Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill

The government agrees that clarity is important and intends to publish further detail on key elements of the new regime, such as Gateways and construction products, during the Bill's passage to allow for parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government agrees it is important to clarify key elements and intends to publish further detail on the Gateways process and construction products before the relevant clauses are considered in committee, allowing Parliament scrutiny during the Bill's passage.

The government agrees that powers to amend primary legislation should only be included where justified and necessary, and commits to removing the specific power under paragraph 16(1)(c) of Schedule 8 from the Bill.

The government accepts the need for clarity on transition periods, stating it is working with the HSE to develop and publish an outline transition plan, which will be refined during the Bill's passage.

The Government welcomes the recommendation and commits to publishing an outline transition plan at the Bill's introduction, with further details to be refined and provided during its passage in collaboration with the Health and Safety Executive.

The government shares concerns about leaseholders bearing historic remediation costs, highlighting its funding for high-rise cladding and extended redress opportunities via the Defective Premises Act. It explicitly agrees to exclude all historical costs from the new Building Safety Charge, though it does not commit to protecting leaseholders from all historic costs universally.

The government agrees to exclude historical costs from the Building Safety Charge, clarifying it will only cover ongoing costs, and outlines measures to widen redress opportunities and fund cladding remediation for high-rise buildings.

The government states it has invested in cladding remediation for high-rise buildings and will introduce a developer levy and extend the limitation period under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to ensure industry contribution and redress, partially addressing the call for government funding.

The government commits to funding cladding remediation for high-rise buildings, plans to introduce a developer levy, and will extend the limitation period for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to fifteen years. It does not, however, commit to funding all historical building safety remediation works or ensuring no costs for leaseholders, instead aiming to protect them from 'unaffordable costs'.

The government clarifies that the 28-day payment window was not intended for large-scale remedial works and commits to introducing new provisions to provide greater protection to leaseholders regarding historical defects, ensuring redress and preventing unaffordable upfront costs.

The government clarifies that large scale remedial works are not intended to be paid within 28 days and confirms that consultation requirements for such works can only be dispensed with by an application to the Tribunal, thereby addressing the committee's concerns.

The government rejects the view that a separate building safety charge is unnecessary, providing detailed reasons why it is appropriate, including ensuring transparency, statutory rights, and greater certainty for leaseholders compared to existing service charge provisions.

The government rejects the recommendation to recover ongoing building safety costs through existing service charge provisions, stating that such provisions vary and cannot guarantee clarity or recovery. Instead, it maintains that a separate Building Safety Charge will provide greater transparency and certainty.

The government agrees to enshrine the initial scope of the regime in the Bill to provide certainty and has amended the Bill to include most of the criteria as recommended.

The government has widened the scope of the regime to include care homes and hospitals over 18 metres or 7 storeys, partially addressing the recommendation to consider vulnerable residents. It also states the Regulator must continuously monitor the scope, which covers keeping modern methods of construction under review.

The government rejects specifying factors for future scope expansion as a 'have regard' requirement in the Bill and declines to set a timetable for review, stating the Regulator will monitor continuously. However, it has widened the regime's scope to include care homes and hospitals.

The government amended Clause 16 to 'spread of fire' for greater clarity and will publish guidance clarifying that dutyholders must mitigate building safety risks regardless of cause, addressing the committee's request for clarification.

The government will publish guidance clarifying that dutyholders must mitigate risks from electrical and gas failures and agrees to keep the definition of 'building safety risk' under review, with the Bill making express provision for this.

The government accepted the suggestion to keep the Building Safety Regulator's objectives under review, detailing how Clause 34 of the Bill mandates regular independent reviews within five years. However, they rejected making property protection a statutory objective at this time, prioritizing safety of people and building standards.

The government agrees to keep the Regulator's objectives under review, stating the Bill already provides mechanisms for this, but rejects including property protection as an immediate objective, deferring its consideration to a review within five years.

The government is 'minded to amend clause 8' of the Bill to mandate that the Regulator must direct someone else to operate the system for giving building safety information, aligning with the recommendation.

The government accepts the recommendation, agreeing that the three statutory committees should be retained, and states it is minded to remove the power in clause 12 that would enable their abolition.

The government's response discusses the necessity of delegated powers and secondary legislation to support the Building Safety Regulator, which does not address the committee's conclusion.

The Government agrees with the recommendation and commits to publishing further detail on the Building Safety Regulator's charging regime and its ringfenced central funding for functions not amenable to cost recovery.

The government agrees with the recommendation and commits to publishing further detail on the Building Safety Regulator's charging regime and its commitment to ringfenced central funding.

The government acknowledges the Committee's conclusion that the role of principal designer in CDM regulations differs from the new dutyholder regime and could cause industry confusion.

The government is working with the industry to resolve confusion surrounding the principal designer role and intends for the role to be defined in secondary legislation and published alongside the Bill.

The government acknowledges the committee's concern that dutyholders may struggle to access professional indemnity insurance and agrees that it depends on how clause 38 powers are exercised, but does not commit to early publication of general duties.

The government is consulting with the insurance industry, intends to introduce the Bill only when draft building regulations can be published simultaneously, and has commissioned an evaluation of insurance availability for dutyholders, with findings to be reported to Parliament.

The government agrees on the importance of a third-party accreditation and registration system but does not explicitly commit to including provision for it in the Bill itself, as recommended.

The government intends to include provisions in the Bill itself for establishing a national system of third-party accreditation and registration for all professionals working on the design and construction of higher-risk buildings.

The government accepts the recommendation, stating its intention to publish further details on key elements of the new regime, including the Gateways process, during the passage of the Bill and before relevant clauses are considered in committee.

The government acknowledges concerns that the proposed extension of permitted development rights could bypass Gateway one, and states it is carefully considering this issue as policy evolves, but provides no specific commitment to retain Gateway one benefits.

The government agrees that the Gateway process would be enhanced by appointing dutyholders before Gateway one and intends to mandate this in the secondary legislation.

The government explicitly rejects the committee's implied recommendation to remove dutyholder choice and replace it with independent appointment for all out-of-scope work.

The government explicitly rejects the recommendation to remove dutyholder choice entirely from the building control system and replace it with independent appointment.

The government acknowledges the perception of conflict regarding the regulator’s dual role but considers the benefits of a single regulator outweigh this concern, thus not addressing the implicit need for change.

The government acknowledges the perception of conflict in combining regulatory and decision-making roles but maintains that the benefits of a single regulator outweigh this, thus rejecting the call for further justification or a statutory requirement for operational independence.

The government agrees that ensuring competence and monitoring of local authority building control teams is important, but rejects the recommendation to include explicit provision in the Bill for the regulator to monitor and assure their competency comparably to registered building control approvers.

The government agrees on the importance of ensuring the competence of local authority building control teams but rejects the recommendation to place an explicit duty on the regulator in the Bill to monitor and assure this competence comparably to building control approvers.

The government acknowledged that multiple Accountable Persons may be responsible for a single building and may have limited control over safety risks. However, they did not commit to any specific action to address the lack of detail in the Bill regarding complex ownership structures.

The government agreed to amend the Building Safety Bill to include an express duty for multiple Accountable Persons to co-operate. They also intend to publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill detailing expected behaviours under this duty.

The government recognises the Committee’s concerns about the practical relationship between Accountable Persons and Responsible Persons and the overlap in their roles.

The government agreed to publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill outlining how accountable and responsible persons should co-operate. They also committed to reviewing the operation of the two regimes in the long term with a view to rationalising and simplifying the legislation.

The government agrees that including a duty on the Building Safety Manager to inform Accountable Persons of their responsibilities would help mitigate issues of lacking time or expertise among APs.

The government agreed that the Bill should include a duty on the Building Safety Manager to make Accountable Persons aware of their responsibilities under the Bill to mitigate issues with understanding these duties.

The government acknowledges the Committee’s concerns regarding the lack of clarity in the Accountable Person’s duty to take “all reasonable steps” and the high threshold set by the definition of “major incident.”

The government agrees and will publish statutory guidance detailing actions for accountable persons to comply with their “reasonable steps” duty and will amend the definition of “major incident” to include incidents foreseeably causing death or serious injury.

The government agreed with the committee's observation and committed to publishing guidance alongside the Bill that will outline the required information for safety case reports.

The government agrees on the importance of clarifying key elements of the new regime during the Bill's passage and intends to publish further details on aspects like the Gateways process and construction products, but does not explicitly commit to publishing the building safety manager competence framework.

The government intends to publish further detail on key elements of the new regime, including the competence framework for building safety managers, during the passage of the Bill rather than before its publication as recommended.

The government agrees with the Committee's conclusion that a national system of accreditation and registration for building safety managers, to agreed common standards, is critical for stakeholder confidence.

The government intends to provide, either in legislation or statutory guidance, for a national system of accreditation to common standards and a central register for building safety managers.

The government accepts the recommendation and is working closely with the industry to ensure the competence framework and precise responsibilities of building safety managers are made available in good time to facilitate appropriate insurance products.

The government accepts the recommendation and is working closely with the insurance industry to make the competence framework and precise responsibilities of building safety managers available in good time to facilitate appropriate insurance products.

The government agrees with the Committee's concern regarding clarity and states that statutory guidance will be published to outline the respective responsibilities of Accountable Persons and Building Safety Managers.

The government agrees with the recommendation and states that statutory guidance will outline the respective responsibilities of Accountable Persons and Building Safety Managers.

The government welcomed the committee's recognition of resident engagement, agreeing that resident groups empower residents, and committed generally to ensuring residents have a stronger voice in the new building safety regime, without detailing specific actions to lighten the burden on accountable persons.

The Government welcomes the importance of resident engagement and agrees that resident groups can empower residents, stating its commitment to giving residents a stronger voice. However, it does not commit to facilitating their formation in the Bill or mandating specific representation.

The government agrees with the Committee's assessment that the power in clause 87 is wide enough to cover the specified risks and duties of an Accountable Person.

The government considered the suggestion but explicitly decided not to clarify on the face of the Bill whether the power in clause 87 includes authorising the use of force.

The government welcomes the recommendation on electrical safety, noting existing private landlord legislation and a planned social housing consultation. It will publish general guidance on Accountable Person duties to mitigate risks, but does not specifically address the recommendation to avoid further appliance duties on APs or require them to inform residents under clause 86.

The government highlights existing legislation for electrical safety in the private rented sector and committed to a consultation on extending safety measures to social housing, but does not commit to new specific provisions in the Bill for all higher-risk buildings.

The government shares concerns about product testing and outlines several actions, including an independent review, extending the existing regulatory regime, improving accountability for safe products, strengthening oversight with a new regulator, and establishing a Construction Products Standards Committee.

The government agrees that third-party certification alone is insufficient for transparency and accountability, and has announced an independent review into testing, deferring action until its findings are considered.

The Government rejects mandating the publication of test failures, stating it may not aid transparency, but has announced an independent review into testing to identify gaps and risks. It is also exploring a future voluntary framework with industry to strengthen third-party certification.

The government shares concerns about UK testing market capacity, commits to working with the market to address constraints, and will establish a Construction Products Standards Committee and equip the new regulator with testing capability, but an independent review will first identify gaps before further response on funding.

The government agreed that system-level product testing is required but stated this testing is already necessary for compliance and is reinforced by the new regime. They explained why the duty for such testing would not be placed on manufacturers, shifting responsibility to building designers.

The government agrees that testing products as part of systems should be required but rejects placing this duty on manufacturers, arguing it's impractical and that building designers are already responsible for ensuring system performance. It states the Building Safety Bill will reinforce these requirements on designers for higher-risk buildings.

The government disagrees with the committee's conclusion, stating that the regulatory system for products already recognizes that a single construction product may have multiple applications.

The government disagrees with the premise, stating that the current regulatory system for products already recognizes multiple applications for a single product and implicitly rejects the need for new provisions.

The government accepts the committee's observation regarding confusion in Schedule 8's reference to 'other overseas standards' and will address this.

The government accepted the recommendation, stating they will ensure Schedule 8 of the Building Safety Bill covers products with European technical assessments. They will also review the wording 'other overseas standards' to improve clarity before the Bill is introduced.

The government explicitly states it has no current plans to review existing European harmonised standards. Its immediate priority is a smooth transition to a new UK regulatory system, and it mentions a future Construction Products Standards Committee will advise on UK regulatory standards.

The Government agrees that prospective purchasers forced to pull out of a purchase should be able to bring complaints to the ombudsman. It clarifies that the draft Bill already allows for this and confirms it will set this expectation with the appointed scheme.

The Government agrees that prospective purchasers forced to withdraw from purchases should be able to complain to the ombudsman, clarifying the Bill already allows this and amending explanatory notes. It has also amended the Bill to clarify that developers may be required to have internal complaint procedures and inform purchasers of their rights. Finally, the Government agrees to monitor the scheme's performance and amend its scope if necessary.