Progress report: the construction industry
Updated 17 October 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/grenfell-tower-inquiry-government-progress-report/progress-report-the-construction-industry
Recommendation 1
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 113.6 | In progress | Government | In principle |
Recommendation
That the government draw together under a single regulator all the functions relating to the construction industry to which we have referred.
What we committed to doing
The single regulator will deliver the functions specified in the report with two exceptions. We do not believe it is appropriate for the single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products, or issue certificates of compliance, as this would create a new conflict of interest within the regulator. Instead, we will strengthen oversight of Conformity Assessment Bodies through reforms to the construction products regime.
Implementation will start immediately, beginning with work to support the existing regulatory regime as the foundation to moving towards greater consolidation. We are also publishing a Construction Products Reform Green Paper alongside this response which sets out our proposals for reform of the construction products regulatory regime and will inform the implementation of this recommendation.
We will publish a Regulatory Reform Prospectus and consultation on the design of the single regulator later this year before bringing forward the necessary legislation to establish it later in the Parliament.
We will go further than the Inquiry’s recommendation by consulting on strengthening the investigation of serious building safety incidents. We will examine all options for going further to ensure serious incidents are investigated quickly and transparently, including a standalone organisation to provide an additional point of insight, evidence and challenge.
This recommendation will be complete when
The single construction regulator is established and, in conjunction with industry and other stakeholders, we have created a more coherent regulatory system capable of restoring trust in the building system.
What we have done
In June, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced changes to the Building Safety Regulator, which represents the first step on the path to a single regulator. Further detail on the announcement can be found in the summary.
We have already established the structures required to design the single regulator. The Single Regulator Advisory Board has been set up in partnership with industry, residents, regulators and experts to advise the government on the design of the single regulator and the content of a prospectus. The Board has been considering a broad range of themes including the desired outcomes, scope and functions of the single regulator. This approach is supported by working groups progressing work on the individual functions which need to be considered in relation to the single regulator when it is established, such as construction products and professional competence.
This design work will inform a prospectus which will be published later this year. The prospectus will set out proposals for the design of the single regulator that will lead to the necessary legislation to establish it when Parliamentary time allows.
Recommendation 2
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 113.7 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
That the definition of a higher-risk building for the purposes of the Building Safety Act be reviewed urgently.
What we committed to doing
The Building Safety Regulator has conducted an initial review of the definition of a higher-risk building. Plans for an ongoing review, which will help strengthen the building system, reassure residents and identify whether the list of buildings which are subject to the enhanced regulatory oversight and requirements of the higher-risk regime should be amended in any way, will be set out in summer 2025.
This recommendation will be complete when
Following the initial review of scope already undertaken by the Building Safety Regulator, this recommendation will be complete when the Building Safety Regulator:
- publishes the results of their review
- has identified and knows how best to address any gaps in data/evidence
What we have done
We have continued to work with the Building Safety Regulator on the criteria and content for the ongoing review. We were not able to publish the plans for the ongoing review in summer as originally intended as additional time was needed to fully consider and incorporate concerns raised about the operation of the higher-risk regime. The plans will now be published by the end of this year, alongside details of the Building Safety Regulator’s initial review of the definition of higher-risk buildings.
Recommendation 3
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 113.8 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
That the government bring responsibility for the functions relating to fire safety currently exercised by MHCLG, the Home Office and the Department for Business and Trade into one department under a single Secretary of State.
What we committed to doing
Fire safety related functions will move from the Home Office to MHCLG. The National Regulator for Construction Products in the Department for Business and Trade already reports to MHCLG’s Secretary of State, and we will continue to look at consolidation in the context of the report’s wider recommendations on institutional reform.
This recommendation will be complete when
Ministerial responsibilities are transferred to MHCLG (complete), staff transfer to MHCLG (complete), budgets transfer to MHCLG (expected in the autumn).
What we have done
In February, the Prime Minister announced in a written ministerial statement that in response to this Grenfell Phase 2 recommendation, responsibility for fire would transfer from the Home Office to MHCLG.
Ministerial responsibilities were transferred on 1 April, which means that responsibility for building safety and fire is under a single Secretary of State. This will provide a more coherent approach to keeping people safe from fire in their homes.
Full staff transfer completed on 1 July and budgets will transfer in the autumn. We expect this recommendation to be complete by the next progress report in December.
The Home Office will retain management of the Airwave Service Contract and Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Recommendation 4
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 113.9 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation:
That the Secretary of State appoint a Chief Construction Adviser with a sufficient budget and staff to provide advice on all matters affecting the construction industry, including:
- monitoring all aspects of the department’s work relating to Building Regulations and statutory guidance
- providing advice to the Secretary of State on request and
- bringing to the attention of the Secretary of State any matters affecting the Building Regulations and statutory guidance or matters affecting the construction industry more generally of which the government should be aware
What we committed to doing
We will appoint a Chief Construction Adviser to advise the Secretary of State, to monitor the department’s work relating to the Building Regulations, statutory guidance and the construction industry more generally, and to bring industry together and hold it to account to help design and deliver the progress we must make together to realise effective reform and culture change. The Chief Construction Adviser will also provide direct input and convene industry engagement into the design and implementation of the single regulator.
This recommendation will be complete when
The permanent Chief Construction Adviser is in post and, through regular engagement with stakeholders, they are able to drive transformative change across the sector and restore trust.
What we have done
In September 2025, the Minister for Building Safety appointed Thouria Istephan as interim Chief Construction Adviser (CCA) for a period of 12 months until September 2026. A final CCA will then be appointed for a longer, fixed term.
Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 113.11 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 6 | 113.12 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 7 | 113.13 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 8 | 113.13 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 9 | 113.14 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 11 | 113.17 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 12 | 113.18 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendations
5: That the statutory guidance generally, and Approved Document B in particular, be reviewed accordingly and a revised version published as soon as possible.
6: That a revised version of the guidance contain a clear warning in each section that the legal requirements are contained in the Building Regulations and that compliance with the guidance will not necessarily result in compliance with them.
7: New materials and methods of construction and the practice of overcladding existing buildings make the existence of effective compartmentation a questionable assumption and we recommend that it be reconsidered when Approved Document B is revised.
8: Calculating the likely rate of fire spread and the time required for evacuation, including the evacuation of those with physical or mental impairments, are matters for a qualified fire engineer. We do not think that it would be helpful to attempt to include in Approved Document B an indication of what would be acceptable because each building is different, but we recommend that the guidance draw attention to the need to make a calculation of that kind.
9: That, as far as possible, membership of bodies advising on changes to the statutory guidance should include representatives of the academic community as well as those with practical experience of the industry (including fire engineers) chosen for their experience and skill and should extend beyond those who have served on similar bodies in the past.
11: Assessing whether an external wall can support a particular evacuation strategy is difficult because the necessary information is not always available. We therefore recommend that steps be taken in conjunction with the professional and academic community to develop new test methods that will provide the information needed for such assessments to be carried out reliably
12: BS 9414 should be approached with caution and we recommend that the government make it clear that it should not be used as a substitute for an assessment by a suitably qualified fire engineer.
What we committed to doing
5: The Building Safety Regulator is undertaking a review of how statutory guidance, currently offered in the form of Approved Documents, might best be structured, updated and presented in order to provide accurate, up to date and coherent guidance to support designers in demonstrating compliance with the Building Regulations. Interim findings will be published by summer 2025 and a full list of recommendations will be published in 2026.
The guidance in Approved Document B has been updated several times since 2017 to make it clearer and to improve fire safety standards. The government has committed to keep Approved Document B under continuous review, and the Building Safety Regulator will consult on further changes in autumn 2025.
6: We will address this through the response to recommendation 5.
7: We will address this through the response to recommendation 5.
8: We will address this recommendation through the ongoing Approved Document B review, led by the Building Safety Regulator. The review and industry engagement will explore ways through which Approved Document B can be updated to provide further guidance on external fire spread, while sufficiently supporting designers in considering fire spread via the external wall.
9: We agree that a diverse range of representatives, including those from academic and professional communities, should be included in membership of bodies advising on changes to statutory guidance.
The Building Safety Act 2022 established the Building Advisory Committee (BAC) which, in turn, is supported by thematic working groups such as the Approved Document B Fire Safety Working Group. These have significant academic and professional representation. Membership and range of expertise available through the BAC will be considered in the review of statutory guidance.
11: We will work with the professional and academic community to address this recommendation through the ongoing Approved Document B review led by the Building Safety Regulator which will consider any necessary changes to the guidance for external walls. Research in this area will inform any future evolution of changes to or introduction of new testing methods. The government will look to the construction sector to demonstrate that the test methods used are effective and give a genuine indication of the likely behaviour of an external wall system in the event of a fire.
12: We will address this through the response to recommendation 5.
These recommendations will be complete when
The final report of the review of how statutory guidance, currently offered in the form of Approved Documents, is completed and published, and the areas of improvement identified have been considered and implemented.
Approved Document B is subject to continuous review, including a consultation on further changes in autumn 2025. The guidance will continue to be updated at regular intervals thereafter to ensure it keeps pace with knowledge and research, and new materials and products on the market.
What we have done
In July, the Building Safety Regulator appointed an expert panel to support and inform the fundamental review of the building regulations guidance, known as the Approved Documents. The panel consists of experts from a broad range of fields, including architecture, housebuilding, digital, and academia, and will engage widely across the sector to inform the review. The panel will provide interim findings in spring 2026 and a final report in summer 2026, including recommendations on how guidance can better support designers to demonstrate compliance with building regulations.
The Building Safety Regulator continues to develop the planned consultation on the guidance within Approved Document B in line with the recommendations. We expect the consultation to be launched by the end of this year. This will also inform future updates as part of the continuous review.
Recommendation 10
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 113.15 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
That it be made a statutory requirement that a fire safety strategy produced by a registered fire engineer to be submitted with building control applications (at Gateway 2) for the construction or refurbishment of any higher-risk building and for it to be reviewed and re-submitted at the stage of completion (Gateway 3). Such a strategy must take into account the needs of vulnerable people, including the additional time they may require to leave the building or reach a place of safety within it and any additional facilities necessary to ensure their safety.
What we committed to doing
A fire safety strategy is already required with building control applications for the construction of and significant work to higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator will consider how to make the current guidance about what is required clearer to applicants.
The registration of the fire engineering profession is addressed in the response to recommendation 15.
This recommendation will be complete when
We have completed a review of how the fire safety strategy already included in the higher-risk regime requirements could go further (in progress).
What we have done
The current regime meets the minimum requirements of this recommendation, and we have worked with the Building Safety Regulator to update guidance setting out expectations. Relevant key documents that currently contribute toward a fire safety strategy are: the construction control plan, the Building Regulations compliance statement and the fire and emergency file.
The immediate focus for government is to ensure the higher-risk regime and current requirements are operating effectively. We recognise the importance of keeping risk under review and exploring ways to enhance the current fire safety strategy requirements. Any changes to the fire safety strategy will need to align with progress on recommendations 15 to 18, which aim to increase fire engineering capacity. This will be a key enabler and dependency for expanding the role and scope of fire safety strategies in the future. We are currently building an evidence base and planning engagement with industry and regulatory partners to ensure that we fully understand how we could go further to complete the recommendation.
Recommendation 13
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 113.22 | In progress | Government | In principle |
Recommendation
That the construction regulator should be responsible for assessing the conformity of construction products with the requirements of legislation, statutory guidance and industry standards and issuing certificates as appropriate. We should expect such certificates to become pre-eminent in the market.
What we committed to doing
We published a Construction Products Reform Green Paper alongside the response to the Inquiry.
The green paper proposed extensive measures for system-wide reform. This includes far-reaching proposals for reforming conformity assessment bodies, including that they must obtain a licence from the national regulator, and be subject to a statutory code.
Proposed reforms would place obligations of conformity assessment bodies to act transparently and independent from commercial interests. They would also strengthen the oversight role of the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS), and grant powers for the national regulator to oversee the entire conformity assessment process, including enforcement against bad actors.
Following this consultation, which closed on 21 May 2025, we will set out the government’s initial response and our next steps for long term reform.
This recommendation will be complete when
We develop a robust approach for assessing the conformity of construction products. This will include legislation, statutory guidance and industry standards.
Clear and honest information about products is provided to support designers, specifiers and installers.
The above objectives will be updated as necessary to reflect the outcome of the green paper consultation.
What we have done
The consultation on the Construction Products Reform Green Paper closed in May. We consulted on potential measures to improve the oversight of conformity assessment and its accreditation process.
In response to the consultation, and taking account of the consultation responses, we will publish a white paper before spring 2026.
Recommendation 14
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 113.23 | In progress | Government | In principle |
Recommendation
-
that copies of all test results supporting any certificate issued by the construction regulator be included in the certificate
-
that manufacturers be required to provide the construction regulator with the full testing history of the product or material to which the certificate relates and inform the regulator of any material circumstances that may affect its performance
-
manufacturers be required by law to provide on request copies of all test results that support claims about fire performance made for their products
What we committed to doing
Any claims made about a product’s performance, including statements about its suitability for use in certain situations, must be clear, honest and evidenced. Test results relied on when placing a product on the market should be accessible and free of charge to those selecting and using the product. Further, the national regulator must have powers to mandate disclosure of any information relating to the testing process that it considers necessary to assure itself that a product complies with the law.
We published a Construction Products Reform Green Paper alongside the response to the Inquiry that proposes extensive measures for system-wide reform, including measures to address product testing and conformity assessment.
This recommendation will be complete when
Any claims made about a product’s performance can be evidenced.
The regulator has sufficient powers to mandate disclosure of any information relating to the testing process that it considers necessary to assure itself that a product complies with the law.
The above objectives will be updated as necessary to reflect the outcome of the consultation.
What we have done
The consultation on the Construction Products Reform Green Paper closed in May. We consulted on potential measures to ensure that any claims made about a product’s performance, including statements about its suitability for use in certain situations, are clear, honest, and evidenced.
In response to the consultation, and taking account of the consultation responses, we will publish a white paper before spring 2026.
Recommendations 15, 16, 17 and 18
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 113.25 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 16 | 113.25 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 17 | 113.27 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 18 | 113.28 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendations
15: That the profession of fire engineer be recognised and protected by law and that an independent body be established to regulate the profession, define the standards required for membership, maintain a register of members and regulate their conduct.
16: That the government take urgent steps to increase the number of places on high-quality master’s level courses in fire engineering accredited by the professional regulator.
17: That the government convene a group of practitioner and academic fire engineers and such other professionals as it thinks fit to produce an authoritative statement of the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer. Such a statement would also enable others in the construction industry to understand better the nature and importance of a fire engineer’s work.
18: That the government, working in collaboration with industry and professional bodies, encourage the development of courses in the principles of fire engineering for construction professionals and members of the fire and rescue services as part of their continuing professional development.
What we committed to doing
15: We recognise the importance of fire engineers in ensuring life safety and will consider how to most effectively protect and regulate the profession.
16: We recognise the value that more masters level courses in fire engineering could bring and will consider how to most effectively increase their number and take-up.
17: We will convene a panel of academics and industry experts to consider what should be expected of a competent fire engineer. The panel will also support and advise on the implementation of other recommendations in respect of fire engineers.
18: We recognise the importance that the principles of fire engineering can have for these professions and others. We will work with industry and professional bodies to consider how best to encourage the development of courses.
These recommendations will be complete when
15: When we have established the mechanism through which the profession will be regulated and overseen. We expect initial principles and next steps to be clarified as we engage the panel up to the autumn.
16: We are considering how to most effectively increase the number and take-up of masters level courses in fire engineering. This recommendation will be complete when we set out the steps taken to increase take-up of courses.
17: When we publish the statement of the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer.
18: When we confirm with industry and professional bodies how to encourage the development of courses, and such development is implemented.
What we have done
Recommendations 15, 16, 17 and 18 form a package of work to ensure that fire engineers play their part in driving safety in design and delivery and to attract and retain skilled professionals.
We have engaged a panel of industry, academic, and regulatory experts in the field to consider what should be expected of a competent fire engineer in line with recommendation 17 and advise on the implementation of other recommendations in respect to the fire engineering profession. See further information about the panel, including its membership.
The panel is currently drafting an authoritative statement which will be finalised by the end of this year. To inform this work, the panel has commenced engagement with the sector, including professional bodies, fire and rescue service representatives and commercial organisations.
We will set out plans for next steps in relation to the recommendations concerning fire engineers by the end of this year.
Recommendation 19
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | 113.30 | In progress | Architects Registration Board (ARB) and Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) | In full |
Recommendation
We recognise that both the Architects Registration Board (ARB) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) have taken steps since the Grenfell Tower fire to improve the education and training of architects. We recommend that they should review the changes already made to ensure they are sufficient in the light of our findings.
What we committed to doing
The Inquiry’s report notes that both the regulator, the Architects Registration Board (ARB), and the professional body, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), have taken steps since the tragedy to improve the education and training of architects. Both organisations have committed to reviewing the changes already made to ensure they are sufficient in the light of the Inquiry’s findings.
We welcome the steps ARB and RIBA have already taken, and we will continue to support them to make further changes if deemed necessary.
This recommendation will be complete when
The Architects Registration Board (ARB) has already reviewed the changes they have made to the education and training of architects since the fire. We will consider this recommendation complete when the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) completes their review of the changes they have made and confirms they are sufficient, in light of the full findings of the Inquiry.
What we have done
RIBA is making steady progress in updating its education, training, and competence standards following the fire. It is about to begin a full review of its professional conduct and practice codes and has already started another review of its Education and Professional Development Framework, which outlines the requirements for members and was revised after the fire. In 2025, RIBA introduced a mandatory Health and Life Safety competence test for all chartered members working as designers on projects in England and Wales under Construction Design Management (CDM) or building regulations. RIBA also continues to monitor members’ continuing progressional development (CPD) compliance. We expect RIBA to complete their review by May 2026.
Recommendation 20
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 113.31 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
That it be made a statutory requirement that an application for building control approval in relation to the construction or refurbishment of a higher-risk building (Gateway 2) be supported by a statement from a senior manager of the principal designer under the Building Safety Act 2022 that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that on completion the building as designed will be as safe as is required by the Building Regulations.
What we committed to doing
We intend to make it a statutory requirement to include such a statement with building control approval applications requiring the principal designer to confirm they have complied with their existing duties. This includes all reasonable steps being taken to ensure the design complies with relevant requirements in building regulations.
We will consider whether this requirement should apply to all building control routes, not just higher-risk buildings, in line with the requirements of dutyholders under the Building Safety Act 2022.
This recommendation will be complete when
We have concluded a public consultation on this proposal.
We have clearly communicated the intention of the recommendation to the construction and insurance industries.
What we have done
To go beyond the current regime’s requirements for principal designers, it is essential that industry first has a clear understanding of the existing obligations. We are prioritising work to improve clarity on this through updated guidance and targeted communications. This will help build confidence and reduce current industry hesitancy around the changes proposed in the recommendation.
We recognise the need to ensure that the ambition of this recommendation remains proportionate in the context of the wider regime. We have engaged with industry on this recommendation and intend to undertake further engagement to test the appropriateness and feasibility of going further, while continuing to strengthen understanding of the current requirements in parallel. Any formal changes to the regime will be subject to full consultation.
Recommendation 21
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 113.33 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
That a licensing scheme operated by the construction regulator be introduced for principal contractors wishing to undertake the construction or refurbishment of higher-risk buildings and that it be a legal requirement that any application for building control approval for the construction or refurbishment of a higher-risk building (Gateway 2) be supported by a personal undertaking from a director or senior manager of the principal contractor to take all reasonable care to ensure that on completion and handover the building is as safe as is required by the Building Regulations.
What we committed to doing
We will review the impact of the new dutyholder regime in relation to higher-risk buildings, working with the sector to determine how we can go further, including introducing a licensing scheme for principal contractors where a licence may be granted on the basis of criteria aligned with the dutyholder requirements and can be withdrawn for failure to achieve compliance with the regulations.
This recommendation will be complete when
The review of the dutyholder regime is complete and we have a plan to introduce licensing.
What we have done
We are preparing for roundtables with stakeholders to begin this autumn and have been working with various trade associations, accreditation schemes and other stakeholders to consider the framework for discussing licensing. This will support the policy development towards achieving a licensing scheme to be operated by the construction regulator.
We are determining the scope of a review of the dutyholder regime. We continue to engage with the Building Safety Regulator and stakeholders, including contractors and designers, to begin the review and use the findings to support the design of an effective licensing scheme for principal contractors working on higher-risk building work.
We are working to align the requirements under recommendations 20 and 21, for a personal undertaking or statement from a director or senior manager to ensure adherence to Building Regulations. We will consult with industry on any changes to the higher-risk building regime.
Recommendations 22 and 23
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 113.37 | In progress | Government | In full |
| 23 | 113.38 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendations
22: That the government appoint an independent panel to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process.
23: We recommend that the same panel consider whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority.
What we committed to doing
22: An independent panel will be established to review the building control sector and will recommend which bodies should carry out certain functions, as well as whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority.
23: See recommendation 22.
These recommendations will be complete when
The panel have presented their review, which we expect by the end of October. The timescales for potential reforms to building control beyond that will depend upon the government’s response to the panel’s recommendations and whether legislation is required to deliver any that are accepted.
What we have done
In June, we published the Terms of Reference and membership of the Building Control Independent Panel. The panel published their ‘problem statement’ in July.
Later in July, the panel published a call for evidence on a range of questions concerning how the building control is organised and the way in which it operates. The panel is now considering the evidence it has received and is starting to draft its interim report for publication this autumn.
Recommendation 24
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 113.39 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
We have referred to the Cladding Materials Library set up by the University of Queensland, which could form the basis of a valuable source of information for designers of buildings in general. We recommend that the construction regulator sponsor the development of a similar library, perhaps as part of a joint project with the University of Queensland, to provide a continuing resource for designers.
What we committed to doing
We accept the premise of better access to information, resources and test results through a digitally based library. In line with this we are considering options to best support access to data from tests on products and materials and broader fire safety and performance information as part of wider construction product reforms.
This recommendation will be complete when
A library, or equivalent, provides a platform through which users can get clear, honest and up to date information about construction products and their safe use.
What we have done
The consultation on the Construction Products Reform Green Paper closed in May. We consulted on a proposed approach to the library. We proposed that the library could go beyond the scope of the recommendation and hold a broader suite of information to support safe products, including the publication of test results, another recommendation of the Inquiry.
In response to the consultation, and taking account of the consultation responses, we will publish a white paper before spring 2026.
Recommendation 25
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 113.40 | In progress | Government | In principle |
Recommendation
That it be made a legal requirement for the government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response. If the government decides not to accept a recommendation, it should record its reasons for doing so. Scrutiny of its actions should be a matter for Parliament, to which it should be required to report annually.
What we committed to doing
We will establish a record on GOV.UK of all recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024, and will consider making this an enduring legal requirement. The government agrees that scrutiny of its actions is a matter for Parliament, and ministers will commit to updating Parliament on progress for implementing inquiry recommendations. The government notes the recommendation of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee to establish a new committee of Parliament to improve scrutiny of government’s response to inquiry recommendations. The judiciary already maintains a publicly accessible record of Prevention of Future Deaths reports made by coroners, and the government is working with the Chief Coroner to improve their transparency and availability, as well as to improve accountability for responses to them.
This recommendation will be complete when
The publicly accessible record of inquiry recommendations is published on GOV.UK. The record will be regularly updated and will capture future inquiry recommendations and implementation progress.
What we have done
In July, we published the first Public Inquiries: Recommendations and Government Response dashboards, recording the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Phase 2 report and the May 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry report. The government’s response to the recommendations and progress towards implementation of those recommendations government has accepted. The dashboards will be updated periodically to show implementation progress, and will be expanded to capture the recommendations, and implementation progress of future and recently closed inquiries. We will update on further developments to the dashboard in the December progress report.
Recommendation 26
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | 113.41 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
That the government establish a system of mandatory accreditation to certify the competence of fire risk assessors by setting standards for qualification and continuing professional development and such other measures as may be considered necessary or desirable. We think it necessary for an accreditation system to be mandatory in order to ensure the competence of all those who offer their services as fire risk assessors.
What we committed to doing
We will legislate to make it a mandatory requirement for fire risk assessors to have the competence to perform this critical role independently verified by a UKAS-accredited Certification Body.
This recommendation will be complete when
Legislation puts fire risk assessors on a more professional footing, a common standard for competence is set and a clear pathway into the profession created. With a robust certification system and commissioning process that requires competence to be verified, we will ensure that only competent fire risk assessors are employed.
What we have done
On 15 August, the British Standards Institution published ‘BS 8674:2025 Built Environment – Framework for Competence of Individual Fire Risk Assessors - Code of Practice’. The standard can be purchased online at the British Standards Institution website. This British Standard is an important step forward for the fire risk assessor profession, setting out the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours that industry consider fire risk assessors should possess.
MHCLG has developed a cross-government board that meets monthly to oversee progress and support delivery of this recommendation. A new Four Nations and Crown Dependency Forum will also meet on a regular basis from September to support UK-wide consistency of approach to fire risk assessor competence requirements.
We will set out our delivery plans and key milestones for this recommendation by the end of this year.
Recommendation 27
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | 113.43 | In progress | Government | In full |
Recommendation
We are not in a position to determine whether greater standardisation of the fire control switches and keys is required. We therefore recommend that the government seeks urgent advice from the Building Safety Regulator and the National Fire Chiefs Council on the nature and scale of the problem and the appropriate response to it.
What we committed to doing
The National Fire Chiefs Council are reviewing the guidance for the provision of lift fire control switches with the Building Safety Regulator to support a view on standardisation in buildings. They are also surveying fire and rescue services to establish how lift keys, and the type of key, are distributed to firefighters.
This recommendation will be complete when
Advice is submitted by the NFCC to Government on what measures are needed to ensure guidance and standards for lift keys are appropriate, and to ensure greater standardisation across the lift industry.
What we have done
The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has developed an action and delivery plan detailing how we will address the recommendations and shared this with key stakeholders, including MHCLG.
Since the May progress report, the NFCC has completed a review of the current reviewed relevant regulations, guidance, and standards to determine if there is a need for greater standardisation of lift fire controls. A position has now been agreed with the NFCC Protection Committee, and this will be finalised for submission to the Building Safety Regulator in autumn 2025.
The submission to the Building Safety Regulator will include support for the publication of guidance from the Lift and Escalators Industry Association and a reiteration of the fire and rescue service’s preference for car key switches in new firefighters’ lifts to not be provided. The submission will include proposals for changes to the guidance underpinning the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 to encourage consistent testing of and access to lift keys. The NFCC will continue to support gradual improvements through its calls for the review of non-worsening provisions.
The NFCC is currently reviewing its own national guidance relating to lift controls and will submit proposed changes to the Operational Guidance Forum for approval in December 2025.
Recommendation 28
| Recommendation number |
Inquiry reference | Status | Responsibility | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | 113.44 | In progress | Government | In principle |
Recommendation
That every gas transporter be required by law to check the accessibility of each such valve on its system at least once every three years and to report the results of that inspection to the Health and Safety Executive as part of its gas safety case review.
What we committed to doing
We agree with the Inquiry’s findings that accessibility and functionality of such valves is key to ensuring health and safety by stopping gas supplies in an emergency. Whilst inspections every three years may be appropriate, there may be other situations where inspections should be more frequent or where a longer interval is suitable.
To inform this, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is engaging with key stakeholders to fully map out and understand:
- current system integrity approaches, noting changes to operator’s arrangements since the Grenfell tragedy
- the interrelationships between gas network operators, building owners, accountable persons and landowners to understand the challenges encountered when issues with pipeline isolation valves are identified and routes to resolution
Using this evidential research, HSE will develop initial options by March 2025, with a proposed timetable for taking forward a preferred option.
This recommendation will be complete when
This recommendation will be complete when a broader awareness of the purpose and importance of pipeline isolation valves have been communicated to key audiences.
What we have done
Options for delivery of the recommendation were considered by the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Operations and Regulation Committee (ORCo) in April and a preferred option was agreed.
HSE has been developing a specific delivery plan with the aim to provide greater assurance that pipeline isolation valves are accessible, and that the interrelationships between all parties is better understood and supported by definitive deliverables. This work has included consideration of the risk-based inspection approach and processes that have been adopted by the pipeline operators to inform for pipeline isolation valves location. The work also includes information on access issues which will inform targeted and appropriate stakeholder engagement.
The delivery plan will be considered by HSE’s ORCo in September and, subject to agreement, HSE will implement plans for targeted stakeholder engagement.