Independent report

Building safety: The Industry Safety Steering Group’s fifth report for the Secretary of State and the Minister for Building Safety

Published 6 July 2026

Applies to England

Background

The Industry Safety Steering Group (ISSG) was formed to scrutinise the built environment sector proposals and make progress on culture change on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Ministry for Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG). The aim of the group is to provide support and constructive challenge to industry. We also work to determine actions to overcome blockages and speed up culture change in the construction industry, helping it to become a safer and more trusted sector.

Our progress

ISSG meetings are held quarterly with a range of stakeholders invited from across the built environment sector. The purpose of these meetings is to identify current best practice, understand where and why progress is slow, and support meaningful cultural change.

This is our first report since the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report was published. Now, more than ever, it is essential that the need for cultural change across the built environment is fully recognised and translated into meaningful action.

Since our last report, we have recognised that, while culture change remains an important priority, we need to reassess what is working, what is not and why, and what must change in the future.

We have been pleased to see that, in some areas, industry bodies have stepped up and engaged with government and regulators. We are concerned, though, that our efforts to encourage industry to acknowledge underlying problems, take ownership, and lead meaningful change has yielded limited results, and a firmer approach is required.

What we need to see

We believe that the whole industry needs to improve and engage with government and regulators to set standards and establish what good looks like. At every stage of the construction process, from investment through to occupation, life safety must be prioritised. Industry needs to work together among themselves and with government and regulators to develop a compelling vision of the future that reflects a sector committed to high standards of building safety.

The government plays an important role in supporting collaboration with industry. We support its constructive engagement already in motion and urge it to take more decisive action to hold industry fully accountable for its actions, especially those who continue to show a reluctance to engage. Differentiation between good and bad actors is much needed, and it is not solely a matter of enforcement by the regulator.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry implications

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report was published on 4 September 2024. ISSG was deeply saddened but unsurprised by the findings of the public inquiry, which revealed that every part of the system had failed, and that those involved did not act despite knowing problems existed. We are concerned that the urgency to act post-Grenfell has already started to wane in some parts of the sector. The inquiry report must be a watershed moment which catalyses change based on the many hard lessons to be learned.

We recognise that the Phase 2 report took enormous effort over many months, and we commend the inquiry team on the work which went into its production. We agreed with many of the points made concerning the failures within government and are pleased that government and regulators are proactively responding to the inquiry’s recommendations.

The inquiry recommendations concentrated on actions for government, and we are concerned that many in industry have taken this lack of commentary on its failures as an indication that they got off lightly. We are alarmed and disappointed by this response and feel strongly that it must be countered robustly. ISSG strongly believes that there needs to be incentives for good practice as well as substantive sanctions for those who fail to meet standards.

Government response

ISSG welcomes the first Grenfell Tower Inquiry Government Annual Report on the implementation of the inquiry recommendations.

This report provided an update on the progress made over the last year and the steps being taken to continue implementing the recommendations. We are pleased that the quarterly progress reports include an implementation timeline with milestones and end dates for completion. We welcome the decision to keep the definition of a higher-risk building (HRB) under review. We were also pleased with the Authoritative Statement produced by the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel, published in December 2025 in response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report.

ISSG will offer support wherever possible, particularly through reviewing consultations and considering interdependencies. We are continuing to engage with industry to assess ongoing activity and to support the development of a complementary plan that sets out industry-led actions.

Single Construction Regulator prospectus

The first recommendation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was for the government to create a single regulator that draws together functions linked to the construction industry. In December 2025, the government published the prospectus for a Single Construction Regulator which lays out plans for regulatory reform with the aim of reducing the fragmentation of the construction sector’s regulation and making cultural change. ISSG is pleased that the government has acted on this recommendation and looks forward to receiving updates on the consultation and supporting the government as this work develops.

In accordance with this, some ISSG members sit on the Single Regulator Advisory Board, which was established in response to discussions around setting up a single regulatory system. Now that the Single Construction Regulator prospectus has been published for consultation, we look forward to continuing to support this group as it begins to work on the design, planning, and implementation phases of establishing the Single Construction Regulator.

We are encouraged to see that initial steps are already being taken to establish the Single Construction Regulator. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) moved out of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into a new, dedicated body on 27 January 2026. Establishing a dedicated regulator for building safety lays the groundwork for an integrated system and will further enable the cultural and systemic reforms recommended by the Inquiry.

BSR’s strategy for culture change

In response to the findings of the public inquiry, we are encouraged to see that BSR is working with industry to support culture change within the sector. The firm position taken by BSR reflects precisely the type of action ISSG considers necessary to challenge a culture in which non‑adherence to, or negotiation around, established standards has become normalised.

We heard from BSR about the development of their approach for culture change in the built environment sector. We are encouraged by the strategy’s aims to engage and support industry across all levels of the built environment. The strategy seeks to encourage sustained and meaningful culture change with greater accountability, improved competence, collaborative work, good communication and behaviours, and the consistency of practices.

We are impressed with BSR’s comprehensive approach to implementing and sustaining positive culture change around the following strategic themes:

• awareness
• accountability and leadership
• competency and conduct
• collaboration and communication
• consistency and sustainable change

These themes form the basis of a published framework developed with industry, which aims to encourage positive change in the built environment. We would encourage organisations and individuals to see where they are on the culture change journey and identify actions that need to be taken to implement the changes required across industry.

We welcome the strategic objectives of BSR’s culture change strategy, which include:

• setting the vision and intention for the future
• monitoring and reviewing the ‘cultural’ state of industry
• collaborating with industry and regulators
• facilitating and supporting industry, including industry committees

We believe these objectives are essential for creating momentum to  encourage positive culture change in industry with clearer accountability mechanisms, along with a willingness to prioritise safety over profits and avoid a ‘race to the bottom’.

Building control review

ISSG was pleased to see that the Building Control Independent Panel was established in response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and that some members of ISSG were invited to be part of the panel.

The panel aims to enhance safety standards and regulatory oversight, concentrating on improving the building control system and addressing inconsistencies. All members of ISSG are staying closely informed about the progress of this review and look forward to receiving further updates.

Construction products testing regime

ISSG was encouraged by the Construction Products Reform green paper which supports the government response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, despite our concern that this important policy area has not been adequately addressed for too long. It sets out a range of proposals for construction products reform, including proposals that address the inquiry’s recommendations. The objectives of the paper are to ensure safety, accountability, growth, and innovation.

We also welcome the subsequent Construction Products Reform White Paper and support the government’s message that safety needs to come first. We are encouraged by the proposals in the white paper to introduce a general safety requirement for all construction products, and for enhanced enforcement and sanctions.

We remain concerned about the capacity and independence of testing houses which we feel was a missing element from the green paper. We also question whether the white paper goes far enough in its proposals of regulatory oversight of the Conformity Assessment Bodies to ensure their independence.

ISSG urges the government to proceed at pace with this work as we believe that legislation to implement construction products reform is long overdue, and is a vital element of the necessary overall system reform.

Industry Action Coalition

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry appropriately pointed at the government’s failings, and we are pleased to see that the government and the regulators are making headway in addressing these failures and taking forward multiple recommendations from the final report.

However, we feel that the response from industry has been disappointing. Whilst the public inquiry report did not make recommendations for industry itself, it was clear from the evidence and the inquiry reports that industry needed to change its practices, attitudes, and culture.  

Considering the inadequate response from industry to the Phase 2 report, ISSG felt it necessary to bring together a coalition of willing industry stakeholders and representatives from across the built environment to form the Industry Action Coalition (IAC). The aim of the coalition is to speed up the pace of culture change within industry.

In March 2025, ISSG hosted the first meeting of IAC. This was an important step in encouraging industry to work together to support positive culture change and, in turn, stop the culture of blame.

We were impressed by the coalition’s enthusiasm and are encouraged to see that some members of this coalition are making commitments to mobilise the industry and encourage culture change. The coalition highlighted important themes for embedding the building safety agenda into industry: awareness, accountability and leadership, and collaboration and communication. We are pleased that the coalition has catalysed the start of a new approach to collaboration between industry and government.

We would encourage the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), which has taken a lead position on taking this work forward, to keep under review where it is best placed to lead and where it can continue to engage with other willing participants from IAC to support the very wide and complex plans for change.

Construction Leadership Council workplan

ISSG is encouraged that CLC has proactively followed through on the commitments it made at the IAC meeting. The commitments included leading and coordinating the wider industry in making necessary cultural change, as highlighted by the public inquiry report.

CLC presented to ISSG their 5-stream workplan. This clearly states their aim to develop an industry that is fully prepared to build, refurbish, and maintain safe homes and buildings, with all stakeholders clearly understanding and carrying out their roles and responsibilities. The 5 workstreams which address the industry building safety actions are as follows:

• the building safety regime
• competence implementation
• construction products reform
• building occupation
• insurance

We are pleased to see that CLC has assumed a leadership position within industry in response to the need for culture change. We welcome the notable shift in attitude and the clear vision of getting building safety embedded as business as usual. 

We are encouraged by CLC’s willingness to work with the regulators, especially their improved working relationship with BSR, evidenced by the publication of joint guidance on the HRB regime. CLC has also outlined their intention to work with MHCLG on actions in the Single Construction Regulator prospectus.

While we believe that CLC provides important leadership within industry, we welcome more clarity on how it is managing their various workstreams. It is important that they work with and engage other actors in the sector to identify who is best placed to lead and implement the workstreams, particularly the work related to building occupation and insurance. ISSG is engaging with CLC to support the implementation of their building safety plans and connect CLC with actors in industry who can aid their work.

ISSG has been engaging with CLC through the Industry Oversight Board, and this has proved to be a useful forum for CLC to openly share issues and challenges. This is an important group encouraging proactive discussion between government, regulators, and industry, and we are pleased to see that they welcome our input and questions. We look forward to continued discussion through this group in the future.

Engagement with regulators

ISSG has been engaging proactively with:

• BSR
• the Industry Competence Committee (ICC), a BSR statutory committee
• the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS)

We broadly support the initiatives being taken by these bodies to raise standards across the built environment and construction industry, specifically those involving collaboration with industry.

However, we believe that the construction industry is developing at an inadequate pace, and that the government and regulators need to work to introduce stronger accountability mechanisms for industry.

BSR and the HRB regime

The HRB regime was established under the Building Safety Act 2022 (the act) in England. The regime includes provisions for the design, construction, and occupation phases of HRBs, ensuring that they meet the required safety standards to protect occupants. The new regime improves regulatory oversight at every stage, before building work begins, throughout construction, and before a building is occupied, through the introduction of 3 gateways at these points.

ISSG has been regularly engaging with BSR to hear updates on the progress of the HRB regime, particularly the management of gateway 2 and gateway 3 applications. BSR faced initial challenges from industry, including concerns about the rejection of applications, delays, and technical issues. In particular, the volume of rejections at gateway 2 led to considerable pressure and debate between industry and the regulator.

We are concerned that BSR allowed themselves to become an easy target for criticism, diverting attention from underlying issues within industry itself. ISSG would have welcomed greater openness from BSR during these difficulties to enable us to offer appropriate support and challenge.

We are pleased to hear more recently, however, that BSR has been working to resolve the technical issues and delays. We have also heard that the move of BSR out of HSE to become its own arms-length body will likely improve their operational processes and reduce the delays currently affecting the building control system.

We are concerned that alongside initial procedural issues, BSR is receiving poor quality applications. The rejections at both gateway 2 and gateway 3 are exposing problems in industry.

The difference between what duty holders should be providing and what they are providing is stark. We strongly believe that there needs to be more communication between the regulator and industry, and greater transparency on good and bad practice within industry.

ISSG members are using speaking engagements with industry to help publicise examples of poor quality applications and we are encouraged that BSR is giving industry more insight into the reasons behind these rejections.

We are worried that parts of the construction industry are still not engaging with the new regime and are instead carrying on with business as usual and disregarding the new obligations.

Emerging evidence of rejections at gateway 3 is particularly concerning. It is essential that buildings are safe before occupation and that new housing is built safely.

A larger culture change needs to happen in industry, but this will not happen quickly. We have highlighted that the bar needs to be raised, good and bad practice needs to be recognised, and industry must improve in certain areas.

ISSG is encouraged by some parts of industry which have engaged with the regulator to provide industry with support for the new HRB regime. CLC has led the development of guidance to support industry through the building control process. We hope that the collaboration with BSR and other industry experts to produce this guidance will help industry to better prepare themselves for the building control gateways.

We have also noted, with concern, the high rates of refusal of applications for building assessment certificates (BAC) for existing HRBs. We are pleased to hear that BSR is working to improve the quality of BAC applications through enhanced guidance, engagement, and support for principal accountable persons (PAPs).

Engagement with statutory committees

ISSG has been engaging with ICC, a statutory committee of BSR, to support the development and integration of building safety plans in the construction industry.

ISSG supports the work of ICC and provides guidance on how it can draw lessons from best practice both within the built environment sector and from other industries. It hopes to hear more from the committee in the coming year.

We have heard from the Industry Competence Steering Group (ICSG), a formal working group of ICC. We support their efforts to establish sector-led groups to develop competence frameworks for professions across the built environment and guidance on the effective application of those frameworks.

We are pleased by ICSG’s work on improving competence and defining what good practice looks like. We have raised concerns around the lack of demand for this work within industry and have highlighted the importance of having a plan for implementation in the future.

ICSG is taking on a significant amount of work and there needs to be more clarity regarding how this is being prioritised and organised. We look forward to continuing our collaboration and supporting the group with stakeholder engagement across industry. We also welcome the plan for a review of professions engaged in the built environment and believe that the requirement for the use of competent persons in all safety-critical roles is a must.

We want to continue broadening ISSG’s work to support the new regulator, BSR, and statutory committees, and we look forward to hearing regular updates from these groups. We believe it is important that the statutory committees and other government groups are involved and consulted on all important policy issues.

Office for Product Safety and Standards

ISSG has been engaging with OPSS, and we are pleased to hear that OPSS is working closely with BSR and industry.

OPSS has done good work on developing new standards for bringing new products to market. OPSS has sponsored the development of the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) PAS 2000:2026 Construction products code of practice published by the British Standards Institute (BSI) in February 2026.

We are happy to hear that the development of this PAS has included wide industry consultation and supports the guidance that OPSS has already facilitated and supported. It is encouraging to see that the regulator has been working proactively with industry and accreditation bodies to bring in these standards and doing so ahead of the long-awaited regulator proposals on construction products.

We are pleased that OPSS has also been engaging with industry to develop guidance. In particular, OPSS has worked with the Construction Products Association to support the development of guidance around how to produce a compliant Declaration of Performance, as well as with the Guild of Architectural Ironmongers and the Door and Hardware Federation to support the production of the Ironmongery Manufacturers’ Guidance document. We are also encouraged to see that OPSS has published the first sector regulatory report covering the heat soaked thermally toughened glass (HSTTG) market, raising awareness of OPSS’ regulatory activity and issues of non-compliance within the sector.

ISSG is encouraged that both BSR and OPSS have been collaborating with industry bodies to raise safety standards across the construction sector through standard setting and publishing guidance.

It is evident, however, that the construction industry remains slow to change its culture, and stronger incentives and enforcement levers are required to  encourage progress and raise competence standards. We believe that there is a need for greater engagement between government, regulators, and industry to develop a framework which will set standards and expectations across the whole of the built environment, including buildings, professions, and products. This will help rebuild confidence within industry and speed up and build lasting momentum for culture change.

Priority areas for future action

While there is some good work being done across the industry to raise standards and embed building safety plans, ISSG is concerned that building safety is not being prioritised at either the early or final stages of the construction process. It is also concerned that some parts of the built environment sector do not recognise or understand the important role that they can and should play in encouraging better behaviours.

The financial sector, clients, and those responsible for buildings in occupation must all place building safety and, most importantly, life safety at the forefront of their plans. We believe that engagement with all these stakeholders will enable the link between good quality, safety, and sound investment to be recognised and become a positive cause of change.

Insurance and finance sector

The safety of residents and providing buildings that are fit for purpose must remain a priority from the earliest stages of the construction process across the system. Achieving this requires the full engagement and alignment of the insurance and financial sectors with building safety plans. Their involvement is critical to encouraging the right behaviours across the system and supporting effective culture change.

ISSG is concerned that these sectors have been hesitant to engage fully. Although we recognise a growing willingness to align with building safety plans, we would encourage further and more proactive contribution, particularly given ongoing issues around confidence and clarity in the UK market.

Some ISSG members were pleased to engage with stakeholders in the financial sector, and the discussion identified a clear opportunity to turn this debate into one where the investment sector sets the right expectations and ensures better outcomes, thereby increasing the value of investment. This debate needs to be continued with government to understand what policy measures may be needed to support a stronger and more proactive role for investors.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, professional indemnity insurance (PII) has become an increasingly challenging issue for many parts of the system. The inquiry final report highlighted specific instances during the Grenfell project where contractual changes were required because of shortfalls in PII cover. Although the Phase 2 report does not call for an overhaul of the PII market, we believe it remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Likewise, there is a need to think more broadly about changes to the types of insurance cover provided for complex buildings to reflect whole building risk and confidence.

We are pleased to see that both the availability of cover and cost of premiums has improved since we first highlighted this issue in our last report, yet restrictions on cover remain. Higher limits of cover continue to be expensive, and some professions are still struggling to obtain cover.

CLC’s fifth workstream concentrates on the insurance sector, and we are encouraged that they are working to maintain the discussion and trust established between construction professionals and insurers, ensuring all parties are better equipped to react to future market stressors. BSR has also been engaging with finance and insurance stakeholders to further understand how market mechanisms influence building safety, quality, and competence across the built environment.

ISSG members were invited to attend this roundtable, and we are encouraged to see that one of the main takeaways from the event was the recognition that, while cultural change in this sector remains challenging, it is achievable, and progress is already underway. We support BSR’s aim to continue engagement to deepen the collective understanding of how these sectors can support positive culture change, raise competence, and contribute to high safety standards across the built environment.

We believe that, in addition to the insurance sector, investors can set the tone of a project by prioritising competence and accountability from the beginning. We feel that investors need to recognise the long-term value of supporting a workforce with the appropriate competencies, as this ultimately reduces risks over the life of a building, minimising long-term costs.

ISSG heard from the Association for Rental Living who highlighted the perspectives of both domestic and international investors, noting that those in the build-to-rent sector continue to see significant risks in the regulatory landscape. We strongly believe that re‑engaging the wider investment community and rebuilding their confidence is crucial if we are to shift mindsets and encourage sustained investment in competence and quality. Connecting with those who invest in, and commission projects is essential to embedding safety within an evolving business model.

Contracts and retentions

ISSG is deeply concerned that certain forms of contract continue to cause the wrong behaviours within industry, creating a ‘race to the bottom’. We continue to see that clients are prioritising costs over value and quality, minimising the assurance measures needed to verify compliance with building regulations, specifications, and user needs.

Retentions, where a client withholds a portion of payment until work is completed and defects are resolved, have become embedded in industry culture, largely caused by an assumption that work will not be done properly. This practice is created by clients, and so it is clients who must shift their mindset. Without a change in attitude at the top of the supply chain, retentions will continue to reinforce mistrust and perpetuate behaviours that undermine quality and safety.

We urge the government to lead by example by setting the right standards and expectations in their own procurement and contracting models. We are pleased to hear that there is initial engagement in government to support culture change in their client capacity, but we are keen to see more initiatives and collaboration between industry and the government on contract and procurement models. Implementing new forms of contract which encourage the right behaviours at the top of the supply chain will set an example to industry.

Buildings in occupation and remediations

Buildings in occupation and remediation projects are complex areas of work in the construction industry which deserve more attention. We believe that considerations of future resident safety must be central to the construction process, rather than trying to provide safety at a minimum cost.

ISSG heard from The Property Institute which highlighted issues regarding building management, notably that lay residents are being left to manage building safety requirements. We believe that greater attention needs to be paid to the competence of lay residents who act as PAPs and accountable persons, along with ensuring that the right support is in place to develop the competencies required to fulfil these roles effectively. We are, however, pleased to recently hear that BSR are looking to increase their engagement and support for PAPs.

We strongly believe that the safety of residents must be at the forefront of building safety plans, not only in the construction of new buildings but also throughout repairs and remediation works. We are disappointed to learn that, in some cases, leaseholders are being asked to contribute to the cost of making buildings safe, despite the clear protections set out in the act.

The expectation that remediation works will not place additional financial burdens on leaseholders outlined in the act must be met. We welcome the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and look forward to the enactment of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which together have the potential to improve the cost protections on leaseholders and ensure these commitments are properly enforced.

There needs to be stronger resident engagement during remediation and greater priority given to the risks residents face. It is important to understand how behaviours and incentives throughout the supply chain and construction process differ during remediation work compared with new‑build projects. We question whether work on building occupation is best done under CLC’s leadership or should be handled as a more significant and parallel project, given the many complexities involved which make it very different from addressing quality and safety in new builds.

We believe that there needs to be more communication with housing providers and residents to understand what good looks like. We support the work of the BSR Residents’ Panel to advise BSR based on the lived experience of residents. Greater awareness raising and the use of more initiatives, like MHCLG’s Code of Practice for the remediation of residential buildings, would be helpful to support this. We look forward to further updates from both The Property Institute and the Association for Rental Living.

Forward look

ISSG continues to pay close attention to incidents around the world related to building safety. While Grenfell was a devastating and defining tragedy, it was not an isolated event. Other serious incidents continue to occur, serving as sobering reminders of the risks inherent in the built environment, particularly during refurbishment and remediation works on occupied buildings. The tragedy in Hong Kong in November 2025, much like the Dagenham fire in August 2024, underscore the dangers that can arise when such work is undertaken without adequate controls and oversight.

Against this backdrop, there are huge benefits to knowledge sharing and collaboration between government, regulators, and all parts of industry to move the built environment sector forward. We urge the industry to speed up its efforts and demonstrate real leadership in constructing safe buildings, and we encourage the government to support the sector and ensure effective accountability mechanisms are in place.

We strongly believe that there needs to be a clear goal of creating an integrated digital architecture which operates across buildings, professions, and products to support culture change in the construction industry.

We envision a future defined by a more skilled and productive workforce, creating sustained economic growth. To achieve this, the industry must speed up the positive changes already emerging in some areas and extend them to areas that still require attention. Maintaining this momentum is essential. Progress will attract new talent and that talent will, in turn, become invested in shaping the industry’s future.

We are firmly of the view that a clear articulation of the future state, which we are all aiming for, would be helpful in shifting the debate. It would enable the many players to see the opportunities rather than working towards change motivated largely by regulatory compliance.