that organisations and individuals need to understand. Definitely.

David: So the role of the manufacturer will change. The days when a manufacturer's responsibility stopped at the factory gate and only resumed if there was a defect are gone.

Mussa: There is a conversation to be had about whether manufacturers are principal designers. We are engaged in those conversations regularly, so they have come within this system. The Construction Products Reform White Paper has been published, and much of it relies on the dutyholder regime within the building regulations.

So the reform of that system, I think, is linked directly with the building regulatory regime.

David: We've known for as long as I've been in the industry that it is a massive task to bring Britain's homes up to the required energy standards, both to tackle fuel poverty and reduce energy bills. With the Warm Homes Plan coming in, how do you do this at scale while retaining quality and compliance?

Mussa: The consultation implies the creation of a Warm Homes Agency providing end to end services to consumers. Will that address the current challenges? That is the question. It also proposes a public register of retrofit professionals included within those schemes, with professionals who deliver non-compliant work or breach scheme rules being delisted and deregistered.

DESNZ is taking a systemic approach to the evolution of those schemes, which I think will be a step change from where we are today. The real conversation is about how that fits into the building regulatory reform agenda. Are there opportunities for alignment, or could one system operate alongside the other?

Therein lies the challenge. You are talking about the same contractors operating across different settings. A bad actor is a bad actor, regardless of whether they are operating in the able to pay market or a government enabled scheme.

David: We're recording this in the middle of one of the longest heatwaves we've had in the UK. You may get an ironic laugh from some people listening to this. We talk about warm homes, but a cool home would be great.

Mussa: Yeah, I think that's a conversation going on within the building as we speak.

David: Definitely. Intrinsic to this must be ongoing training and professional development. You used to get your City and Guilds in 1976 and never do anything after that. The role of CPD and ongoing training is presumably going to be a big thing too.

Mussa: I think it is critical. We are moving away from this evergreen approach, David, towards a system that determines the suitability of qualifications as routes for demonstrating competence, alongside the criteria that must be met for revalidation and reassessment. That is where the CPD and training you're talking about come in.

The challenge is whether all of these regimes are aligned: the Regulated Qualifications Framework, the suitability of CPD given the diverse organisations that offer it, and the alignment needed with competence frameworks. How do you tell the good from the bad?

Are these regimes and environments all aligned? That is the challenge. We need to talk to Skills England, DESNZ and others, making sure that we're aware of how we are all moving forward.

David: In five years' time, when these systems, processes and schemes have had a chance to bed in, how do you see the world? How will it operate ideally?

Mussa: In an ideal world, consumers would not be exposed to the level of risk they face today. Reports from the National Audit Office, Competition and Markets Authority, Citizens Advice and Consumer Scotland are pretty damning about the consumer experience and how competent the contractors operating in this space actually are.

In five years' time, we would hope to have eliminated the risk of those issues recurring and moved on to set the agenda going forward.

David: So you're king of the industry for a day. You are the single construction regulator. Is there one thing you would do that would make the whole process better?

Mussa: People often talk about procurement and its challenges, particularly a process in which risk is distributed to the lowest level: the installer. The installer takes on all the risk and is exposed to being challenged in that regard.

That is a real conversation happening now, and it is where much of the tension and many of the issues sit today. It is also where I see the subcontracting conversation taking place. Hopefully, if that is addressed, the necessary culture change can sit alongside and support the work we are doing.

The pressure on the culture change element of this conversation is significant.

David: Mussa Awaleh, thank you very much indeed.

Mussa: Thank you, David.

David: Thank you for tuning in to Behind The Built Environment. Mussa will also be joining us at BESA's annual conference on 22 October in London, continuing this important conversation alongside BESA and CPS member F P Hurley. We'd love to see you there, so don't forget to buy your ticket. If you enjoyed this episode, like, share and subscribe on your favourite podcast provider.

Don't forget to leave us a review. It really helps us reach more people across the industry. For more in-depth conversations with industry leaders and the latest updates from BESA, stay connected and keep listening. Until next time, I'm David Frise, and this has been Behind The Built Environment. Goodbye.