House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee Inquiry into building safety regulation

1 About the Committee
2 Background to the inquiry
3 Initial outline questions
4 Detailed final questions
5 2nd Report of Session 2024–26. The Building Safety Regulator: Building a better regulator
6 Related articles on Designing Buildings
7 External links

[edit] About the Committee

The Industry and Regulators Committee was created to consider matters relating to industry, including the policies of His Majesty’s Government to promote industrial growth, skills and competitiveness, and to scrutinise the work of UK regulators.

The Committee's first inquiry, launched in January 2025, related to 'The energy grid and grid connections' with a focus on the regulatory, planning and funding barriers to delivering energy infrastructure and the ability of the Government’s proposals to address them. The Committee considered issues such as possible legal challenges which arise as a result of reforms to the connections queue and whether locational pricing could help to reduce the need for additional grid investment and closed at the end of February 2025.

The Committee, announced the launch of its second inquiry 'an inquiry into building safety regulation' on 18 June 2025, with a particular focus on the work of the Building Safety Regulator' (BSR).

Baroness Taylor of Bolton, Chair of the Industry and Regulators Committee, said; “The safety of residents in higher-risk buildings was at the heart of the Building Safety Regulator being set up in 2022. The Committee wants to hear from all stakeholders to find out if the BSR has the skills and resources required to ensure the safety of all buildings and its residents in the process of approving applications for high-rise buildings. This is crucial if the Government is going to achieve its manifesto target of building 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament.”

The Committee invites written contributions to its inquiry until Sunday 31 August 2025, holding public evidence sessions between June and September, with the aim of reporting back to the House in the Autumn.

[edit] Background to the inquiry

Following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, the Government commissioned Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct an Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. The Review’s final report, published in 2018, recommended the establishment of a new regulatory framework focused on higher-risk residential buildings, managed by a new regulator with responsibility for the whole of a building’s safety. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was set up to act as this new regulator as part of the Building Safety Act 2022.

The BSR has been established within the Health and Safety Executive and is responsible for setting standards for the design and construction of higher-risk buildings. Higher-risk buildings have been defined as buildings that are at least 18 metres in height or have at least seven storeys and contain at least two residential units. For lower-risk buildings, the BSR does not directly approve their construction but is responsible for regulating the building control bodies and inspectors that do hold this responsibility.

Concerns had been raised by some in the housing sector that delays in approvals by the BSR have slowed down the delivery of new buildings and homes.

On 15 July, 2025 the Industry and Regulators Committee heard from Dame Judith Hackitt, whose independent review led to the creation of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). The session explored whether the BSR has improved high-rise safety, its impact on new housing delivery and maintenance, and changes in industry culture since the Grenfell Tower fire. The Committee also aimed to assess whether the BSR’s framework could be made more proportionate without compromising safety and if the regulator has the necessary skills and resources for timely approvals.

For more information see article Building Safety Committee discussion with Dame Judith Hackitt.

[edit] Initial outline questions

The Committee is seeking evidence from building industry specialists, housing associations, architects, resident groups, safety experts, local authorities and other relevant stakeholders posed a number of questions initially, including:

has the introduction of the BSR improved the safety of the buildings it is responsible for?
does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework strike the right balance between providing a holistic, outcomes-based view of safety and ensuring that developers and building owners understand what they are required to do?
what impacts could the framework have on the delivery of the Government’s housing targets?
to what extent are delays in approvals for high-rise buildings down to the regulatory processes used by the BSR?
are the BSR’s approval processes sufficiently clear and understandable to developers?
does the BSR have access to the skilled staff necessary to carry out multidisciplinary assessments of safety?
is the relationship between the BSR and building control authorities and inspectors working well?
how does the Building Safety Regulator’s work relate to the regulation of construction products?
how does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework compare to how building safety is assured in other countries and jurisdictions?

[edit] Detailed final questions

The Committee, is encouraging anyone with expertise in or experience of the matters under consideration in its inquiry to submit written evidence and states: 'Diversity comes in many forms, and hearing a range of different perspectives means that committees are better informed and can more effectively scrutinise public policy and legislation. Committees can undertake their role most effectively when they hear from a wide range of individuals, sectors or groups in society affected by a particular policy or piece of legislation.'

It encourages anyone with experience or expertise of an issue under investigation by a Select Committee to share their views with the Committee, with the full knowledge that their views have value and are welcome. The final list of questions where responses are sought (though there is no obligation to answer every question) are listed below.

What is your experience of the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework? Has the introduction of the BSR improved the safety of the buildings it is responsible for, and can any examples be given to illustrate this?
How has the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR’s) regulatory framework impacted the delivery of new homes and the maintenance and improvement of existing high-rise buildings?
What impacts could the BSR’s regulatory framework have on the delivery of the Government’s housing targets? How significant are high-rise buildings to meeting these housing targets? As an obstacle to meeting these targets, how does building safety regulation compare with other potential obstacles such as skills, supply chains and the planning system?
Does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework strike the right balance between providing a holistic, outcomes-based view of safety and ensuring that developers and building owners understand what they are required to do?
To what extent are delays in approvals for high-rise buildings down to the regulatory processes used by the BSR? Could these processes be made more proportionate, particularly for smaller works, without impacting the safety of high-rise buildings? If so, how?
Are the BSR’s approval processes sufficiently clear and understandable to developers? What level of guidance or feedback is necessary for those making applications to the BSR to understand its requirements? Could this situation be improved through the BSR’s review of Approved Documents?
To what extent are delays caused by a poor understanding of building safety on the part of developers, leading to unsuitable applications? Should the solution to delays be a greater awareness of how to take a holistic approach to safety on the part of developers, rather than more prescriptive guidance on regulatory requirements?
The BSR has suggested that it would like to carry out its work on an organisation-by-organisation basis, rather than the current system of looking at things building-by-building. Would you support a move to the BSR focusing on organisations, or would this lessen their focus on the safety of individual buildings?
To what extent are delays in approvals caused by the resources available to the regulator? Is there a need to give the BSR more funding, and if so, would developers accept an increase in regulatory fees to allow for this? Would more funding allow the BSR to deal with applications more swiftly, or is there a need to consider alternative financial models for delivering building safety approvals?
Does the BSR have access to the skilled staff necessary to carry out multidisciplinary assessments of safety? If the BSR is struggling to access the skills it needs, what changes could resolve this issue? For instance, is there a need for higher pay for those carrying out assessments, or for further changes to enable secondments?
How is the BSR progressing in improving the safety of all buildings, including low-rise buildings? Is the relationship between the BSR and building control authorities and inspectors working well?
To what extent are delays a result of growing pains that will ease over time, or a structural problem that requires more significant changes? What improvements to the BSR’s regulatory framework are needed?
How does the Building Safety Regulator’s work relate to the regulation of construction products? How does the BSR cooperate with the Office for Product and Safety Standards, and how might this relationship change with the introduction of a single construction regulator?
How does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework compare to how building safety is assured in other countries and jurisdictions? Are there good examples of how to ensure building safety elsewhere, and what lessons can the BSR learn from them?

For further information, enquiries and to submit visit https://committees.parliament.uk/submission/#/evidence/3685/preamble

[edit] 2nd Report of Session 2024–26. The Building Safety Regulator: Building a better regulator

On 11 December 2025 the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee published its 2nd Report of Session 2024–26 'The Building Safety Regulator: Building a better regulator'.

The report reiterates the story of how the Grenfell Tower tragedy revealed deep failures in the UK’s building safety system, which lead to the creation of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) to strengthen oversight of high-rise buildings and construction standards. While the BSR has improved scrutiny and safety culture, its poor operational performance, in particular with severe delays driven by skills shortages, inefficient processes, and weak engagement with industry has slowed safety remediation and housing delivery. Urgent improvements in capacity, clarity, and efficiency are required to ensure safer buildings, timely remediation, and progress toward national housing targets. The report covered a number of key points:

Background and Creation of the Building Safety Regulator: The Grenfell Tower fire exposed serious regulatory failures, including weak oversight of construction products and conflicts of interest in building inspection. In response, the Building Safety Act 2022 established the BSR to regulate high-rise building safety and oversee building control competence.
Operational Delays and Skills Shortages: The BSR has routinely exceeded statutory approval timelines, delaying safety works, cladding remediation, and new housing delivery. These delays stem largely from shortages of skilled inspectors, early reliance on seconded staff, and slow development of effective decision-making capacity.
Industry Relations, Process Reform, and Future Priorities: Poor communication, unclear requirements, and low-quality applications from parts of the construction sector have compounded delays, although guidance and engagement have recently improved. Streamlining less safety-critical work, strengthening construction product regulation, and focusing on operational improvement must take priority over further organisational reform.