Following our interview with the interim chief construction adviser, three experts - Paul Morrell, Simon Tolson and Andrew Mellor - consider the job advertised for a successor and who might be attracted to apply before next week’s deadline
Earlier this week, Building published its interview with Thouria Istephan, the interim chief construction adviser, about her journey from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and her focus on competence as the thread running through reform of the built environment.
In that interview, she argued that the breadth of the role for her successor reflects the scale and complexity of the building safety challenge facing government, and stressed that the job advert should be read as describing the “office” rather than an all‑seeing individual.
As the government now seeks to appoint a permanent chief construction and scientific adviser, we have asked senior figures in the industry to share their initial views on the scope, structure and ambition of the newly created role - applications close next week (13 April).
If such a person exists, then I’ve never met them, nor even heard of them
Paul Morrell, former chief construction adviser (20009-2012) and co-author of independent review into construction product testing
I think the MHCLG certainly need advice backed by the skills, knowledge and experience which they (rightfully) expect of the industry as a whole, and of course they are acting on the political decision to accept all of the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
It does rather look, however, as if they are trying to get two for the price of one - and that rarely works out well.
So there are three concerns, and the first is that the person they are seeking does not exist. The job advert is for somebody with senior-level experience across the whole lifecycle of a project, from design through to in-occupation management, with an authoritative technical knowledge of “building safety, construction engineering, material science, risk management and regulatory frameworks”, together with proven ability in building working relationships, the leadership of change and communication skills - all of these, note, as “essential criteria”.
If such a person exists, then I’ve never met them, nor even heard of them. Throwing “scientific” in there may help avoid the problem of commercial conflicts of interest, as it will most obviously attract people from academia, but the skill sets are quite different, and where is the industry experience and the network of existing stakeholder relationships?
The second concern is the confused landscape into which the role needs to fit, sitting between the multiple government departments with an interest in construction, and between those departments and the regulator, and within a network of committees and advisory groups.
So all in all, I can’t see this confusion of past experience and future roles attracting somebody with the obvious passion that Thouria Istephan is bringing to the job.
Perhaps, however, the same confusion could also provide a solution. The technical advisory function is already well covered by the Building Advisory Committee, and if properly designed - and, critically, given a direct line to ministers, the chair of the Building Advisory Committee could perform many of the functions anticipated in the advisory role, with the added advantage of having a committee who can provide or access both scientific/technical advice that might be required (for example re product and testing standards that are under-informed by science) and the connections to an industry which is on the same desperate search for growth as the government.
Then, some of the effort (and maybe some of the money) involved in seeking an adviser can be directed towards the third area of concern. This is that government has three relationships with the industry: it is its principal client, its sponsor and its regulator, and the first of those two interests is not obviously featured in the role as currently envisaged.
A three-year fixed term contact appears to be too short
Andrew Mellor, partner PRP
In principle I support the recruitment of the expert adviser to MHCLG and agree with the extended interaction with the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). The adviser will also need to engage with other government departments such as DESNZ to ensure, for example, that any energy proposals are properly considered across departmental responsibilities.
It seems imperative that the new adviser is also part of the Single Construction Regulator, if not at the head of it. If that was the case and the BSR sits within the Single Construction Regulator, then one would expect the chief construction and scientific adviser to have greater support and oversight duties within the BSR too.
Interaction between MHCLG, Singler Construction Regulator and the BSR is imperative for quality of residential buildings and safety of those who live in them and it is therefore essential that the new advisor to have a role across them.
The addition of “scientific” in the job title goes beyond the Grenfell Phase 2 Inquiry recommendation and suggests to me that candidates will need to have academic expertise and are likely a professor as most of the other scientific advisers are to the government.
However, other parts of the expertise needed by candidates such as knowledge of industry, expertise throughout a building lifecycle and an established industry network mean that candidates will be senior industry figures.
The extensive required existing knowledge and skills may mean that there will be few suitable candidates for the role and that most will need wider advisors to call on for technical and scientific support.
The three-year fixed term contact appears to be too short. The job advert states that the government is seeking an adviser with a long-term approach who can affect transformative long-lasting change. We see it often with a change of secretary of state or government minister that they do not agree with what their predecessor has proposed or implemented and they undo it, it is likely to the same with a new adviser as well.
Therefore, three years does not give reassurance of long-term stability and certainty at a time when residents, building owners and the housing industry need it most. Why is this not a permanent role? A fixed term role seems to neither benefit the government, the industry or prospective candidates for the adviser position.
All that said, I look forward to seeing the positive impact the chief construction and scientific adviser will undoubtedly have.
These demanding criteria set a high bar for applicants, potentially limiting the pool of candidates
Simon Tolson, partner Fenwick Elliott
Thouria Istephan is seen as “voice of the resident” and a key bridge between the Grenfell Inquiry’s findings and future legislative reform. This could be seen earlier in the year with her commitment to expanding her engagement with groups like the BSR Residents’ Panel to gather perspectives that will shape her advice to ministers.
Looking at the government advert for role it is one of acting as a bridge between government, industry and academia, which to me suggests a highly complex position requiring the balancing of numerous priorities and managing diverse stakeholder expectations.
These demanding criteria set a high bar for applicants, potentially limiting the pool of candidates to those with very specific experience and expertise, which could make recruitment challenging in a competitive job market on a three year post.
The mention of secondment indicates that the role could be temporarily filled by someone from another organisation or department, allowing for flexibility in staffing and expertise sharing. Not sure that is a great dilution!
The post shows the successful candidate will be positioned at the heart of government efforts to improve the built environment sector, the role is said to offer the potential for (i) significant impact on national policy and (ii) community well-being.
It requires substantial senior-level experience and authoritative technical knowledge, emphasising the need for a highly experienced professional capable of leading transformative change and providing expert advice at the highest levels. The collaborative nature of the role is highlighted by the emphasis on building and sustaining trusted relationships with a wide range of stakeholders.
They are looking for a true polymath, not many of those will run after £129k.
2 Readers' comments