The future of fire safety: Everything you need to know about The Fire Safety Event 2026

by ActiveBreaking NewsBuilding ManagementEventsFirefighting EquipmentHealth and SafetyPassiveSafety

Over 13,500 fire safety professionals to gather at The Fire Safety Event 2026

The Fire Safety Event will open its doors at the NEC Birmingham on 28-30 April 2026 and will play host to leading manufacturers and suppliers to showcase their latest approved products and solutions.

The event, organised by Nineteen Events, is dedicated to supporting industry practitioners, professionals and organisations in achieving and maintaining the very highest standards of fire safety management.

With over 300 exhibitors participating at the show, some of the industry’s leading brands including Apollo, Checkmate Fire, LFS, Sentry Doors, Strongdor and many more, will be showcasing the latest research and development, product and solution launches and live demonstrations.

A number of key associations and industry bodies will also be supporting The Fire Safety Event and will be on hand to offer guidance and expert advice to visitors, including BAFE, FireQual, ECA/FSA, FIA, Fire Aware, FPA, IFCC, IFE, ISCVE, IWMA, NSI, OSPAs, Smoke Control Association and many more.

CPD-accredited conference theatres

Education is at the heart of The Fire Safety Event.

With industry-led theatres and 45+ hours of free-to-attend CPD content, the event offers the opportunity for visitors to gain direct insight into improving, maintaining and championing fire safety for all businesses.

The Fire Safety Leaders Summit, sponsored by RiskBase, will feature a line-up of industry experts and keynotes, offering insight and expertise on best practice, regulatory updates and topical areas impacting the fire safety sector.

The Passive Fire Conference, in partnership with ASPF, will enable visitors to gain more knowledge on passive fire protection topics and various fire safety measures in the built environment.

Visitors will hear from the experts and get the essential advice from specification, installation, inspection and maintenance.

Meanwhile, the Compliance Theatre (sponsored by UL Solutions) will host essential sessions focused on legislation, standards and regulatory updates, helping fire safety professionals stay ahead of compliance.

With expert-led discussions and practical guidance, it offers vital insights for businesses striving to maintain best practices and meet evolving client expectations.

The Innovation Theatre, sponsored by Hochiki, will spotlight the latest advancements, emerging technologies and forward-thinking solutions shaping the future of fire safety.

Through expert-led sessions, the theatre offers attendees a look ahead at the new innovations driving progress and improving safety outcomes across the industry.

Finally, the FIA Guidance Theatre will offer expert insights and practical advice on fire safety regulations and best practices.

Attendees can learn from industry leaders, stay updated on compliance standards and discover innovative solutions to enhance fire protection strategies.

Key features for 2026

UKTC will showcase the operations of a fire testing laboratory with live on-site commentary of passive fire protection product tests.

The UKTC sessions will allow visitors to experience fire tests on a 2.5 x 1.5m screen with the opportunity to ask questions to UKTC’s own experts and take part in thought-provoking debates.

The Fire Safety Event has also partnered with Worldskills UK to bring a fully immersive and interactive zone dedicated to the security engineers of tomorrow.

Hosting the National Qualifiers onsite, this will raise the standard for apprentices to excel in their careers.

Meanwhile,the Fire Safety Event has renewed its commitment to empowering and celebrating women in fire safety management, with visitors able to meet Women Talking Fire on its stand and networking drinks at the end of day one.

According to the organisers, the show is inclusive of people of all ages who are passionate about championing the next generation of talent, describing the network as a genuine movement committed to driving change within an ageing workforce.

As such, there will be specially curated sessions designed for the next generation of industry talent.

After a day filled with discussions and valuable insights, networking opportunities are available at the Networking Café, where complimentary Networking Drinks take place at the end of Day One.

Giveaways and competitions

For the first time, the FIA is to host on its stand a live, hands-on challenge for trainees, apprentices and early career technicians working in fire detection and alarm systems.

Running across all three days, competitors will work on a non-addressable fire alarm system to identify faults and non-compliances, apply safe working practices, test the system correctly and document their work just as on a real maintenance visit.

Visitors to the Specify & Build visitor trail will get the opportunity to take home a cash prize.

To enter, visitors just need to pick up a trail booklet, visit participating exhibitor stands, collect stamps and could win £10,000.

Nineteen Events said the trail is a fun, interactive way to discover new products, meet exhibitors and get more from your day.

Networking at the NEC

Visitors will be able to connect with peers at the Networking Café (sponsored by FIA) or finish the day with networking drinks to celebrate your achievements.

They will also be able to join senior fire safety leaders and influential professionals for an elevated show experience – crafted exclusively for Platinum VIP Club members.

Platinum VIP members gain access to premium networking spaces, curated content, exclusive hospitality benefits at the show and personalised experiences that help to connect with the right people, discover the latest innovations faster and maximise every moment at the show.

Meanwhile, a free-of-charge AI concierge service connects visitors with the right people at the right time.

Using smart matching based on your role and interests, it schedules one-to-one meetings so you can build meaningful connections, save time, and get more value from your event experience.

For instant access to seminars, exhibitor listings, floorplan, speaker detail and live updates, the Safety & Security Series Show App is an essential event companion.

The app enables you to plan your visit, build your schedule and find all the information you need to get the most from the show before, during and after attending.

One place, multiple events

The Fire Safety Event is uniquely co-located with The Security Event, The Health & Safety Event, The Workplace Event and The National Cyber Security Show, which together form The Safety & Security Series.

With only one registration, delegates have access to all shows.

In addition, the event offers free on-site parking at the NEC.

With a train station, airport, and direct access to the M42 motorway, the NEC provides convenience for all attendees.

This series has also partnered with Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, Eurowings, Avanti West Coast, Lufthansa and Swiss International Airlines for exclusive discounts.

SHOW HOURS

Tuesday 28th April 2026: 10:00 – 16:30 

Wednesday 29th April 2026: 10:00 – 16:30 

Thursday 30th April 2026: 10:00 – 15:30 

Register for free pass: www.firesafetyevent.com

VISIT IFSJ AT THE SHOW

International Fire and Safety Journal will exhibit at the on stand 4/M58

Visit the stand to meet the team and to pick up your FREE copy of the magazine

To arrange a meeting with the team email lewisg.tyler@intfireandsafetyjournal.com or iain.hoey@intfireandsafetyjournal.com

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Fire Safety in Solar Installations: Hidden Risks in 2026

by Breaking News

Solar energy is usually talked about as a clean and safer step for the future, and in many ways, that is true. Rooftop solar systems help reduce emissions, lower electricity costs, and make buildings less dependent on traditional power sources. But one thing people often miss is that every solar installation also adds another layer of electrical fire risk.

In 2026, fire safety in solar has become a serious concern for commercial buildings, warehouses, factories, hospitals, and homes. Solar PV continues to grow rapidly, with more than 600 TWh of new solar generation added each year, making it a major part of global power infrastructure.

This growth brings hidden risks. Most solar panel fire risk does not begin with the panel itself. It usually starts in faulty DC connectors, overheated inverters, damaged cabling, poor grounding, or lithium-ion battery failures.

Electrical faults already cause thousands of fires every year. Fire departments respond to around 46,700 home fires linked to electrical failure or malfunction, and nearly half of those involve electrical distribution systems. When solar adds more wiring, more inverters, and more battery storage, the risk becomes harder to ignore. This is why stronger fire safety awareness is essential for building owners, facility teams, and installers from the very beginning.

Why Fire Risks in Solar Installations Are Increasing

Fire risks in solar installations are going up because solar systems are bigger now and, honestly, much more complicated than they used to be. A few years back, most people only thought about rooftop panels. Now, many buildings run solar with battery storage, smart inverters, EV charging points, and much heavier electrical demand. More equipment means more wiring, more connections, and simply more chances for something to fail.

In 2025 alone, global solar PV added nearly 700 GW of new capacity, which pushed total installed capacity close to 3 TW. That is a massive jump. More rooftops and larger commercial systems naturally mean more places where faults can develop. Fire safety in solar is no longer something people can treat as a side issue after installation.

Battery Energy Storage Systems, especially lithium-ion batteries, make things harder. When these systems fail, the fires are often more serious and much harder to control than normal electrical fires. They burn longer and create more risk for emergency teams, and they are becoming more common as facilities add storage for backup power and energy management.

Heat is also part of the problem. Long heatwaves, poor airflow, and constant rooftop exposure put stress on inverters, cables, and battery units. Small faults build slowly. Most of the time, nobody notices until overheating starts.

Installation quality still causes many solar system safety issues. Fast growth has also brought rushed projects, cheap materials, and contractors who are not properly qualified. It may save money at first, but later it can turn into a serious solar inverter fire risk. Fire safety for solar installations really starts with getting the basics right.

Hidden Fire Risks in Solar Installations

Many solar fire incidents are traced back to parts that people rarely notice first. In many cases, the bigger problem comes from connectors, cables, inverters, junction boxes, and battery storage units rather than the panels sitting on the roof. These smaller components create far more fire incidents than most building owners expect.

A lot of electrical fire causes start with faulty DC connectors, especially MC4 connectors. If they are loose, badly installed, or mixed with incompatible parts from different manufacturers, they begin to create resistance and heat. At first, it looks like a small issue. Over time, that heat keeps building and can lead to arcing or even ignition.

DC arc faults are one of the more serious hidden risks. Direct current does not stop the same way AC power does, so once an arc starts, it is harder to control. The heat keeps building inside rooftops, walls, or inverter spaces, and often there is no clear warning before the damage gets serious.

Solar inverter fire risk is another problem that gets overlooked. Inverters work every day, and they generate constant heat. If ventilation is poor, dust builds up, or the system is overloaded, the risk increases fast. Without regular checks, overheating becomes much more likely.

Battery storage systems bring a different kind of fire risk. Lithium-ion batteries can go into thermal runaway, where one overheated cell triggers the next one, and the problem spreads through the battery pack. These fires burn hotter, last longer, and often release toxic gases.

Even cable damage creates trouble years later. Sun exposure, moisture, rodents, roof pressure, and weak grounding slowly damage insulation and increase the chance of short circuits. Most solar fires are not sudden accidents. Strong fire safety in solar starts by finding these small problems before they turn into major fire incidents.

Solar Panel Fires: Real Incidents & Case Studies

Solar panel fires are not common, but that does not mean the risk is small. Most incidents trace back to installation mistakes, connector failures, inverter overheating, or maintenance problems that were ignored for too long. When you look at real cases from different countries, the same lesson keeps appearing: small electrical faults often turn into major fire incidents when warning signs are missed.

At Amazon fulfillment centers in the United States, rooftop solar systems were linked to fire incidents caused by electrical faults. That pushed many large companies to take a closer look at rooftop inspections, inverter checks, and the quality of installation work. Large commercial systems cannot be treated as a one-time installation project and then forgotten.

The UK saw several rooftop fires in schools, warehouses, and commercial buildings, where isolator failures and aging inverter systems were part of the problem. A government-backed Building Research Establishment investigation reviewed more than 50 solar PV fire incidents and found repeated problems with DC isolators, connectors, and inverters. DC isolators were linked to 18 fires, while DC connectors caused 10 incidents, and inverters were responsible for 7 more. The report also found that more than 36% of these fires were directly caused by installation problems, which shows how much poor workmanship still affects rooftop solar safety. Some sites had to shut down temporarily, while others required emergency evacuations. What started as a small electrical issue quickly turned into a serious operational and safety problem.

Australia had similar issues with residential systems, especially with defective DC isolators. Fire investigations pointed back to low-quality parts and poor installation work. Germany also reported cases where inverter overheating and DC arc faults caused rooftop fires and full system shutdowns.

Battery Energy Storage System fires create even bigger problems. When large solar farm batteries catch fire, they can burn for hours and release toxic smoke. Firefighters often cannot move in with normal suppression methods and sometimes have to manage the situation from a distance.

Across all these cases, the lesson stays the same. Most solar system safety issues start small. A missed inspection, a weak connection, or one failing component can turn into a much bigger fire later. Strong fire safety in solar depends far more on prevention than reacting after the fire starts.

Key Fire Safety Standards & Regulations in 2026

Fire safety in solar is not only about passing an installation check anymore. In 2026, the focus is much bigger than that. It starts with system design and continues through battery storage, maintenance, emergency access, and even how firefighters will handle the site during a fire. Fire safety for solar installations really begins long before the first panel is installed.

NFPA standards still sit at the center of this. NFPA 70, especially Article 690 in the National Electrical Code, covers things like PV wiring, grounding, disconnects, warning labels, and rapid shutdown systems. That last part matters a lot because firefighters need a safer way to work around live rooftop solar equipment when an emergency happens.

Battery storage has pushed regulations even further. NFPA 855 focuses on stationary energy storage systems, especially lithium-ion batteries, where thermal runaway can turn a small issue into a serious fire. Proper ventilation, battery separation, and fire-rated enclosures are no longer seen as extra precautions. They are part of normal fire safety planning now.

IEC standards like IEC 62446 and IEC 62548 also support safer installation, testing, and inspections. Clear rooftop access, visible DC warning signs, and certified components all matter. Good compliance is not paperwork. It is what helps keep solar systems safe when real conditions test them.

Fire Prevention Strategies for Solar Installations

Most solar fires do not start as sudden emergencies. They usually begin as small maintenance problems that were easy to miss, such as an inspection that got delayed, weak grounding, poor installation, or equipment that kept overheating without anyone noticing. That is why good fire prevention tips matter from the start, not after the system is already causing trouble.

Fire safety for solar installations starts with how the system is designed and installed. Using approved components, the right inverter size, proper cable routing, and solid grounding removes a lot of risk before the system even goes live. Trying to save money with poor installation often leads to much higher costs later.

Regular inspections make a big difference. Scheduled thermal inspections help identify hotspots in connectors, junction boxes, inverters, and battery units before visible damage appears. Routine checks for dust buildup, corrosion, moisture, and loose wiring also help prevent a small issue from turning into a serious solar inverter fire risk.

Rapid shutdown systems and arc-fault detection also help a lot. They lower the dangerous voltage during emergencies and can stop overheating before it turns into ignition. That makes fire safety in solar better for both building teams and firefighters.

Battery storage systems need even more attention. Good ventilation, fire-rated enclosures, temperature monitoring, and safe separation from occupied spaces all help reduce thermal runaway risks. Most of the time, prevention is not about doing something dramatic. It is about building systems that stay safe every day.

Role of AI & Smart Monitoring in Fire Prevention

A lot of fire prevention starts before anyone sees smoke or smells something burning. In solar systems, the real benefit comes from catching small warning signs early, before they turn into bigger problems. That is why smart monitoring has become such an important part of fire safety in solar.

Manual inspections are still important, but they only show what is happening at that moment. Large solar systems need continuous monitoring because faults can develop between routine checks. Smart monitoring systems track heat, voltage changes, and equipment behavior in real time, helping operators catch unusual patterns before they become visible failures. Many serious fire incidents start with small warning signs that are easy to miss without constant system visibility.

Battery storage needs even closer attention. Battery Management Systems keep checking charging behavior, temperature, and voltage balance across lithium-ion battery packs. If one battery cell starts acting differently, operators can respond early before the issue spreads and becomes a much larger fire risk.

Smart monitoring also helps reduce false alarms. Not every heat change means something is wrong. Dust, steam, or normal operating heat can trigger warnings, so better monitoring helps teams focus on real risks instead of wasting time on harmless changes.

For large rooftops and solar farms, remote monitoring matters even more. Arc-fault alerts, predictive maintenance dashboards, and automatic shutdown systems help reduce long-term solar system safety issues. In many cases, preventing fire is simply about seeing problems early and fixing them before failure happens.

Challenges for Firefighters in Solar-Related Fires

A solar fire is not only harder to put out, but it is often harder to even approach safely. One of the biggest problems is that solar panels can keep generating electricity as long as light is hitting them. Even if the main building power is shut off, rooftop PV systems may still carry live DC current, and that creates a real shock risk for firefighters.

Because of that, normal firefighting tactics change. Crews may avoid cutting through the roof for ventilation because hidden energized cables can run under the panels. Direct current arcs are also harder to stop than normal AC faults, so suppression work becomes more dangerous and much slower.

Large rooftop systems bring another problem. When panels cover most of the roof, safe walking space becomes limited, and access points get harder to reach. Rescue work, ventilation, and movement across the roof all become more difficult. Many older systems were installed without thinking much about firefighter access.

Battery storage systems make things even tougher. Lithium-ion battery fires can restart hours after the first suppression, and they may release toxic gases like hydrogen fluoride. In some large Battery Energy Storage System fires, crews need cooling and isolation instead of direct extinguishing, which takes more time and creates more risk.

Fire safety in solar is not only about preventing fires before they start. It also depends on proper system design, clear rooftop access, and emergency planning that allows firefighters to respond safely when every second matters.

Future of Fire Safety in Solar Energy

The future of fire safety in solar energy is moving toward prevention much earlier in the process. Instead of waiting for faults to become visible problems, newer systems are being designed to detect risks sooner and stop small failures before they turn into major fire events. Fire safety in solar is becoming part of system design itself, not something added later after installation.

A big part of that shift comes from AI fire detection in solar systems becoming standard in larger commercial projects. Smart monitoring is no longer treated as an extra feature. Early warning systems, predictive maintenance tools, and automated shutdown responses are becoming part of normal operational planning because they help reduce long-term solar system safety issues before damage begins.

Battery storage is also pushing stronger safety expectations. As more sites add lithium-ion systems, better Battery Management Systems, stronger ventilation rules, and fire-rated enclosures are becoming basic requirements, not optional upgrades. Small battery faults can spread quickly, so early detection matters as much as physical protection.

Insurance providers are also changing the conversation. Many large projects now require stronger compliance records, safer system layouts, and documented maintenance before coverage is approved. Future regulations will likely demand stricter inspections, better rooftop firefighter access, and clearer emergency shutdown systems.

Clean energy growth matters, but safe energy growth matters more. The strongest solar systems of the future will be the ones designed to prevent failure before it starts.

Conclusion

Solar energy is growing fast, but safe growth matters just as much as clean growth. Many solar fire incidents begin with small electrical faults that stay unnoticed for too long, loose connectors, overheating inverters, damaged cables, or battery failures that slowly turn into serious risks.

That is why fire safety in solar cannot be ignored. Fire safety for solar installations starts with better design, certified installation, regular inspections, and systems that help detect problems early. Stronger standards, smarter monitoring, and proper emergency planning all play a part.

Prevention will always be more effective than emergency response. The safest solar systems are not the ones that respond faster to fire, but the ones built to stop fires from starting in the first place. Solar is only truly sustainable when it is also safe.

FAQ

Are solar panels a fire hazard in 2026?

Solar panels can create fire risks, but serious incidents are still relatively rare when systems are designed and maintained properly. The bigger concern usually comes from faulty installation, damaged wiring, poor connections, or battery problems rather than the panels themselves.

What causes fires in solar installations?

Loose DC connectors, inverter overheating, damaged cable insulation, weak grounding, and battery faults are some of the most common causes. Small electrical issues often stay unnoticed for a long time, and that is usually when bigger fire problems begin.

Can solar batteries catch fire or explode?

Yes, lithium-ion solar batteries can catch fire if they overheat or enter thermal runaway. This can happen because of charging faults, physical damage, poor ventilation, or internal battery failure if the system is not properly managed.

How can fire risks in solar systems be prevented?

Good design, certified installation, regular inspections, thermal monitoring, and proper grounding make the biggest difference. Rapid shutdown systems, battery ventilation, and routine maintenance also help stop small faults before they become dangerous.

What safety standards apply to solar fire protection?

Standards like NFPA 70, NFPA 855, and IEC 62446 help guide safer solar installation and battery storage. They cover wiring, grounding, shutdown systems, warning labels, and emergency access for firefighters.

Centurian Media launches International Health & Safety Journal to serve evolving global HSE leadership

by Breaking NewsHealth and Safety

As health, safety and risk management become central to organisational strategy and ESG accountability, Ian Stokes, CEO of Centurian Media, announces the launch of International Health & Safety Journal (IHSJ) to serve a growing global community of senior HSE leaders operating at the highest levels of decision-making.

Over the past decade, we have seen a fundamental shift in how organisations view health, safety and risk.

What was once considered an operational function has firmly moved into the boardroom.

Today, health & safety is not simply about compliance, it is central to how organisations manage risk, protect their people, maintain operational continuity and demonstrate ESG accountability.

Across global industries, senior HSE leaders are now operating at the highest levels of decision-making, influencing strategy, investment, and long-term organisational resilience.

IHSJ to build trust with senior professionals

It is against this backdrop that we are launching IHSJ – International Health & Safety Journal.

This is not a step into an unfamiliar space.

Through the success of International Fire & Safety Journal over the past six years, and the launch and continued growth of Fire & Safety Journal Americas, alongside our market-leading security platforms ISJ, SJA and SJUK, we have built strong relationships with senior professionals responsible for safety, security and risk across global organisations.

Many of these individuals already operate with dual responsibility, overseeing not only fire or security, but wider health and safety governance.

Over the past 12 months, we have undertaken extensive research and data development, further strengthening our understanding of this audience and significantly expanding our reach within the global HSE leadership community.

What became clear is that while the role of HSE has evolved, the platforms serving this audience have not kept pace.

There is a gap for a publication that reflects the true level at which these leaders operate, a platform focused on strategy, governance and global best practice, rather than purely operational or product-led content.

IHSJ has been created to fill that gap.

It represents a natural and important evolution of our portfolio, completing the alignment between fire, security and health & safety, and allows us to better serve a community we already know and understand.

Focus on health and safety changes

We are launching IHSJ at a time when the global HSE market is expanding rapidly, driven by regulatory change, ESG requirements and increasing operational complexity.

But more importantly, we are launching it with an established audience, proven platforms and a clear understanding of the individuals we are aiming to reach.

IHSJ is not about volume.

It is about influence.

It is about connecting the organisations shaping the future of health and safety with the leaders responsible for delivering it.

We are incredibly excited about what this platform represents — not just for Centurian Media, but for the global HSE community.

Ian Stokes
CEO
Centurian Media

Visit the International Health & Safety Journal website

Follow International Health & Safety Journal on LinkedIn

Why the UK’s new PFAS report is a massive wake-up call for fire safety

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionSafety

UK PFAS report sets out tougher path for regulation, remediation and fire sector controls

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has called for a faster and more precautionary UK response to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, warning that the country is already carrying a growing legacy of contamination while harmful emissions continue.

In its report, Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), published on 23 April 2026, the Committee says the Government’s first PFAS Plan is a useful starting point but does not go far enough on restriction, enforcement, clean-up and disposal.

PFAS are used across a wide range of products and processes because they resist heat, water and oil.

The Committee says that same persistence is what makes them a long-term problem.

Once released, they remain in the environment, accumulate in soil, rivers, wildlife and the human body, and are now present in almost everyone’s blood.

The report links PFAS exposure with increased risks including certain cancers, immune suppression, fertility problems and developmental harms.

For fire and safety professionals, the report matters for three immediate reasons.

It reinforces pressure to remove PFAS from firefighting foams and non-essential products, it raises questions about which uses can still qualify as essential, and it highlights a disposal and destruction gap for PFAS-containing waste that already affects portable extinguishers, firefighting appliances and contaminated materials.

Why the Committee says the UK must move faster

A central criticism in the report is that UK REACH is moving too slowly.

The Committee says the domestic chemicals regime has fallen behind the EU and cannot respond quickly enough to emerging evidence on PFAS.

Ministers have said the UK will look to decisions made in trusted jurisdictions such as the EU, yet the Government’s own target for enabling that alignment under UK REACH is December 2028.

The Committee says that is too late and recommends reforming UK REACH by March 2027, with assessment times cut to half the current statutory maximums.

The report also says the UK’s current approach still relies too heavily on reviewing substances one by one.

In practice, that means continued use can carry on while assessment drags on.

The Committee argues that this delays control measures and increases future clean-up costs because PFAS continue to build up in the environment.

It therefore recommends a shift towards group-based regulation, so structurally similar PFAS cannot simply replace those already restricted.

That point is important operationally.

The Committee warns against “regrettable substitutions”, where one problematic PFAS is replaced with another that later proves similarly persistent or harmful.

For manufacturers, buyers and safety managers, that means future compliance will increasingly depend on understanding product chemistry rather than relying on broad marketing claims or partial reformulation.

The proposed essential-use test

The report supports an essential-use approach to PFAS.

Under that model, the first controls would fall on non-essential uses, meaning uses that are not necessary for health, safety or the functioning of society.

The Committee recommends that the Government adopt this framework and begin bringing forward restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products from 2027, with examples including food packaging, cookware and school uniforms.

The report does, however, accept that some uses remain harder to replace.

Evidence to the inquiry pointed to continuing dependence on PFAS in areas such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, defence applications and certain forms of occupational protective clothing.

One witness told the Committee that PFAS remain critical to personal protective equipment used by fire safety personnel responding to incidents at chemical plants.

The Committee’s position is that clearly defined exemptions may still be needed for essential uses, though these should be time-limited where substitutes are being developed.

For the fire sector, that creates a split picture.

PFAS in foams and some low-value consumer applications faces stronger pressure for removal.

PFAS in specific forms of protective equipment may continue for longer where a genuine performance requirement still exists and no feasible substitute is available.

The likely direction of travel is tighter justification, clearer documentation and less tolerance for routine or convenience-based use.

What the report says about firefighting foams

The Committee confirms that the UK is already consulting on restricting PFAS in firefighting foams.

It also records evidence from the Health and Safety Executive that any UK restrictions in this area will come after the EU, potentially by one or two years depending on how quickly legislation progresses.

The report notes that the EU adopted restrictions on PFAS in firefighting foams in October 2025, with a threshold of 1 mg/L for the sum of all PFAS from 23 October 2030.

That delay matters because the report links slow UK action with wider regulatory divergence.

Businesses operating across Great Britain, Northern Ireland and EU markets may face different obligations for the same products at the same time.

The Committee also warns that slower UK controls increase the risk of PFAS-containing goods that can no longer be sold into the EU ending up on the UK market instead.

The disposal side is just as significant.

Evidence from Britannia Fire told the Committee that more than 10,000 tonnes of PFAS waste from portable firefighting appliances is already waiting to be disposed of before any fresh ban takes effect.

The same evidence said disposal costs have risen sharply, from £0.52 per litre to £2.80 per litre, or £16.80 per extinguisher.

For fire protection firms, service providers and building owners, that points to a practical problem that is already here rather than one triggered only by future legislation.

Exposure, public health and why the report goes beyond drinking water

The Committee says PFAS exposure is not confined to one pathway.

It lists ingestion through drinking water and food, inhalation through air and dust, and absorption through skin contact.

Diet is identified as the main route for most people outside occupational exposure.

On drinking water, the report welcomes updated Drinking Water Inspectorate guidance published in March 2025, which requires water companies in England and Wales to monitor a wider range of PFAS.

That guidance sets a standard of 100 nanograms per litre for the sum of 48 specified PFAS, and the Committee backs plans to turn that guidance into statutory limits.

The Committee says regulation remains fragmented beyond drinking water.

It calls for statutory limits on PFAS in food and agricultural pathways, plus interim PFAS limits and standardised labelling for PFAS-containing consumer products while they remain on the market.

It also wants the Government to publish, within 12 months, a delivery plan for epidemiological studies, biomonitoring and enhanced health screening for groups with known or suspected elevated exposure.

That includes occupational groups as well as affected communities.

For the fire and safety sector, that could mean greater scrutiny of occupational exposure histories, stronger interest in health surveillance for workers handling foams or contaminated equipment, and more pressure to document where PFAS-containing materials are still used.

The report does not create those systems itself, though it clearly points the Government towards them.

The clean-up problem and the cost of delay

The report is clear that prevention alone will not solve the issue because large-scale contamination already exists.

It cites Environment Agency estimates that remediation costs for between 2,900 and 10,200 high-risk sites in England could be between £31 billion and £121 billion.

It also points to wider European analysis suggesting that continuing present levels of PFAS pollution until 2050 would impose very large economic costs, while acting earlier at source would reduce that burden.

The Committee says the current system has not applied the polluter pays principle strongly enough.

It recommends that the Government consult by March 2027 on a national PFAS Remediation Fund.

That consultation should examine an emissions levy on PFAS on the UK REACH candidate list, ways to extend polluter liability to imported products, and increased government funding for local authority remediation where no responsible party can be identified.

The report also says monitoring cannot work without enforcement capacity.

It argues that the Environment Agency needs clearer standards, more staff, more skills and more laboratory support if it is to identify hotspots, require remediation and restrict emissions in practice.

Waste, destruction and what this means in practice

One of the strongest operational sections of the report covers disposal and destruction.

The Committee says a lack of supply chain transparency leaves councils, waste operators and regulators unable to identify which products contain PFAS or how they should be handled safely at end of life.

It recommends consultation within six months on mandatory disclosures requiring manufacturers and importers to report the presence and purpose of PFAS in products placed on the UK market.

It also says the Government must set out a timeline for diverting PFAS waste away from landfill and towards safer treatment or destruction technologies.

That is because PFAS have been detected in landfill leachate and landfill gas, meaning disposal can simply shift contamination from one place to another.

On destruction, the Committee says current UK capacity is limited and depends heavily on high-temperature incineration.

The Minister told the inquiry there are only two hazardous waste incinerators permitted to accept PFAS and that current capacity is judged sufficient.

The report records concern from industry that waste volumes are rising and that poor combustion conditions can break PFAS into smaller chains and disperse them into the atmosphere.

The Committee therefore calls for investment in scalable remediation and destruction technologies, including non-incineration methods, and for formally approved remediation guidance so businesses, local authorities and regulators know what methods are accepted.

What fire and safety professionals should watch next

The report does not itself ban products or create new duties, though it sets out a strong parliamentary case for faster action.

For the fire and safety sector, the immediate pressure points are clear.

PFAS in firefighting foams remains a live regulatory issue and the UK is already behind the EU timetable.

PFAS waste from extinguishers and related equipment is building up, disposal costs are rising and available destruction routes remain narrow.

Some specialist protective uses may continue under an essential-use model, though those exemptions are likely to face closer technical scrutiny and time limits.

The wider message from the Committee is that PFAS should no longer be treated as a niche chemicals issue.

In the report’s view, it is now a regulatory, occupational health, waste management and public protection issue.

That puts it directly in scope for fire engineers, fire protection companies, risk managers, foam suppliers, maintenance firms, waste contractors and building safety teams who still buy, store, use or dispose of PFAS-containing materials.

INTERSCHUTZ Forum confirms full schedule for 2026 event

by Breaking NewsEvents

Expert sessions at INTERSCHUTZ target the industry turning point

All presentation slots for the INTERSCHUTZForum in Hall 17 are now fully booked for the upcoming trade fair.

Organisers announced that the event will feature approximately 100 experts speaking on industry topics between 1 and 6 June 2026.

Colonel (General Staff) Armin Schaus, Head of Department J9 – CIMIC (Civil-Military Cooperation) of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr), will present OPLAN Germany daily.

The forum program includes contributions from providers, users, academia and policymakers.

Sessions are aligned with core themes including the impacts of climate change, sustainability and artificial intelligence (AI) in control centers.

The schedule runs from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday to Friday, with a final presentation ending at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday.

All contributions will be simultaneously interpreted in German and English.

See the full daily programme here.

Technical highlights of the daily program

The German Red Cross (DRK) will open the Monday session with a presentation on innovative power supply in operations to reduce costs and create redundancies.

Eurocommand will discuss digital trends and research on situation management during the Monday afternoon session.

On Tuesday morning, the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) will address chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats.

The Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) will outline its AI pathway in civil protection, covering language models and field tests.

Esri Germany will explain how geodata strengthens organisations during disruptive times on Wednesday morning.

The afternoon session on Wednesday will host a partner country day for Italy featuring the Order of Malta and the President of the Italian Red Cross.

Collaborative sessions on landscape fires and flood training

Thursday morning begins with a high-level panel regarding landscape fires as a task for municipalities, fire services and forestry.

Participants include Johann Goldammer, Director of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), and Karl-Heinz Banse, President of the German Fire Services Association.

Albrecht Broemme, Honorary President of THW, and Bernhard Breitsameter, President of the Bavarian Forest Owners Association, will also join the panel.

The International Fire Academy will present tactics for fire services during underground parking garage operations on Thursday afternoon.

Friday morning features the German Society for Disaster Medicine presenting the launch of the Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) registry.

The German Life Saving Association (DLRG) will follow with a study on the necessity and feasibility of a flood training center.

The program concludes on Saturday with a BBK presentation on educational programs for children and a DRK session on lessons learned from recent floods.

Residential risks and responsibilities: Are you ready for the new RPEEPs regulations?

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementEvacuationSafety

With RPEEPs coming into force in England this month, residential evacuation planning is shifting from building-level assumptions to resident-level assessment, decision-making and record keeping

From 6 April 2026, responsible persons in England will be under a new statutory duty to identify residents in certain residential buildings whose ability to evacuate without assistance is compromised, offer them a person-centred fire risk assessment and, where an approach is agreed, record that in writing.

The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 place individual evacuation planning on a statutory footing for the first time.

They bring high-rise buildings and some mid-rise buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies into scope.

They also respond directly to recommendations made after the Grenfell Tower fire.

What changes is the point at which decisions are made.

Evacuation planning is now carried out at resident level, with decisions recorded through residential personal emergency evacuation plans (RPEEPs).

From evacuation strategy to individual risk

The regulations require a shift in how risk is understood.

Stay put and simultaneous evacuation strategies remain in place, while evacuation planning also addresses how residents who need assistance will move if conditions change.

During a webinar called ‘RPEEPs: One month to go!’, Elspeth Grant, CEO of Triple A Solutions pointed out that this is less a niche issue than an operational reality: “For these in-scope buildings it would be highly unlikely to have any building that has nobody evacuation impaired.”

That matters because building strategies do not remove the need for individual planning.

Drawing on her experience, Grant said even in stay put buildings, the key question is what happens if a resident cannot remain safely in their flat, noting that the expectation is to “move away” rather than remain in place.

Her framing brings the regulations into practical focus.

The requirement centres on how a named resident would move if conditions inside their flat changed.

Core duties and ongoing process

The regulations apply to buildings in England that meet defined height or storey thresholds, or operate a simultaneous evacuation strategy.

Within those buildings, responsible persons must use reasonable endeavours to identify residents whose ability to evacuate without assistance is compromised by a physical or cognitive condition.

Once identified, the process moves into engagement.

A person-centred fire risk assessment must be offered and carried out if the resident agrees.

The responsible person must then consider what measures are reasonable and proportionate, attempt to agree an evacuation approach and record that approach where agreement is reached.

This is an ongoing process.

Residents move in and out of buildings, health conditions change and some individuals will only come forward after initial contact.

The duty remains active, which means systems need to stay current.

Identification challenges in practice

On paper, identifying relevant residents appears straightforward.

In practice, it is one of the more complex parts of compliance.

Guidance suggests identification at move-in, alongside regular reminders.

That relies on residents engaging with the process and disclosing information.

Some will not respond.

Others may not recognise that their condition affects evacuation.

In larger buildings, maintaining accurate records becomes a continuous task.

Grant’s view is that the starting point should be existing data, advising responsible persons to begin with “what information you already have within your systems.”

That reflects what was already known before Grenfell.

She pointed out that building managers were “already fully aware” of many residents’ needs through existing records, including lease information.

Identification therefore includes using current data alongside internal reporting routes.

Grant described this as “network fire safety,” where contractors and others on site can raise concerns as they arise.

Consent and information sharing

The regulations require explicit consent before prescribed information about a resident is shared with the local fire and rescue authority.

This introduces a clear procedural step and sits alongside wider legislation on emergency response and data use.

Grant explained that RPEEPs sit within a wider legal framework, including the Fire Safety Order and the Equality Act, alongside what she described as the “consent minefield” of data legislation.

She added that in emergency or safeguarding situations, the Data Use and Access Act can remove the need for consent.

Consent requirements within the regulations remain in place.

Emergency response may be governed by a different legal threshold.

For responsible persons, the task is to manage both.

Consent must be handled carefully within the RPEEPs framework, while recognising how emergency provisions apply.

Handling sensitive resident data

Even where information sharing is lawful, storing and managing resident data introduces its own risk.

The information recorded may indicate where vulnerable residents live and what assistance they may require.

Guidance supports digital storage because it allows updates to be made more easily.

Some fire and rescue authorities may still require physical information boxes on site, which creates variation between local areas.

Grant’s warning on this point is direct: Information should not be stored in a way that exposes residents, and instead should be “coded” to reduce risk if accessed by the wrong people.

The regulations require compliance with data protection law.

Responsible persons need to develop systems that reduce exposure while keeping information accurate.

Cost and legal exposure

The regulations allow mitigating measures to be funded in different ways, depending on circumstances and lease arrangements.

This flexibility creates uncertainty when it intersects with duties under the Equality Act.

Grant highlighted the constraint clearly: “The Equality Act specifically prohibits the charging of a disabled person for a reasonable adjustment.”

This limits how costs can be allocated in practice.

A measure identified through a RPEEPs process may still fall within the definition of a reasonable adjustment, which affects who can be asked to pay for it.

Alongside cost sits personal liability.

Duties under the Fire Safety Order apply to individuals as well as organisations.

Decisions made during the RPEEPs process may later be examined in enforcement or legal proceedings.

Delivering and evidencing the process

Government estimates suggest around a quarter of residents in high-rise buildings may be evacuation impaired, which places ongoing demands on identification, assessment and review.

Records need to remain current as residents move and circumstances change, requiring a system that reflects the building as it is, not as it was.

The regulations do not require specialist consultants, and the resident-facing work is expected to sit with building staff.

Grant drew a distinction between strategy and delivery: “A consultant might be able to help you develop a strategy,” but added that it would be “counterproductive” for unfamiliar assessors to carry out person-centred conversations.

She also pointed to a core principle in guidance, that evacuation planning should enable residents to leave without relying on rescue services.

Compliance will be judged on evidence.

Responsible persons need to show how residents are identified, how decisions are made and how records are maintained.

As Grant put it, the test is whether you can prove what is “reasonable.”

Conclusion

RPEEPs introduce a clear expectation that evacuation planning must account for individual residents.

The regulations define what responsible persons need to do, while leaving key questions to be worked through in practice.

The shift to resident-level planning brings practical challenges.

Identification is continuous. Data handling requires care.

Decisions on measures may carry legal implications.

The purpose remains straightforward: Residents who cannot evacuate independently should be identified and supported through a recorded plan.

The difficulty lies in delivering that requirement across changing populations, with systems that stand up to scrutiny and reflect real conditions inside each building.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Behind the façade: How Global HSE is navigating the complexities of PAS 9980

by Breaking NewsIFSJ ExclusivesPassiveSafety

In this exclusive interview, Global HSE Group’s Managing Director Andrew Cooper, Façade Team Manager Andreas Marais and Fire Safety Consultant Keith Plowman discuss misconceptions around PAS 9980

Where is the industry still getting façade risk wrong post-PAS 9980?

Keith Plowman: Buildings tend to fall into two main categories. You have pre-2000 era buildings, which are generally built quite well. Then you get buildings from around 2000 until the Grenfell era. Some are good but we do come across some shockers.

Andrew Cooper: Another issue is the misconception that risk is binary: combustible equals replace, non-combustible equals safe. It isn’t that simple. The understanding of PAS 9980 is also an issue. It is a risk methodology, not a materials checklist.

You can have all the right materials, but workmanship is often the key issue that undermines the integrity of the structure.

What misconceptions do clients commonly have when instructing a façade fire risk assessment?

Andreas Marais: A lot of people see PAS 9980 as a compliance document, which it’s not. People have a Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) done to identify faults in their building, but that’s not what the document is there for. The methodology behind it is well adaptable into a different process which would then give you the outcome that they are looking for.

AC: Clients also often assume that a desktop review will suffice and height alone determines risk, which isn’t true. They often think that an EWS1 form is the same as an FRAEW and the outcome is simple and is a pass-fail result.

An FRAEW is a robust risk assessment of the existing state of the building and its underlying issues. It’s showing what was built, and then it should identify proportionate deliverable solutions.

Why is a desktop review rarely enough for complex buildings?

KP: We have a relatively new building. The documentation is fantastic and managed through a system that will feed into the future ‘golden thread’ of information.

What we don’t have is robust photographic evidence of how those materials were installed. The drawings can show they’ve got cavity barriers in the right place, and they are the right materials, but that doesn’t take into account how it was fitted.

So sometimes you do need to have that intrusive investigation, even if it’s a much smaller scope than you would do without the documentation just to prove that what you find is on the site.

AC: It’s like having the “Rolls-Royce” of document management systems and detailed records from the original build, but if you’ve not backed it up with photographic evidence, you’ve always got that uncertainty.

What does a robust intrusive FRAEW involve?

KP: If you’re instructed to undertake an FRAEW on a building that had little or no documentation, you need to strike a balance between not stripping every single façade off the building to see exactly what’s there. You would need to target key locations but make sure you target enough areas to obtain a representative sample.

In terms of putting a number on that, the bigger and more complex the building the more openings you would look to make on that façade system to understand what’s going on behind the surface.

AC: Whatever we do has to be defensible and hypothesis led. It means that clients and third parties can have confidence in the approach.

Typical inspection locations might include slab edges, window heads, and sills. The inspection strategy must reflect the actual construction type. The aim is to get the maximum value for the client while causing the least disruption or damage to the building.

Crucially, we’ve got to identify the insulation, membranes, sheathing boards and other concealed components so that the façade can be properly assessed against the PAS 9980 risk criteria.

What façade defects are you consistently uncovering?

AM: The lack of a sheathing board, especially in steel framing system (SFS). In a typical SFS build up from any supplier, you’ll have plasterboard on the inside, the SFS insulation and then a sheathing board. From that sheathing you would build up to your external wall.

But, because PIR insulation is foam-based, some installers omit the sheathing board. They’ll have plasterboard, SFS with the PIR on that and cavity barriers stuck onto the face of the PIR.

The problem is that if those cavity barriers aren’t fixed back to a tested substrate with a fire rating, they’re effectively doing nothing.

How should PAS 9980 be applied as a risk-based methodology rather than a tick-box exercise?

AC: One of the common failures we see is they don’t start with credible fire scenarios and reinforces a conversation Keith and I had regarding a building that is non-combustible that had non-compliance issues in relation to missing cavity barriers.

However, if you look at the credibility of fire scenarios you would actually apply a different outcome to the one that was given. One of the other problems is that it is being applied across all building types. The originally standing was aimed at for high-rise residential buildings, but it’s now being used for hotels and offices where internal fire strategies can be very different. That is causing quite a bit of confusion in the industry.

KP: The other side of it is the fact that you have multiple companies doing these external wall assessments. Some are purely fire engineering, while some are façade engineering.

The balance that we’ve struck is that we have very experienced façade engineers doing the intrusive investigations who are experienced enough in terms of understanding the fire strategy of the building that they can make informed decisions.  

Following that, we have the ISO 9001 peer review process, where a senior fire engineer reviews the assessment.

Once unsuitable cladding or cavity barriers are identified, what engineering options are available?

KP: It depends entirely on the building. Several factors come into play, including the construction type. Remediation strategies will be very different for a concrete frame building compared with a timber frame structure, for example. There’s always a trade-off between safety and cost, as blunt as it may sound.

AC: Now we have a black and white approach — maximum intervention, replace everything or make it non-combustible. Instead, it should be maximum risk reduction against a practical background. The other thing is that it is very rarely a single solution. It’s typically a combination of measures, tailored to the building and the specific risks involved.

Another important consideration is that it’s not only about life safety. It’s also about asset value. How do we maintain value in the asset? How do we maximise that? How do we help the client realise that value further down the line and protect the building and their investment?  

Where does façade remediation intersect with fire strategy, compartmentation, structural constraints and building performance?

AC: The fundamental thing is that a façade solution can’t be done in isolation without the fire strategy. The fire strategy must be a fundamental driver of the outcomes FRAEW as well as findings.

The FRAEW and solutions proposed in relation to any façade remediation should align with the strategy assumptions, as well as with structural constraints, MEP systems and the long-term durability of the building.

But it also needs to tie into what we’re going to use the building for in the future. What we don’t want is a poorly integrated approach that creates further problems down the line, and we’ve come across that quite a bit.

How do you manage façade remediation on occupied buildings while minimising disruption?

AM: That would be a building specific case in each instance, but you could sequence your work to different levels or areas. It’s always going to be disruptive in a way, but everyone will endure the same level of disruption. There will be the obvious things of noise and things like that, but there are some things that you can mitigate.

AC: It’s all about the planning, pre-engagement, strong communication with the client and residents or tenants about how we’re going to approach and minimise guest disruption.

Without the client we can’t achieve a clear plan, and where we’ve got it right that’s been the case generally. Where we’ve got it wrong, it’s been the breakdown of communications, lack of planning and not having clear expectations or being very clear about what we’re actually going to do.

Where is façade risk assessment heading over the next three to five years?

AM: Something that is lacking is where an FRA will be done on a building. They might identify some cladding there that they say ‘I’m not sure so let’s prompt an FRAEW’ which is the usual route to an FRAEW but then it’s never really fed back.

Essentially, you’ll have two documents living alongside each other. What the Single Building Assessment (SBA) in Scotland has done is combined them to become a single source of key information on that building.

AC: I think there’ll be a great scrutiny of assessor competence and lower tolerance for uncertainty, stronger audit expectations, more digital traceability and increased emphasis on proportionality. We can see that with the confusion now in relation to buildings that fall either tolerable or medium.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

House passes First Responder Network Authority Reauthorization Act of 2026

by Americas - Featured NewsBreaking NewsCommunications

How the First Responder Network Authority Reauthorization Act of 2026 protects emergency communications

The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 7386 on 20 April 2026 to extend the legal authority of the nationwide public safety broadband network through 30 September 2037.

The First Responder Network Authority Reauthorization Act of 2026 amends the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

This legislation replaces the previous 15-year statutory sunset with a fixed end date to prevent the termination of the federal First Responder Network (FirstNet) Authority in February 2027.

The bill removes the independent status of the Authority and places it under closer oversight by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

NTIA approval is now required for most actions taken by the Authority – including management and investment decisions.

Defined operational activities such as emergency deployment and budgeting may proceed without prior NTIA approval.

The Act establishes an NTIA Associate Administrator role to oversee the Authority and manage day-to-day operations.

This new position acts as a liaison with the NTIA and is subject to annual performance reviews in consultation with the Board.

Annual reports to Congress must now include data on cyberattacks, cyber defence activity and unscheduled service outages.

Adoption rates by profession and geographic area are also included in the expanded reporting requirements.

Enhanced operational oversight and first responder representation

The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) noted that the legislation reinforces the ability to deploy emergency response capabilities and resources to disasters.

Board composition requirements are updated to ensure five members represent state, local or Tribal public safety professionals within three years of enactment.

These representatives will include active personnel from fire, emergency medical, emergency management, law enforcement and 9-1-1 services.

The IAFC said: “The FirstNet Authority ensures that first responders stay connected during the most chaotic times.

“First responders need to be able to have confidence in their communications, because at the end of the day, lives are on the line.

“FirstNet provides a nationwide broadband network that allows fire, EMS, and law enforcement to stay connected within and across jurisdictions.”

The FirstNet contractor must submit a business continuity and disaster recovery plan to the NTIA for approval within 180 days.

This recovery plan must be resubmitted every five years thereafter to maintain operational resilience.

New requirements mandate that the contractor inform the Authority of any confirmed service outage within 30 minutes of discovery.

A network status tool with up-to-date information must be maintained for subscriber agencies to track outages.

The bill moved to the U.S. Senate for consideration following the voice vote in the House.

When disasters drive change: Evac+Chair on anticipatory fire duty

by Breaking NewsEvacuationSafety

Emergency evacuation specialist Evac+Chair on why inclusive evacuation can no longer be an afterthought

In the UK, major advances in public safety have often followed tragedy.

From terrorist attacks to catastrophic fires, large-scale incidents have repeatedly exposed loopholes in the systems designed to protect people inside buildings.

While these events have prompted regulatory reform and heightened expectations of those responsible for safety, turning lessons into lasting improvements has often proved slow and complex.

The key question remains: has emergency planning evolved enough to ensure everyone can evacuate safely?

Tragedy as a catalyst for reform

In May 2017, a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena following a concert killed 22 people and injured hundreds more, exposing serious vulnerabilities in how publicly accessible venues plan for, assess and manage risk.

The UK’s terrorism threat level has remained at ‘substantial’ for several years, meaning that an attack is likely.

Since 2017, security services have intercepted 43 late-stage attack plots, while around 15 terrorist attacks have taken place in the UK.

Counter Terrorism Policing continues to make hundreds of terrorism-related arrests each year, underscoring the persistent nature of the threat facing publicly accessible spaces.

Following the Manchester Arena attack, the subsequent campaign led by Figen Murray OBE, the mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett, resulted in the introduction of Martyn’s Law – formally the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – which received Royal Assent in April 2025.

The legislation places a statutory duty on those responsible for publicly accessible premises to assess terrorism risk and implement proportionate protective measures.

Venues are tiered according to capacity, ensuring that requirements scale appropriately.

Crucially, the Act embeds risk assessment, emergency planning and staff training into operational responsibility.

Full implementation of those who fall into the tiers must comply by April 2027, reinforcing the principle that preparedness must be demonstrable.

That same year, the Grenfell Tower fire exposed systemic failings in building safety and evacuation strategies.

The tragedy claimed 72 lives, including 15 residents with mobility impairments.

The ‘stay put’ policy, reliant on effective compartmentation and fire-resistant construction, suppression and up to date fire risk assessments proved catastrophic when those systems failed.

The central lesson was clear: evacuation models dependent on multiple safeguards are vulnerable if any one element collapses.

Nearly a decade on, concerns around high-rise residential evacuation remain.

Following consultation, the government introduced the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 which will come into force on 6 April 2026.

These require responsible persons to identify residents who may struggle to self-evacuate and offer a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) to inform appropriate evacuation arrangements.

Other sectors have faced similar scrutiny.

In 2017, a fire at Newgrange Care Home in Hertfordshire led to two fatalities and significant fines for fire safety breaches, highlighting failures in compartmentation and evacuation preparedness.

Even where fatalities have been avoided, expectations are shifting.

When wheelchair user Lucas Vezza-O’Brien was unable to evacuate during a school fire, he was instructed to wait in a refuge area whilst other students evacuated due to no evacuation equipment, this prompted the #NoStudentLeftBehind campaign and triggered parliamentary debate about the preparedness of schools and colleges.

Too often, evacuation procedures are designed around the needs of the majority rather than the realities of a diverse population.

From reactive response to anticipatory responsibility

Responsibility is increasingly framed around planning and anticipation rather than response.

However, effective anticipation requires a clear understanding of who may be at risk during an evacuation – and what support they may need.

In 2024, around 16.8 million people in the UK were living with a disability – nearly a quarter of the population.

More than 5.5 million are in employment, and with more people working beyond traditional retirement age, organisations must plan for a more diverse workforce.

Around 80% of disabilities are invisible, including chronic health conditions, cognitive impairments and temporary mobility restrictions.

These figures challenge traditional assumptions about who may require assistance in an emergency.

Mobility impairment is not confined to permanent wheelchair users; it can include individuals recovering from surgery, those in late-stage pregnancy, people whose conditions fluctuate or individuals experiencing cognitive or mental health challenges that may affect their ability to respond quickly in an emergency.

As workplaces, residential and public spaces become more inclusive in everyday use, emergency planning must reflect the same level of consideration.

Accessibility is only half the story

Significant progress has been made in improving accessibility across buildings and public spaces, with ramps, lifts, widened doorways and accessible facilities now widely expected.

Yet while the focus has been on helping people enter buildings, far less consideration has been given to whether everyone can safely evacuate them in an emergency.

In most multi-storey buildings, staircases remain the primary means of escape.

When lifts are unavailable during a fire, individuals with mobility impairments are therefore dependent on assistance or left waiting.

The Grenfell Inquiry highlighted the risks of relying on a single evacuation strategy.

The “stay put” approach can be effective when compartmentation, alarms and suppression systems work as intended and fire remains contained.

When these safeguards fail, evacuation quickly becomes urgent and complex, particularly for those unable to leave independently.

Embedding inclusive preparedness

Legislation provides the framework for safety, but preparedness depends on implementation.

Effective evacuation planning requires alignment between equipment, training and maintenance.

Evacuation equipment should suit the building’s layout and accommodate the diverse mobility needs of its occupants.

In publicly accessible and multi-storey premises, this often requires adaptable solutions for a range of evacuation scenarios.

Manufacturers specialising in evacuation solutions are increasingly designing equipment to accommodate a wider range of mobility needs and payloads, supported by structured training and servicing to ensure readiness.

As the original manufacturer, with more than 40 years of experience, Evac+Chair proudly manufactures its evacuation chairs in the UK and emphasises that inclusive evacuation is about far more than simply installing equipment.

However, equipment alone cannot ensure safety.

In high-pressure environments, confidence and competence are critical.

Staff must understand how to deploy Evac+Chairs correctly and safely, maintaining composure while supporting individuals who may already be vulnerable or distressed.

Maintenance is equally essential.

As Class I medical devices, Evac+Chairs must be inspected and serviced annually in accordance with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) UK.

Failure to maintain equipment introduces avoidable risk and may expose organisations to compliance failures under workplace safety regulations.

An effective evacuation strategy therefore rests on three interdependent elements: appropriate equipment, trained personnel and ongoing servicing.

Together, these provide demonstrable evidence of preparedness.

Learning before the next crisis

Each major disaster that has shaped reform was preceded by identifiable vulnerabilities.

The introduction of Martyn’s Law and RPEEPs marks important progress, but legislation alone cannot eliminate risk.

Expectations placed on organisations have evolved.

Responsible persons must anticipate foreseeable threats, assess individual needs and ensure evacuation procedures are practical, tested and inclusive.

Inclusive evacuation is no longer a niche consideration; it is becoming central to responsible risk management and modern building safety governance.

Preparedness is measured not by documentation but by outcomes.

When an emergency occurs, systems must function, equipment must perform and people must act with confidence.

The responsibility is clear: protection must extend to everyone.

When the alarm sounds, no one should be left behind.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Professional programme confirmed for the Fire Safety Event Leaders Summit

by Breaking NewsEventsSafety

Fire Safety Event confirms Leaders Summit programme

The Fire Safety Leaders Summit will deliver CPD-accredited content focused on competence, compliance and operational challenges at the NEC Birmingham from 28 to 30 April 2026.

Organisers confirmed the full programme of sessions addressing regulatory change and workforce development ahead of The Fire Safety Event (FSE).

The summit is sponsored by RiskBase and features speakers from the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE), Ventro and the Institute of Fire Safety Managers (IFSM).

Sessions provide applied insight into current requirements including updates to legislation and examples of how organisations manage compliance in operational settings.

On 28 April at 10:30, Beyond Qualifications: What Competence Looks Like in Fire Safety in Practice will examine the role of behaviour and accountability.

Speakers for this opening session include Gavin Skelly, Founder at Fire Aware, and Angela Bennett, CEO at Diamond Systems.

Tom Brookes, Managing Director at Zzeus Ltd, and Daren Pool, Managing Director at Triple Star Fire & Security and Chairman of the Fire & Security Association, will also contribute.

At 11:30, Adam Sanders, Technical Director at RiskBase, will cover data collection and maintaining compliance regarding Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (RPEEPs).

John Field, Chair of the IOSH Fire Risk Management Community and Fire Safety Manager at DNATA Catering UK, will lead a 12:30 session on personal liability.

At 13:15, Keith Todd, Partner at Ridge and Partners LLP, will identify recurring issues in risk assessments and engineering submissions based on industry review experience.

Lucy Macleod, Borough Commander at London Fire Brigade, and Vicki Swaine, Health and Safety Director at 3Safety, will examine workforce representation at 14:00.

Alina Scarlat, Director at Magnus Opifex Seven, joins the leadership session to discuss culture and retention strategies.

Matthew Spivey, Vice Chairman of IFSM, will chair a 15:00 assessment of entry pathways and training barriers with Cameron Chadwick, Amelia Topley and Liam Morgan.

Technical standards and multidisciplinary collaboration

The second day of the summit begins with an overview of evolving competence frameworks presented by Ian Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Fire Industry Association (FIA).

Tina Mistry will chair a 11:10 session on multidisciplinary collaboration in housing projects featuring speakers from Women Talking Fire.

Speakers Rosie Sonnenschein, Julia Bariotakis and Amy Cooper will examine coordination across housing safety roles.

At 12:00, Adam Sanders, James Cannon and Tom Simmonds will focus on integrating fire safety data with wider building systems to support decision-making.

Agnieszka Melling-Sawicka, Simon Ince and Richard Glover will address modern methods of construction (MMC) and the application of PAS 8700 at 12:55.

Findings from the Fire Safety Buyers Report 2026 will be presented at 13:30 by Alaster Purchase and Ken Bullock.

This research, commissioned by the National Security Inspectorate (NSI) and BAFE, examines how duty holders select fire safety providers.

A 14:30 session featuring Colin Whalley, Vanessa Brandham, John Bellis and Nick Coombe will examine implementation challenges under new evacuation planning regulations.

The day concludes at 15:30 with an outline of career pathways and apprenticeships followed by a networking opportunity.

Smarter systems and residential safety risks

The final day of the summit includes an analysis of fire door standards led by Peter Ashworth, Sarah Lewis, Terry James and Rob Pace at 13:10.

This session will outline updates to BS 8214:2026 and their specific implications for specification, installation and maintenance.

Gareth Butler will chair a 10:30 examination of connected fire detection systems with Andy Speake, Will Lloyd, Martin Simmonds and Kevin Dodd.

At 11:25, Adam Sanders and Peter Thomas will analyse prosecution cases and evidential challenges faced by fire risk assessors.

Nicola Roberts will chair a review of Gateway submission requirements and common reasons for rejection at 12:20.

Speakers Maz Ruth, Sally Friswell and Nikki Barrow will discuss the role of digital tools in achieving Gateway compliance.

At 13:50, Steven Wilson will address passive fire protection developments and the use of digital systems such as Building Information Modelling (BIM).

Jan Taranczuk will chair a 14:30 session on managing lithium-ion battery safety in homes with Andrew Frankum and Matt Humby.

This discussion will examine fire risks including thermal runaway and safe storage practices for residential settings.

The summit sessions take place throughout the duration of the event at the NEC.