°Ç¸ç³Ô¹Ï

Recommendation 1Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.6	In progress	Government	In principle

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

That the government draw together under a single regulator all the functions relating to the construction industry to which we have referred.

What we have doneÌý

InÌýFebruary 2025Ìýthe government accepted, in principle, the Inquiry’s recommendation toÌýestablishÌýa single construction regulator. In addition, the government committed to publish a prospectus, setting out further plans, by the end of the year. In the last year we have made progress towardsÌýestablishingÌýa single regulator. In June,Ìýwe announced changes to the existing governance arrangements which will strengthen capability in the Building Safety Regulator. Improving existing regulator arrangements is the first stage of our work to implement a new single regulator. Changes to the Building Safety Regulator that we announced included new interim leadership,ÌýadditionalÌýinvestment to increase capacity, and improvements to operating models and processes.Ìý

In November,Ìýwe laid a Statutory Instrument to transfer building safety functions from the Health and Safety Executive into a new arms‑length body of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The new body became operational at the end of January 2026.Ìý

Alongside industry, residents,ÌýregulatorsÌýand experts we began work on theÌýinitialÌýdesigns for a prospectus which will set out proposals for the regulator’s scope and functions. In September, following the announcement on changes to the Building Safety Regulator, we shared that the Single Regulator Advisory Board had beenÌýestablished, supported by working groups, the board has been considering a range of themes such as the desired outcomes,ÌýscopeÌýand functions of the single regulator. This work informed the Single Construction Regulator Prospectus Consultation, seeking views on a long-term, system wide approach to change, that we published in December this year.Ìý

In 2026 we expect toÌýconsolidateÌýthe organisational and practical changes that have been made to the Building Safety Regulator to ensureÌýit consistently meets performance expectations. The prospectus consultation will close on 20 March 2026, and weÌýanticipateÌýpublishing a response in the Summer. The government response will provide further detail on our plans for the single regulator. Legislation to underpin the single regulator will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Catherine Adams, Director, Buildings Management and InsightÌý

Recommendation 2Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.7	Complete	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

That the definition of a higher-risk building for the purposes of the Building Safety Act be reviewed urgently.

What we have doneÌý

TheÌýinitialÌýreview of the definition of higher-risk buildings is now complete.Ìý

The Building Safety Regulator’s review foundÌýthe current definition appropriately reflects the available evidence on risks to individuals from the spread of fire and structural failure. The review concluded that, at present, there is insufficient evidence to suggest changes should be made to regime scope. This view is supported by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.Ìý

The Building Safety Regulator has also set out plans for the ongoing review, ensuring data and evidence are regularly assessed toÌýdetermineÌýwhether the categories of buildings subject to enhanced regulatory oversight of the higher-risk regime should be amended in any way.Ìý

The government published the results of theÌýinitialÌýreview and plans for the ongoing review in December 2025. The review was extended to December 2025 to give time to fully consider and incorporate concerns raised about the operation of the higher-risk regime.

This recommendation is complete and has been fully discharged.Ìý

Recommendation 3Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.8	Complete	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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 have doneÌý

Following the Inquiry’s recommendation to bring all fire safety functions under one Secretary of State, we set about work to bring colleagues from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.Ìý

On the 1 April 2025 a formal machinery of government change took effect with all fire functions reporting to one Secretary of State from that date, thus going further than the Inquiry’s recommendation to transfer fire safety functions only; this was followed by the full staff transfer on 1 July, and the final transfer of budgets in January 2026.Ìý

This recommendation is complete bar the final parliamentary supplementary debates. This recommendation has therefore been closed subject to those debates taking place.

Recommendation 4Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.9	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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:Ìý

• monitoring all aspects of the department’s work relating to Building Regulations and statutory guidance,Ìý
• providing advice to the Secretary of State on request, andÌý
• 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 have doneÌý

In our May 2025 progress report, we set out our plans toÌýestablishÌýa Chief Construction Adviser role to raise standards, improve behaviours and rebuild trust across the built environment sector. To allow priority work to begin quickly, we appointed an interim adviser to focus on urgent areas such as the design and implementation of the single regulator, finalising the responsibilities of the substantive role, and planning for the appointment of a substantive advisory role in 2026.Ìý

In September 2025, the Minister for Building Safety appointedÌýThouriaÌýIstephanÌýas Interim Chief Construction Adviser for a period of 12Ìýmonths. This interim appointment, made through a direct ministerial process and on a part‑time basis, has enabled expert leadership to be put in place and vital work to begin while arrangements for the substantive role are developedÌý

As Interim Chief Construction Adviser,ÌýThouriaÌýIstephanÌýhasÌýprovidedÌýexpert, independent advice to the government on building safety and regulatory reform. Today, the Interim Chief Construction Adviser has issued a statement setting out their priorities and intentions to issue a report at the end of their term.Ìý

The government intends to recruit a Chief Construction and Scientific Adviser (CCSA) by the end of 2026. This role will replace the Interim Chief Construction Adviser and MHCLG’s Chief Scientific Adviser. The new, unified role will:Ìý

• Provide a single authoritative source of independent technical challenge to ministers and officials on issues relating to construction,ÌýscienceÌýand engineering;Ìý

• Strengthen the government’s decision makingÌý

• Reduce fragmentation between policy design and delivery practice; andÌý

• Widen access to technical experts in different disciplines and enabling more efficient cross-government work on construction matters and through the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser network.Ìý

We plan to launch the recruitment campaign for the role of Chief Construction and Scientific Adviser in March 2026, with the selected candidate expected to take up the post by the end of 2026.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Catherine Adams, Director, Buildings Management and InsightÌý

Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.11	In progress	Government	In full
113.12	In progress	Government	In full
113.13	In progress	Government	In full
113.13	In progress	Government	In full
113.14	In progress	Government	In full
113.17	In progress	Government	In full
113.18	In progress	Government	In full

RecommendationsÌý

5: That the statutoryÌýguidance generally, andÌýApproved DocumentÌýB in particular, beÌýreviewed accordingly and a revised version published as soon as possible.Ìý

6:ÌýWe therefore recommend that a revised version of the guidanceÌýcontainÌýa 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.Ìý

7:ÌýNew materials and methods of construction and the practice of over cladding existing buildings make the existence of effective compartmentation a questionable assumption and we recommend that it be reconsidered when Approved Document B is revised.Ìý

8:ÌýCalculating the likely rate of fire spread and the timeÌýrequiredÌýfor 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 toÌýattemptÌýto include in Approved Document BÌýan indicationÌýof 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.Ìý

9:ÌýThat, 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.Ìý

11:ÌýAssessing 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.Ìý

12:ÌýBS 9414 should be approached withÌýcautionÌýand 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 have doneÌý

Since theÌýgovernment published its response to the Grenfell recommendations in February 2025, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) hasÌýbeen takingÌýforwardÌýtheÌýFundamental Review of Building Regulations guidance.ÌýIn July 2025, BSR established aÌýsix-memberÌýexpert panel, bringing together academic, industry and technicalÌýexpertiseÌýto oversee and challenge the development of proposals. Engagement with stakeholders has been sustained and supplements commissioned research. An interim report is expected in spring 2026. This work has focused on improving the structure and usability of statutory guidance, while ensuringÌýrelevant recommendations from Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (recommendations 5ÌýtoÌý12) are addressed in a coherent and proportionate way.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendation 10Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.15	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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 mustÌýtake into accountÌýthe needs of vulnerable people, including theÌýadditionalÌýtime they mayÌýrequireÌýto leaveÌýthe building or reach a place of safety within it and anyÌýadditionalÌýfacilities necessary to ensure their safety.

What we have doneÌý

We have continued with engaging with industry and regulatory partners, to understand how anyÌý‎change would work in practice and building an evidence base to support any potentialÌý‎changes. However, throughout this engagement we haveÌýidentifiedÌýdifferent perspectives on howÌý‎to achieve strengthened fire safety requirements without mandating a fire safety strategy to beÌý‎submittedÌýto the Building Safety Regulator. We are working on reviewing different options.‎Ìý

Any changes will require consultation and will need to balance safety,ÌýproportionalityÌýand deliveryÌý‎considerations. There are already extensive requirements onÌýdutyholdersÌýfor higher-risk buildings inÌý‎relation to fire safety.ÌýDutyholdersÌýmustÌýalreadyÌýhaveÌýa fire and emergency file and a buildingÌý‎regulations compliance statement for every higher-risk building. These documents areÌýsubmittedÌýtoÌý‎the Building Safety Regulator andÌýmustÌýbe kept updated and reflect any changes made duringÌý‎construction of the higher-risk building. There are also specific requirementsÌýregardingÌýtheÌý‎handover of information to the person responsible for a higher-risk building in occupation.Ìý‎Ìý

As set out in September, we notedÌýany changes to building control application process forÌý‎higher-risk buildings, will need to align with progress on recommendations 15 to 18, which aim toÌý‎increase fire engineering capacity.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌýÌý

Recommendation 13Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.22	In progress	Government	In principle

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

That the construction regulator shouldÌýbe responsible forÌýassessing the conformity of construction products with the requirements of legislation, statutory guidance and industry standards and issuing certificates asÌýappropriate. We should expect such certificates to become pre-eminent in the market.

What we have doneÌý

In February 2025, alongside the government response, we published a Construction Product Reform Green Paper setting out proposed reforms to the sector. We conducted detailed analysis of the responses and undertook engagement with the sector to develop more detailed proposals.Ìý

Informed by this, the government has published the Construction Products Reform White Paper and a consultation on the details of a General Safety Requirement alongside this report. The white paper sets out the government’s response to the green paper and next steps for long term system-wide reform. The General Safety Requirement consultation sets out the proposed approach to bring unregulated products into the regulatory regime.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌýÌý

Recommendation 14Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.23	In progress	Government	In principle

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

• that copies of all test results supporting any certificate issued by the construction regulator be included in the certificateÌý

• that manufacturersÌýbe requiredÌýto 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 performanceÌý

• 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 have doneÌý

In February 2025, alongside the government response, we published a Construction Product Reform Green Paper setting out proposed reforms to the sector. We conducted detailed analysis of the responses and undertook engagement with the sector to develop more detailed proposals.Ìý

Informed by this, the government has published the Construction Products Reform White Paper and a consultation on the details of a General Safety Requirement alongside this report. The white paper sets out the government’s response to the green paper and next steps for long term system-wide reform. The General Safety Requirement consultation sets out the proposed approach to bring unregulated products into the regulatory regime.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendations 15, 16, 17 and 18Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.25	In progress	Government	In full
113.25	In progress	Government	In full
113.27	Complete	Government	In full
113.28	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

15:ÌýThat the profession of fire engineer be recognised and protected by law and that an independent body beÌýestablishedÌýto regulate the profession, define the standardsÌýrequiredÌýfor membership,ÌýmaintainÌýa register of members and regulate their conduct.Ìý

16:ÌýThat 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.Ìý

17:ÌýThat the governmentÌýconveneÌýa 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.Ìý

18:ÌýThat 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 have doneÌý

Throughout the year we have made progress toward regulating the fire engineering profession. In May we engaged a panel of industry and academic, and regulatory experts to advise on the expectations of a competent fire engineer and the implementation of the recommendations.Ìý

By September, the panel had begun drafting an authoritative statement, with engagement across professional bodies, fire and rescue services and commercial organisations, and in December, we published the authoritative statement alongside a next steps paper. The papers set out key principles for future regulation and outline how we intend to take forward reform, informing future consultations and implementation planning.Ìý

Recommendation 17 is complete and has been fully discharged.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendation 19Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.30	In progress	Architects Registration Board (ARB) and Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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 have doneÌý

We haveÌýmonitoredÌýand supported progress made by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in reviewing changes to their education and training requirements. In May, the ARB confirmed it was content with and had reviewed its changesÌýin light ofÌýthe recommendations and would keep them under review during implementation. RIBA committed to review their changes while alsoÌýtaking into accountÌýthe work of ARB on the required training of architects.

RIBA updateÌý

Since the Grenfell Tower fire, RIBA has delivered a major programme of reforms to strengthen architectural education, professional standards, and competence, with a focus on health and life safety and ethical practice. In line withÌýrecommendation 19, RIBA continues to review and build on earlier changes to ensure theyÌýremainÌýsufficientÌýin light ofÌýthe Inquiry’s findings. Most remaining work will conclude in 2026, with only the review of the Code of Professional Conduct expected to continue into 2027.Ìý

RIBA has paused revisions to its Code of Professional Conduct until ARB’s guidance on its recently updated Architects Code is released in full, to avoid inconsistency. Work is underway on an updated Code of Practice for Chartered Practices, focusing on competence, employment culture,ÌýsustainabilityÌýand ethical practice, due by end of 2026.Ìý

The revised RIBA Education and Professional Development Framework, approved in 2025, strengthens requirements around ethical practice, health and life safety, and sustainability across Parts 1–3. Updated professional attributes will be consulted on in 2026 and integrated into course validation later that year. RIBA is also redeveloping the PEDR system (an online system for recording professional experience development for students) and aligning CPD (Continuing Professional Development) requirements with the updated framework.Ìý

Further work includes new guidance for members, expansion of the Principal Designer Register, updated tools on Building Regulations compliance, specification writing, construction product safety, whole-life carbon, and challenging poor behaviour. Pilot tests for new mandatory competences in ethical practice and climate literacy will begin this year.

Recommendation 20Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.31	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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 have doneÌý

In last year, the government has prioritised work to improve operation of the Building SafetyÌý‎RegulatorÌý(BSR)Ìýand the delivery of the higher-risk regime. We have reviewed options on how we couldÌý‎make it a statutory requirement for Gateway 2 applications to be supported by statement from theÌý‎senior manager of the principal designer.Ìý‎Ìý

In 2026, we will work on clarifying existing duties to build confidence within the sector. We areÌý‎working with theÌýBSRÌýto address issues raised about the current regime’sÌý‎effectiveness. We recognise that the sector has faced many changes recently and understand theÌý‎need for clarity on existing duties. We want to ensure any future enhancements areÌý‎realistic,ÌýproportionateÌýand deliverable.‎Ìý

We will also continue work to understand whether a statement from a senior managerÌýis the bestÌý‎wayÌýtoÌýachieveÌýgreater accountability or whether there are other options to ensure accountability at a seniorÌý‎level in principal designer organisations. We will also review how theÌýdutyholderÌýdutiesÌýoperateÌýinÌý‎practice and work with stakeholders to understand best practice within the sector.Ìý‎

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendation 21Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.33	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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 have doneÌý

We are working on developing the policy framework for the licensing scheme. We have analysed the findings from stakeholder engagements held last year to shape proposals on the design of the licensing scheme.Ìý

In parallel, we are advancing work to align the requirements under recommendations 20 and 21. This includes the introduction of a personal undertaking or statement from a director or senior manager, confirming they have taken all reasonable care to ensure that,Ìýon completion,Ìýthe building complies with the Building Regulations.Ìý

We are continuing our work on the review of theÌýdutyholderÌýregime. This review will help us understand how the current system is functioning across the sector. The review’s findings will play a key role in informing the design of the licensing scheme for recommendation 21.Ìý

In 2026, we will launch a call for evidence to gather feedback on proposals aimed at reforming the built environment professions, including introducing licensing requirements for principal contractors.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendations 22 and 23Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.37	In progress	Government	In full
113.38	In progress	Government	In full

RecommendationsÌý

22:ÌýThat 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:ÌýWe recommend that the same panel consider whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority.

What we have doneÌý

In May 2025, we announced, a panel chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt which included three members from the Industry Safety Steering Group (Dr David Snowball, ElaineÌýBaileyÌýand Ken Rivers) and Rt Hon Nick Raynsford.Ìý

As published in June, the panel’s terms of reference and membership set out scope and approach; in July, a problem statement and call for evidence were issued. In September we reported that the panel was reviewing responses and drafting its interim report; in December, we announced the panel’s commitment to publish their report in the following months, with government planning to issue a formal response in 2026.ÌýThe panelÌýis developing recommendations for publication in the coming months.Ìý

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendation 24Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.39	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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,Ìýperhaps asÌýpart of a joint project with the University of Queensland, to provide a continuing resource for designers.Ìý

What we have doneÌý

Alongside the government response, in February 2025, we published the Construction Products Reform Green Paper. The green paper explored how best toÌýfacilitateÌýa construction library. It set out how we might go further than the Inquiry’s recommendation and include a wider range of product information to help ensure the safe selection of products. We also used the consultation and wider engagement to gather views on how to provide clear and trusted information, and the library’s scope and users.Ìý

Views have informed proposals included in the Construction Products Reform White Paper, which has been published alongside this report. Most respondents to the Green Paper supported the intention to develop a construction library. There were a range of interpretations of what might be most effective from a comprehensive product database through to a targeted hub. Challenges were alsoÌýidentifiedÌýaround implementation.Ìý

We will support development of a construction library, working with industry. Our ambition is to develop digital services that provide clear,Ìýaccurate, and honest product information without duplication or confusion, recognising the sector’s varied digital maturity. We propose a phased approach, starting with ensuring the national regulator has the digital capability for market surveillance, improving transparency on tests for products using third-party certification schemes, and exploring options for a digital platform or database if needed, alongside simplifying access to regulatory guidance and fire safety information.Ìý

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Kate O’Neill, Director, Buildings Design and ConstructionÌý

Recommendation 25Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.40	Complete	Government	In principle

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

That it be made a legal requirement for the government toÌýmaintainÌýa publicly accessible record of recommendations made by select committees,ÌýcoronersÌýand 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 beÌýrequiredÌýto report annually.Ìý

What we have doneÌý

We have created a publicly accessible record onÌý°Ç¸ç³Ô¹ÏÌýof inquiry recommendations and the government’s responses.Ìý

In our May progress report, we announced plans to publish the dashboards to record recommendations from public inquiries since 2024. The first dashboards, covering Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower and the Infected Blood Inquiry recommendations, were launched in the summer. By September, we confirmed that the dashboards would be expanded and updated regularly.Ìý

At the end of 2025, the dashboards also included the Manchester Arena and COVID‑19 Inquiries, with updates to the dashboards happening on a quarterly basis.Ìý

We will continue to review the need for legislation whileÌýmaintainingÌýand improving the dashboards to support transparency and public scrutiny.Ìý

The recommendation is now complete and has been fully discharged.

Recommendation 26Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.41	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

That the governmentÌýestablishÌýa 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 mandatoryÌýin order toÌýensure the competence of all those who offer their services as fire risk assessors.

What we have doneÌý

Government accepted recommendation 26 of the Inquiry in full, committing to legislate to make it a mandatory requirement for those offering their services as fire risk assessors to have the competence to perform this critical role independently verified by an accredited Certification Body. We have developed cross-government, four nations and sector advisory groups which meet regularly to support delivery of this recommendation.Ìý

The British Standards Institution published ‘BS 8674:2025 Built Environment – Framework for Competence of Individual Fire Risk Assessors - Code of Practice’ in August 2025. This British Standard isÌýan important stepÌýforward for the profession, setting out industry’s expectations of fire risk assessors.Ìý

In the Single Construction Regulator Prospectus published in December 2025, we committed to consulting on proposals for the future of the fire risk assessor profession. We expect to publish this consultation in early 2026. Informed by consultation findings, we will introduce primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Peter Lee, Director, Fire PolicyÌý

Recommendation 27Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.43	In progress	Government	In full

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

WeÌýare not in a position toÌýdetermineÌýwhether greater standardisation of the fire control switches and keys isÌýrequired. 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 theÌýappropriate responseÌýto it.

What we have doneÌý

In April,Ìýthe National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC)Ìýcreated an action and delivery plan after surveying fire and rescue services and setting a baseline.Ìý

By September, as outlined in our update, we reported that NFCC had reviewed relevant regulations, guidance, and standards, agreed a position through its Protection Committee, and drafted proposals for changes. These proposals included promoting consistent testing, ensuring access to lift keys, and as supported from the Lift and Escalators Industry Association, omitting car key switches in new firefighters’ lifts.Ìý

In October, as reported in our December update, NFCC confirmed with the Building Safety Regulator that it would consider the NFCC position and handle the matter internally. Approval to publish updated national guidance relating to lift keys was obtained at the Operational Preparedness, Response and Resilience Committee, following endorsement by the Operational Guidance Forum. The guidance went live on 23 October.Ìý

Now that the amended guidance has been published, the NFCC Organisational Learning Team will review and update related learning materials. This is expected to be completed before the end of March 2026.

Responsible departmentÌý

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentÌý

Responsible personÌý

Peter Lee, Director, Fire PolicyÌý

Recommendation 28Ìý

Inquiry reference	Status	Responsibility	Accepted
113.44	In progress	Government	In principle

¸é±ð³¦´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô»å²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔÌý

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 have doneÌý

ByÌýMayÌý2025, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had gathered information on pipeline isolation valve (PIV) access challenges experienced by network operators, informing initial options to address issues highlighted by the recommendation.Ìý

By September, HSE’s Operations and Regulation Committee (ORCo) had agreed on a preferredÌýapproach, andÌýapproved a delivery plan for stakeholder engagement which aims to improve assurance on PIV access. and clarify stakeholder roles and responsibilities.Ìý

By December, HSE had engaged with network operators toÌýestablishÌýa baseline on PIV access and existing barriers.ÌýÌý

Data received from the network operators is being analysed to inform targeted engagement with stakeholders who may have an influence over the accessibility of PIVs.Ìý

Following completion of the data analysis in February 2026, HSE willÌýestablishÌýa baseline of pipeline access issues. This will inform targeted stakeholder engagement which willÌýcommenceÌýfrom March 2026. The approach,ÌýscaleÌýand duration of any such engagement will be informed by the data analysis.

Responsible departmentÌý

Health and Safety ExecutiveÌý

Responsible personÌý

Rick Brunt, Director, Engagement and PolicyÌý