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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.