In the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the UK’s construction industry is on the verge of its most significant regulatory overhaul in a generation. At the heart of this transformation is the government’s proposal for a single construction regulator, a move designed to address the systemic failures in competence and accountability that the inquiry laid bare. To unpack what this means for the professionals on the ground, we are joined by Luca Calaraili, a respected expert in construction, design, and architectural innovation. With a deep understanding of both traditional practice and emerging technologies, Luca offers a unique perspective on this pivotal moment.
Today, we will delve into the practical realities of the proposed new licensing system and what is needed to make it a genuine driver of safety rather than just another layer of red tape. We will explore how the new regulator can effectively build upon existing competence frameworks to create a unified system, and we’ll confront the profound cultural challenges involved in regulating professions for the first time. We’ll also examine the future role of professional bodies in rebuilding public trust and consider the vital lessons that can be drawn from the recent, and often difficult, reforms in the building control sector.
A new licensing system for principal contractors is proposed as a “point of control.” What specific assurance processes and competence frameworks must sit behind a license to ensure it genuinely improves safety, rather than just adding bureaucracy? Could you walk me through a practical example?
That’s the absolute crux of the issue. A license on its own, as Jon Vanstone from the Industry Competence Committee rightly warns, doesn’t create competence; it’s merely a gate. What truly matters is the robust system of verification and ongoing assurance that underpins it. We’ve learned the hard way that badges and registers without credible substance give a false sense of comfort, which is the last thing we need. For a principal contractor, this means the license shouldn’t just be a one-time application. It must be tied to a framework that verifies not just the individual’s qualifications but the organization’s entire competence management system. For instance, a contractor would need to demonstrate how they assess the competence of their supply chain, how they manage conflicts of interest on-site, and how they ensure continuous professional development for their teams. The system should demand evidence of these processes in action, not just a policy document sitting on a shelf.
With the goal of “integration, not invention,” the new regulator will build on frameworks from the Industry Competence Committee. How can the government best incorporate this existing work to strengthen the system as a whole, avoiding duplicated requirements or confusion for professionals on the ground?
This principle of “integration, not invention” is critical to avoid paralyzing the industry. The Industry Competence Committee (ICC) has already done significant legwork since its establishment in September 2023, developing role-based expectations and guidance on competence management. The government’s smartest move would be to officially adopt this work as the backbone for any new licensing or registration scheme. This means the criteria for a principal designer’s registration, for example, should directly align with the competence expectations already defined and consulted on by the ICC. This avoids a scenario where a professional has to meet one set of standards for their chartered body, another for the ICC’s guidance, and a third for a government license. It creates a single, clear benchmark. The key is to ensure the regulator’s role is to enforce these standards, while the ICC remains an independent advisor on what “good” looks like in practice, preventing the system from becoming a closed loop.
Regulating professions is seen as a radical cultural shift that could push experienced people out of the sector. What are the biggest cultural hurdles to overcome, and how can the new regulator balance enforcing rigorous standards with retaining the industry’s vital capacity and expertise?
This is perhaps the most delicate part of the entire reform. The biggest cultural hurdle is shifting from a largely voluntary, title-based system to one where the act of performing a safety-critical role is legally controlled. For generations, someone could offer architectural or engineering services without being registered, and builders faced no minimum competence threshold at all. Suddenly imposing a mandatory, evidence-based system will feel threatening to many experienced practitioners who have worked one way their entire careers. The danger, as critics have pointed out, is that poorly designed requirements could simply push these people into retirement, hollowing out the very capability the industry depends on. The balance is struck by making the new requirements proportionate and risk-based. The system must recognize experience alongside formal qualifications and provide clear, accessible pathways for seasoned professionals to demonstrate their competence without having to go back to school for three years. It’s about co-designing the new standards with industry, not imposing them from an ivory tower.
Some critics feel professional bodies have been slow to address competence failures. What proactive role should chartered institutions now play alongside the new regulator to lead their communities and rebuild public trust, without compromising their independence? Please share some concrete steps.
The professional bodies are at a positive inflection point, as Richard Harral of CABE described it. Dame Judith Hackitt has been vocal in her criticism, noting her disappointment that it has taken government action to prompt the necessary urgency. The time for passive standard-setting is over. First, they must proactively update their own professional standards to align with, or even exceed, the new regulatory benchmarks, as CABE is doing with its recent consultation. Second, they need to take a much more active role in validating the competence of their members, moving beyond simple membership to rigorous, ongoing assessment. Third, they should become centers of excellence for education and training that directly address the competence gaps identified by the Grenfell inquiry. By leading this charge, they demonstrate their value and professionalism, rebuilding public confidence from the ground up while maintaining their essential independence from the government’s enforcement arm.
The reform of building control has been called “the sharp edge” of change since 2018. Based on that experience, what are the most critical lessons for expanding competence requirements to other professions like principal designers and contractors? What metrics should be used to track success?
The experience of building control is a powerful, if painful, teacher. The Grenfell inquiry was deeply critical of its conflicts of interest and inconsistent professionalism. The most critical lesson, as LABC’s Lorna Stimpson emphasizes, is that you cannot place the burden of catching every failure on a single regulated role. Competence has to be demonstrated and embedded across the entire system. This means that as we expand requirements to principal designers and contractors, we must avoid the temptation to just create more silos. The competence frameworks must be interconnected, reflecting the collaborative reality of a project. Another lesson is the need for a credible, independent assessment body. LABC helped establish the Building Safety Competence Foundation, which has now assessed over 2,500 individuals against the ISO 17024 standard. This model of third-party validation is a crucial metric for success. We should track not just the number of people licensed, but the number who have passed rigorous, independent assessments and the corresponding reduction in safety-critical defects identified during construction and occupation.
What is your forecast for the UK’s construction industry competence and safety standards by 2030?
My forecast is one of cautious optimism, but the road ahead is challenging. By 2030, assuming these reforms are implemented thoughtfully, we will have a fundamentally different professional landscape. The days of voluntary charters being the only mark of quality for many roles will be over, replaced by mandatory licensing for safety-critical positions. I predict we will see a clearer, more defined set of responsibilities for dutyholders, anchored in law and backed by a regulator with real teeth. However, the transition will be turbulent. We will likely see a short-term capacity crunch as the industry adjusts and some experienced individuals exit. But the long-term result will be a higher baseline of competence and a culture where safety is no longer a “race to the bottom” but a verifiable, non-negotiable professional standard. The true measure of success will be when the lessons of Grenfell are so deeply embedded in our practices that such a tragedy is not just prevented, but truly unimaginable.
