An industry flashpoint: Protecting the critical role of fire engineering

Our team recently hosted a timely panel talk in partnership with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers UK Chapter. The goal of the gathering was to reflect on the statement and its implications for the future of fire engineering in the UK.  

Our panel, hosted by Dr Simon Santamaria Garcia, comprised: 

• Dr Barbara Lane, an Arup fellow, member of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel, and expert witness for the Grenfell Inquiry  
• José Torero, professor of civil engineering and head of the department of civil, environmental, and geomatic engineering at University College London, member of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel, and an expert witness for the Grenfell Inquiry 
• Dr Eleni Asimakopoulou, lecturer in fire engineering at University of Lancashire 
• Dr Charles Betts, director of fire engineering at Stantec  

It was a packed-out event. More than 100 fire engineers from across the country took a seat in our Manchester office, looking for insight on the future of their industry.  

Dr Scott Elliott, our regional business leader for Buildings, had some opening remarks before the panel talk.

“As a multidisciplinary consultancy, we’re looking closely at what’s happening in fire engineering,” he said. “There are critical lessons here about how the built environment professions collectively strengthen competence, consistency, and confidence in professional judgement.” 

Culture, education, and competence

Lane then set out the purpose and intent of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel’s Authoritative Statement. It’s a document she and Torero had a hand in creating. She explained that the statement is a high‑level articulation of what society should expect from a competent fire engineer operating in a safety‑critical role.  

“This statement is meant to be coherent and positive; it’s meant to inspire us,” she said. “The profession needs to start taking proactive steps now to consider and strengthen its own competencies and ethics ahead of the introduction of legal requirements.” 

Lane pointed out that once legally protected, fire engineering would be unique as a discipline. “By having a protected title, there are legal restrictions on who can use that title, and we still need to decide what that title would be.” Lane stressed that “fire safety engineer” would be her preferred choice, noting its protective role. 

Central to her presentation was this argument: Fire engineering lacks

• Coherent educational foundations
• Consistent entry requirements
• Clear ethical oversight

She said this has led to wide variation in practice and a loss of confidence in the profession. She stressed these issues are systemic and that reform must therefore address professional culture, competence, and accountability. “We need to become a resilient and competent workforce. We need to draw more people into our profession through viable and attractive education routes.” 

Lane argued that protecting the title alone wouldn’t go far enough in addressing the problems identified by the inquiry. She said that the development and stewardship of a fire safety strategy must become a protected professional function. It must be underpinned by recognised education, experience, and ethical responsibility.  

She explained that the inquiry required fire safety plans that consider people who may need extra help during an emergency. These plans must account for the additional time some occupants may need to evacuate and include the facilities needed to help them leave safely.

The fire safety strategy: a defining responsibility

Torero said we cannot meaningfully regulate fire engineering  unless its core function is both understood and protected.  

“A professional function is one that is so complex in nature that it can only be delivered by an individual with the skills, knowledge, and attributes that deem that individual a professional,” he argued. 

Torero suggested that it is the fire safety strategy that should be the defining responsibility of a fire engineer. He described this as a complex, judgment-led process. It’s more than a prescriptive document or checklist. He told the audience: “It is your prerogative as competent fire engineering professionals to understand how all the provisions come together and how this system works.” 

Torero pointed to a lack of a properly constructed fire safety strategy that contributed to systemic failure during the Grenfell disaster. He said systems thinking, proper sequencing, and the integration of specialists into fire engineering are critical. Fire engineers should act as informed generalists, and they must be capable of asserting professional boundaries within multidisciplinary teams.  

“We need to speak the same language as other professions involved. There is an enormous imperative to elevate the knowledge base of architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and building services engineers to the point that they fully understand our function,” he said. 

He said this current reform should be embraced. He painted it as an opportunity to

• Restore trust
• Reinforce ethical responsibility
• Strengthen the authority of fire engineering professionals 

Evolving the discussion

The panel talk looked at how the principles set out in the Authoritative Statement would translate in the real world—especially during the transition to regulation. A recurring concern was the risk of short-term disruption. It was feared this could result in potential skills shortages and bottlenecks if new competency thresholds reduced the number of practising fire engineers.

While panellists acknowledged this risk, they broadly agreed that we can’t accept maintaining the status quo. A decisive transition was necessary. Disruption would have to be tolerated. The discussion highlighted optimism that the profession draws from a much wider talent pool than those currently identifying as fire engineers. But it was clear that more structured education and development pathways need to be put in place. 

Significant debate centred on the risk of creating a two-tier system. This is especially the case if the regulation initially applies only to high-risk buildings. Both panellists and audience members questioned the ethics of having different levels of life safety depending on building type. They noted that many nonresidential buildings, such as stations and stadiums, may present equal or greater risk. 

The group expressed strong concerns that temporary regulatory compromises could become permanent. They stressed that the profession should work toward a single, consistently regulated standard of competence that is applicable across the built environment. 

The discussion touched further on professional boundaries and how fire engineering interacts with other disciplines. The group agreed that fire engineering professionals should clarify their own protected role and improve collaboration at the same time. To avoid fragmented responsibility, it’s vital to assert the accountability of the function. 

Ethics, trust, and professional culture emerged as strong themes in audience questions. The contributors debated how to achieve ethical behaviour. Should it be enforced through regulation or cultivated through education and accountability of peers?  

Views differed on enforcement. But there was broad agreement that ethical responsibility must be embedded throughout professional formation. It also must be reinforced through assessment, education, and collective professional standards.  

The panel agreed that public trust can be rebuilt. But only if fire engineers visibly embrace accountability, competence, and ethical leadership. This regulation should certainly not be viewed as an external imposition. 

Reshaping the future of fire engineering

We left the evening with a clear message. We don’t know the exact timescales but change is happening, and the industry needs to lead its own evolution. This means acting now on both an individual level and an organisational one.

“This is an extraordinary opportunity. And one that we’re not going to have again in our lifetimes,” warned Torero.

Fire engineering can restore trust in its role. How so? By strengthening competence, clarifying its role and function, and reaffirming its ethical responsibility to protect lives and benefit society.