Andrew Leslies reflects on what‘s happening with APS and the wider sector going on as the year progresses.
I am at the age when I am beginning to reflect on a long career. Forty-seven springs so far. Days of watching tradesmen mixing asbestos in a bucket or climbing up a scaffold with no ladders are thankfully long gone. A lot has been achieved in these nearly five decades, but there has been a constant running through it all where little has changed: behaviours. No real significant progress at all. Certainly not much improvement, and good and bad are still poles apart.
Spring is the time of plans and projects: so said Leo Tolstoy. What we are finding as the industry staggers into 2026 is that there is indeed a plethora of plans, projects and initiatives under way, a great many a consequence of the post-Grenfell Building Safety Act and amendments to the Building Regulations 2010 (England).
Wales is very close to putting building safety legislation and arrangements in place.
Meanwhile in Scotland, guidance has been published by the Scottish government on the Compliance Plan Approach, although primary legislation to establish the actual dutyholder – the compliance plan manager – is still some way off.
It is interesting to note that in England, following the Grenfell Inquiry Stage 2 recommendations, there is a significant amount of reflection and reassessment going on, not only of the meanings within the regulations, but also the status of dutyholders (in particular the principal designer building regulations) and the professional bodies themselves. And, of course, that hoary old subject – as-built drawings. (I have never seen such a thing). Did someone say bun fight?
Wide remit for APS
At APS, we have the luxury of standing back a little and taking a pragmatic view. After all, APS is not a single profession professional body – we do not have a singular purpose to oversee the education and qualification of a “profession” or its continuing professional development.
The APS remit is to provide a platform for construction professionals of all denominations with the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours to deliver competent services, as individuals and organisations, in the area of
health and safety risk management, building safety and regulatory compliance. It has always been thus. In other words, APS does things differently because APS has no single profession, title or function to protect.
The industry is splitting between the traditionalists and the revisionists. The traditionalists seek to protect their silos and make rudimentary alignments in line with current and predicted pressure points; the revisionists would sweep it all away and recalibrate the entire industry. Neither approach will achieve the desired results.
Culture change needed
Cultural change refers to transformation. It takes time and affects beliefs, values, behaviours, norms and practices. Cultural change happens when people adopt new ways of thinking or acting that gradually replace established traditions or expectations.
Cultural change across the safety agenda references a fundamental shift in attitudes, behaviours and decision‑making across the construction and housing sectors. After Grenfell, investigations have showed that safety failures were rooted not only in technical issues but also in complacency, weak accountability and poor organisational culture. This highlighted the need for long‑term, systemic reform.
The industry is also shifting towards stronger leadership commitment and accountability, with expectations that individuals and organisations challenge unsafe practices, demonstrate competence and take ownership of safety outcomes.
This reflects calls to replace a “time and money” focus with one that balances time, money and safety in order to promote collaboration, consistency and long‑term safety stewardship.
Recent analysis emphasises moving beyond basic compliance towards proactive responsibility, encouraging organisations to embed safety as a core value rather than a regulatory obligation.
Where we are now
APS members are now receiving a weekly bulletin about what APS is getting involved with at a strategic and influencer level, which is part of our efforts to ensure that we are engaged with what can only be a gradual process of reform, not sudden and culture-shaking changes that have plainly occurred in England and which have, in reality, spawned more questions than answers.
This work does, of course, gives us a heads up, enabling us to tailor responses for our members and registrants through which they can adjust their contributions to built environment projects for societal gain.
Industry is talking about regulating the professions, but it has not yet emerged how this will proceed or indeed if it is possible across the piece. Which ones? On which model? At what cost? Industry is looking at guidance (particularly for clients) who are entirely bemused and out of touch with duties suddenly imposed on them. Industry is trying to define and refine what the principal designer building regulations in England actually is and what they do. Competence standards are being developed with revalidation part of that agenda.
All of this is good and significant work, but at the end of the day to what end? Unless the developed outcomes apply to the whole industry, we will be left with those few that do and the vast majority who are not mandated who don’t.
So that’s it in a nutshell. If we want cultural change, a change in behaviours, a change in attitude,
this needs the most positive of nudges – mandate.
Andrew Leslie is the CEO of the Association for Project Safety
