She led the Grenfell inquiry – here’s what Dame Judith Hackitt says we’re still getting wrong

SFG20 interview highlights fire safety responsibilities in the UK

SFG20 has published an interview with Dame Judith Hackitt, who led the post-Grenfell review of UK building safety regulations.

The interview includes detailed comments from Dame Judith on fire safety, legal responsibility, building maintenance, and regulatory reform.

She said building owners remain accountable even when maintenance tasks are outsourced, and urged a shift toward competence, traceability and digital record-keeping under the principle of the “golden thread”.

The comments are focused on the UK regulatory context and reflect Dame Judith’s views on ongoing risk management obligations under the Building Safety Act and Fire Safety Order.

The full interview is available via SFG20, which described the exchange as an opportunity to support compliance, competence and improved industry practice.

Hackitt calls for competence and product assurance

Dame Judith Hackitt said that failings revealed in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase Two report pointed to basic issues around staff qualifications, compliance gaps and falsified fire risk assessments.

She told SFG20 that these problems can be avoided by engaging only qualified people and verifying their credentials.

Dame Judith said: “For me, that’s where this all begins: making sure you’re using people who know what they’re doing, ask them to demonstrate and prove their competence.”

She added that responsibility also extended to the safety and testing of the construction products used.

Dame Judith said: “One of the significant gaps we still need to address, and which the government has committed to resolving in its response to the inquiry, is the issue of construction products and how they are tested. I believe this is critically important.”

She said there was a need for better assurance of the materials used in both maintenance and new construction.

Accreditation standards and organisational culture

Dame Judith said that professional bodies should do more to uphold standards, but added that employers also had a role in checking qualifications.

She told SFG20 that organisations must not rely solely on professional bodies to ensure competence.

Dame Judith said: “Organisations also need to take responsibility. They must recognise the importance of competence and avoid the mistake of employing anyone who claims to be a fire engineer without thoroughly verifying their qualifications and capabilities.”

She added that while CPD and accreditation are essential, their credibility depends on the quality of the oversight.

Dame Judith also said that the fire safety sector lacks the maturity seen in other engineering disciplines.

She said this must change if the industry is to develop the same level of rigour expected in areas such as structural engineering.

Legal responsibility and penalties for non-compliance

Dame Judith said that current regulatory reforms are not about new duties, but about ensuring people meet responsibilities they already had.

She gave the example of two directors who were fined over £100,000 for breaches in fire protection at care homes.

Dame Judith said: “We’re treating this as if new responsibilities have suddenly been placed on them, when in fact we should be focusing on their appallingly cynical attitude towards the people they had a moral duty of care for all along, long before any new regulations came into effect.”

She stressed that legal accountability cannot be outsourced, even if the work is.

Dame Judith said: “If you’re the owner, you are responsible and accountable. You can delegate the work, but you can never delegate the accountability.”

She added that as penalties increase and cases reach court, judges are likely to take a strict view of building safety failings.

Responsibilities under Fire Safety Order and building regulations

Dame Judith addressed the specific case of buildings that fall outside the scope of the Building Safety Act’s occupation phase.

She said that facilities such as hospitals, though excluded from some parts of the Act, must still be treated as high-risk buildings with enhanced safety expectations.

Dame Judith said: “The higher the risk in a building, the greater the effort required to understand the safety case for that building and its occupants.”

She said this principle is assumed to apply universally, regardless of formal scope.

Dame Judith also challenged any perception that regulatory exclusion lowers the need for rigorous maintenance and oversight.

She emphasised the need for owners and managers to ask whether a building has the systems in place to ensure evacuation and fire control.

Digital record-keeping and golden thread implementation

Dame Judith advocated for the adoption of the “golden thread” principle in building management.

She told SFG20 that digital records must include how a building was designed and built, the fire strategy in place, and the performance limits of all systems.

Dame Judith said: “I just find it remarkable that this information often doesn’t exist. In any other sector… they can trace everything. They know the limitations of their products, how things perform, and what they’re capable of.”

She added that paper-based systems were no longer acceptable.

Dame Judith said: “If we’re going to do that in the 21st century, for goodness’ sake, let’s not do it on paper. Let’s do it digitally.”

She also said that maintaining accurate, traceable, and accessible digital information must become a routine part of managing building safety.

Future regulatory changes and systemic improvements

Dame Judith discussed the government’s intention to introduce further regulations.

She said this will likely include measures to ensure the suitability and traceability of construction products.

Dame Judith said: “Fixing that system is no small task. It will require a significant amount of work, as well as a shift in behaviour from a wide range of people, particularly those who supply construction products.”

She warned against longstanding practices that prioritise cost over safety, citing staircase design as one example.

Dame Judith said that single-staircase high-rises had been accepted for too long and welcomed their removal from new building designs.

She said that overall, fire safety should be approached as a system-level challenge rather than a checklist of individual measures.

She added: “You’re the expert, make those decisions, issue your recommendations, and stand by them.”

Building safety must adopt digital golden thread, says Dame Judith Hackitt: Summary

In an interview with SFG20, Dame Judith said building owners must take full responsibility for fire safety compliance.

She warned that outsourcing maintenance does not remove legal accountability.

She said competence must be verified and upheld by both professional bodies and employers.

Dame Judith said the fire safety sector lacks the maturity of structural engineering.

She called for stricter assurance of construction products and testing systems.

She said new penalties will be harsher and judges may take stronger positions in future cases.

Dame Judith said that even buildings excluded from current regulations should apply risk-based safety principles.

She said the “golden thread” approach must be adopted, with digital building data records.

She said new rules will target product testing, specification practices and risk mitigation.

She said fire safety should be approached as a system, not as a list of isolated measures.