Single Construction Regulator: What the Government’s Response Means for Fire Engineering

The Single Construction Regulator is intended to address the fragmentation identified by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Rather than regarding buildings, construction products and the people working on them as separate regulatory concerns, the Government intends to bring these three areas together as part of a more coherent system.

The proposal is not simply to create a larger regulator by transferring existing functions into one organisation. Rather, the stated ambition is to improve the way in which risks are identified, information is shared, responsibilities are understood and standards are enforced across the whole building lifecycle.

For the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE), the response presents both an opportunity and a responsibility for itself and its members to take a leading role.

Regulation of professions

The Government’s response confirms that the regulation of professions will form one of the three principal elements of the future system alongside buildings and construction products. It also acknowledges that the present arrangements for skills, behaviour, accountability and professional regulation are fragmented and inconsistent.

An overarching strategy for built environment professions, trades and occupations is expected in the Spring of 2027. This will consider regulatory and non-regulatory measures addressing skills, knowledge, experience, conduct, culture and accountability.

An expert Working Group has also been commissioned to examine the relationship between professional activities and risks posed to the public. Its work may inform decisions about whether additional professions should be subject to statutory regulation and whether particular building functions should be reserved for appropriately qualified or regulated people. These are matters of direct relevance to the IFE and its members.

The Government has already identified fire engineering as a profession in which there’s a clear case for reform. The Fire Engineers Advisory Panel’s Authoritative Statement, published last December, describes the knowledge and skills expected of a competent fire engineer. A Transitional Board has since begun work on the approach to professional reform.

In parallel, the Government has consulted on strengthening and professionalising the fire risk assessor sector, including the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation for mandatory certification. Its formal response is expected in the latter stages of this year.

These workstreams are related, but they’re not interchangeable. Fire engineering and fire risk assessment involve different functions, competence requirements and routes to assurance even though some practitioners operate in both areas. A coherent regulatory system will need to recognise where they overlap, while also preserving the distinctions between them.

Stronger role for professional institutions

The Government has not yet settled the precise relationship between the Single Construction Regulator and professional institutions. Nevertheless, the response suggests several areas in which institutions such as the IFE can deliver an important contribution.

Professional institutions maintain competence frameworks, assess individuals, support Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and establish expectations for ethical and professional conduct. The IFE also provides communities through which learning, emerging risks and changes in practice can be communicated.

These functions could complement statutory regulation, but only if the relationship is clearly defined. Membership of a professional institution, registration with a professional register, certification for a particular activity and legal authorisation to perform a reserved function are different forms of recognition. Future arrangements must make clear what each demonstrates and who remains accountable for it.

For the IFE, this means continuing to ensure that its professional standards and registration processes are rigorous, transparent and capable of being understood by regulators, clients, duty holders and the public. It also means being ready to demonstrate how competence is maintained after initial assessment, particularly so where an individual undertakes safety-critical work.

From individual competence to system competence

One of the strongest messages in the Government’s response is that competence cannot be considered in isolation from the environment in which people work.

A competent individual may still be undermined by poor procurement, inadequate time or resources, unclear appointments, unreliable product information or organisational pressure to accept an unsafe compromise. Conversely, organisational systems cannot compensate for people working outside the limits of their competence.

The IFE therefore has an interest not only in the recognition of individual fire engineers, but also in the conditions necessary for competent professional practice. These include clearly defined functions, appropriate authority, access to reliable information, effective quality assurance and a professional obligation to identify and communicate uncertainty.

The future framework must also distinguish between competence to hold a professional title and competence to undertake a particular function on a particular project. Fire engineering covers a wide field. Registration provides important assurance of an individual’s underlying professional competence, but project-specific competence will also depend on experience, technical specialism, resources and the complexity and risk profile of the work.

Evidence, intelligence and emerging risk

The proposed Single Construction Regulator is expected to adopt a risk-based approach supported by horizon scanning, better data and improved information sharing. This is another area in which the fire engineering profession can contribute.

Fire engineers encounter weaknesses, unusual conditions and emerging hazards across the building lifecycle. Much of this intelligence is dispersed between individual projects, fire risk assessments, research, professional networks, regulators and confidential reporting systems. A more connected system should be better able to identify recurring patterns before they result in widespread harm.

The IFE can help by supporting structured professional learning, disseminating safety information and working with regulators and reporting bodies alike to turn experience from incidents, near misses and technical concerns into system-wide improvement. This will require suitable arrangements for confidentiality, data quality and fair treatment of those who report concerns in good faith.

Digital competence records may also become more important. The Government has identified the absence of a consistent digital method for verifying competence as a weakness in the current system. The IFE should therefore expect increasing interest in how professional registration, current competence, specialist capability and CPD can be verified reliably and, where appropriate, shared digitally.

Proportionate regulation with credible enforcement

The Government intends the Single Construction Regulator to use proportionate and risk-based regulation supported by decisive enforcement against those who fail to meet expected standards.

That balance matters. A system focused excessively on procedural compliance could increase cost without improving safety. Equally, professional standards will not command public confidence unless serious incompetence, misconduct and misrepresentation have meaningful consequences.

Professional institutions will need effective disciplinary processes and appropriate information sharing arrangements with statutory regulators. 

These arrangements must protect the public, while in tandem ensuring procedural fairness and avoiding unnecessary duplication.

What happens next?

Legislation will be introduced when time in the Houses of Parliament allows, with implementation of the Single Construction Regulator expected to begin from 2028. Before then, several important decisions will be taken.

The Government’s response on fire risk assessor reform is expected later this year. The overarching strategy for built environment professions, trades and occupations is expected next Spring.

Further, the fire engineering Transitional Board will continue developing the model for reform and the functions, powers and institutional relationships of the new Single Construction Regulator will be refined before legislation is introduced.

The Government has committed to continued engagement as this work progresses. The IFE and its members should play an active part in that process.

The essential question is no longer whether professional competence will feature in the new regulatory system. It’s how competence will be defined, demonstrated, maintained and connected to accountability. The IFE has considerable experience to offer, but it must also be prepared to examine how its own systems will operate within a more transparent and somewhat more demanding regulatory environment.

If the reform succeeds, professional recognition will not simply identify achievement. It will also form part of a connected system through which building users, clients and regulators can have justified confidence in those undertaking safety-critical fire engineering work.

Dr Peter Wilkinson CEng CFIFireE is Fire Engineering Advisor at the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) (www.ife.org.uk)