Recommendations & Conclusions
76 items
1
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We warmly welcome the policy intent behind the draft Bill and believe it to be a crucial step towards remedying the flaws in the building safety regime identified in the Hackitt report. Nonetheless, whilst recognising that it provides the framework for the new regulatory regime and must necessarily lack certain …
Read more
We warmly welcome the policy intent behind the draft Bill and believe it to be a crucial step towards remedying the flaws in the building safety regime identified in the Hackitt report. Nonetheless, whilst recognising that it provides the framework for the new regulatory regime and must necessarily lack certain details, we agree that it relies very heavily on secondary legislation and that the absence of detail greatly impeded the process of pre-legislative scrutiny.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We urge the Government to include as much detail in the Bill itself or to publish the secondary legislation alongside it. It is especially important that this be done for core provisions such as the Gateways process and the regulation of construction products.
Read more
We urge the Government to include as much detail in the Bill itself or to publish the secondary legislation alongside it. It is especially important that this be done for core provisions such as the Gateways process and the regulation of construction products.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
Moreover, any powers in the Bill to amend primary legislation should be included only where fully justified and necessary to implement the framework set up by the Bill. They should be limited to the minimum needed to make this new policy work rather than accommodate all future policy change. For …
Read more
Moreover, any powers in the Bill to amend primary legislation should be included only where fully justified and necessary to implement the framework set up by the Bill. They should be limited to the minimum needed to make this new policy work rather than accommodate all future policy change. For example, if primary legislation might stand in the way of some future exercise of the power to make construction product regulations, it could be expressly amended or repealed now rather than swept away by Government under paragraph 16(1)(c) of Schedule 8.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
4
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We agree completely that those being given additional and sometimes onerous responsibilities under the Bill cannot reasonably be expected to implement its provisions and move to full compliance without sufficient and clearly described transition periods.
Read more
We agree completely that those being given additional and sometimes onerous responsibilities under the Bill cannot reasonably be expected to implement its provisions and move to full compliance without sufficient and clearly described transition periods.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
5
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill a clear timetable for commencement so it is clear by when the industry has to demonstrate compliance and the Building Safety Regulator establish the regime. (Paragraph 20) Leaseholders and the building safety charge
Read more
We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill a clear timetable for commencement so it is clear by when the industry has to demonstrate compliance and the Building Safety Regulator establish the regime. (Paragraph 20) Leaseholders and the building safety charge
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We continue to believe that residents should not bear any of the costs of remediating historical building safety defects and are deeply concerned by the Government’s failure to protect them from these costs. We are especially disturbed by its commitment to protecting them only from “unaffordable costs”. It would be …
Read more
We continue to believe that residents should not bear any of the costs of remediating historical building safety defects and are deeply concerned by the Government’s failure to protect them from these costs. We are especially disturbed by its commitment to protecting them only from “unaffordable costs”. It would be unacceptable and an abdication of responsibility to make them contribute a single penny towards the cost of remediating defects for which they were not responsible.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
7
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects, and, in order to provide leaseholders with the peace of mind they deserve, amend the Bill to explicitly exclude historical costs from the building safety charge.
Read more
The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects, and, in order to provide leaseholders with the peace of mind they deserve, amend the Bill to explicitly exclude historical costs from the building safety charge.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
8
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
It seems self-evident that responsibility for funding remediation works lies jointly with the industry and the Government. Whilst we welcome the assurances that Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 59 the Government is looking at potential financing options for recovering costs, in the short term we see no alternative …
Read more
It seems self-evident that responsibility for funding remediation works lies jointly with the industry and the Government. Whilst we welcome the assurances that Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 59 the Government is looking at potential financing options for recovering costs, in the short term we see no alternative to the Government itself, and therefore the taxpayer, footing much of the bill. We can think of no other means by which the necessary works can be carried out quickly enough.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
9
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
The Government must announce, before they publish the Bill, its proposals for funding all historical building safety remediation works. These proposals should impose no costs on leaseholders and explicitly acknowledge that in the short term the Government must foot the bill, until such time as mechanisms for cost recovery have …
Read more
The Government must announce, before they publish the Bill, its proposals for funding all historical building safety remediation works. These proposals should impose no costs on leaseholders and explicitly acknowledge that in the short term the Government must foot the bill, until such time as mechanisms for cost recovery have been developed. We also urge the Government to explore the options for reform of the law preventing building owners with no contractual remedy claiming against developers for defective construction more than 6 years old which has not caused damage. The New South Wales legislation offers a possible model.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
10
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
The requirement to pay the building safety charge within 28 days of demand and the lack of effective consultation protection simply compound the unfairness, and potentially catastrophic consequences, of allowing leaseholders to be charged the cost of remedying historic defects. The 28-day deadline seems particularly unreasonable.
Read more
The requirement to pay the building safety charge within 28 days of demand and the lack of effective consultation protection simply compound the unfairness, and potentially catastrophic consequences, of allowing leaseholders to be charged the cost of remedying historic defects. The 28-day deadline seems particularly unreasonable.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
If the Government does not adopt our recommendation to protect leaseholders from all historic costs, we ask at the very least that it give them significantly longer than 28 days to pay the building safety charge and amend the provisions to make it clear that the consultation requirements should be …
Read more
If the Government does not adopt our recommendation to protect leaseholders from all historic costs, we ask at the very least that it give them significantly longer than 28 days to pay the building safety charge and amend the provisions to make it clear that the consultation requirements should be dispensed with only in exceptional circumstances, even in the case of building safety works.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
12
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We do not think it necessary to establish the building safety charge separate from the service charge. Aside from the unnecessary additional bureaucracy and administration costs, a separate charge means additional, separate, bills for leaseholders at intervals and within periods which may differ from those in their leases. The same …
Read more
We do not think it necessary to establish the building safety charge separate from the service charge. Aside from the unnecessary additional bureaucracy and administration costs, a separate charge means additional, separate, bills for leaseholders at intervals and within periods which may differ from those in their leases. The same benefits of transparency (the Government’s justification for a separate charge) can be achieved by implementing our previous recommendation on standardised forms for service charge invoices.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
The Government should provide for recovery of ongoing building safety costs through existing service charge provisions while improving the transparency of such charges, preferably by implementing the Committee’s previous recommendations for standardised forms for service charge invoices. The building safety charge should be reserved only for any leases without a …
Read more
The Government should provide for recovery of ongoing building safety costs through existing service charge provisions while improving the transparency of such charges, preferably by implementing the Committee’s previous recommendations for standardised forms for service charge invoices. The building safety charge should be reserved only for any leases without a service charge and should be treated as a service charge for the purposes of leaseholder protection. (Paragraph 54) The Building Safety Regulator
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
14
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We strongly recommend that the initial scope of the regime be enshrined in the Bill itself, and not be left to delegated legislation, in order to give stakeholders the certainty they need to prepare for the new regime.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
On balance, we consider the initial definition of “higher-risk building” proposed by the Government to be reasonable and practical, though we agree with the evidence calling for the scope to be widened in the future to include a great number of risk 60 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill …
Read more
On balance, we consider the initial definition of “higher-risk building” proposed by the Government to be reasonable and practical, though we agree with the evidence calling for the scope to be widened in the future to include a great number of risk 60 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill factors. In particular, the scope should take account of the vulnerability of residents and their ability to evacuate the building. We also think the Government should keep under review the development of modern methods of construction.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that the Government specify in the Bill itself by way of a requirement to “have regard” the factors that must be considered in the future when the scope of the regime is expanded and that the ability of residents to evacuate the building be the principal factor. We …
Read more
We recommend that the Government specify in the Bill itself by way of a requirement to “have regard” the factors that must be considered in the future when the scope of the regime is expanded and that the ability of residents to evacuate the building be the principal factor. We also recommend that any requirement to have regard to the ability of residents to evacuate a building explicitly include both the vulnerability of residents and the number of means of egress. Finally, we recommend that the Government indicate its intention to review the scope and set a timetable for doing so.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
17
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recognise that the definition of “building safety risk” is central to the scope of the regime and should be given careful consideration, but on balance we are satisfied with the current wording of clause 16. In particular, we judge that fire would be the main rapid onset event arising …
Read more
We recognise that the definition of “building safety risk” is central to the scope of the regime and should be given careful consideration, but on balance we are satisfied with the current wording of clause 16. In particular, we judge that fire would be the main rapid onset event arising from an electrical or gas failure and that therefore these are probably already caught by the clause, although we would welcome clarification on this point, particularly with regard to gas failures that could result in explosion.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
18
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
Given the importance of the right definition of “building safety risk”, we recommend that the Government clarify, perhaps in statutory guidance, the extent to which dutyholders need to consider risks arising from electrical and gas failures. We also recommend that the Government commit to keeping the definition under review.
Read more
Given the importance of the right definition of “building safety risk”, we recommend that the Government clarify, perhaps in statutory guidance, the extent to which dutyholders need to consider risks arising from electrical and gas failures. We also recommend that the Government commit to keeping the definition under review.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We understand the argument for including property protection among the regulator’s objectives, but we are content that the list of objectives in the draft Bill is a sensible starting point, although we think that it should be kept under review.
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
20
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We recommend that the Government keep the objectives of the regulator in clause 3 under review and that it consider including property protection among them once the regime has been established. To this end, we recommend that the Government take a power in the Bill to amend by regulations the …
Read more
We recommend that the Government keep the objectives of the regulator in clause 3 under review and that it consider including property protection among them once the regime has been established. To this end, we recommend that the Government take a power in the Bill to amend by regulations the list of the regulator’s objectives.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
21
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that clause 8 be amended to provide that the regulator must direct someone else to operate the system for the giving of building safety information and cannot itself operate that system.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
22
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We see no justification for the provision in clause 12 empowering the Secretary of State to abolish the Building Advisory Committee, the Committee on Industry Competence and the Residents’ Panel, and can see no circumstances in which this power would ever sensibly be used. We recommend that clause 12 be …
Read more
We see no justification for the provision in clause 12 empowering the Secretary of State to abolish the Building Advisory Committee, the Committee on Industry Competence and the Residents’ Panel, and can see no circumstances in which this power would ever sensibly be used. We recommend that clause 12 be amended to delete the Secretary of State’s power to abolish.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Not Addressed
We welcome the location of the regulator within the Health and Safety Executive and agree that it has the experience and expertise to implement the new building safety Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 61 regime. We are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill already mandate a regulatory …
Read more
We welcome the location of the regulator within the Health and Safety Executive and agree that it has the experience and expertise to implement the new building safety Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 61 regime. We are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill already mandate a regulatory model focused as much on inspection during construction as on sanctions for non- compliance.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We welcome the intention to fund the regulator through a system of charging and cost recovery, and we are satisfied that the Government and the HSE are working on the detail, but we agree they should publish that detail as soon as possible. We also welcome the Minister’s partial commitment …
Read more
We welcome the intention to fund the regulator through a system of charging and cost recovery, and we are satisfied that the Government and the HSE are working on the detail, but we agree they should publish that detail as soon as possible. We also welcome the Minister’s partial commitment to ringfenced funding for those functions of the regulator that cannot easily be financed by the market, although we would welcome a firmer commitment from the Government in that regard.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
25
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill the details of the charging regime that the regulator will operate to fund its regulatory functions, where cost recovery is practical, and commit unequivocally to ringfenced central funding to cover the cost of functions for which cost recovery will not be …
Read more
We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill the details of the charging regime that the regulator will operate to fund its regulatory functions, where cost recovery is practical, and commit unequivocally to ringfenced central funding to cover the cost of functions for which cost recovery will not be possible. (Paragraph 91) Design and construction
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
26
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We are persuaded that the role of principal designer in the CDM regulations differs from the one envisaged for the new dutyholder regime and that this could cause confusion in the industry.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government work with the industry to identify and resolve any potential confusion, including, if necessary, by redefining the role of principal designer intended under the proposed new dutyholder regime. We also recommend that the role be defined in secondary legislation and that this be published alongside …
Read more
We recommend that the Government work with the industry to identify and resolve any potential confusion, including, if necessary, by redefining the role of principal designer intended under the proposed new dutyholder regime. We also recommend that the role be defined in secondary legislation and that this be published alongside the Bill.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
28
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We are persuaded that dutyholders at the design and construction phase could struggle to access professional indemnity insurance, although we think this will depend on how the Government chooses to exercise its powers in clause 38. For this reason, we believe that early publication of the general duties of dutyholders …
Read more
We are persuaded that dutyholders at the design and construction phase could struggle to access professional indemnity insurance, although we think this will depend on how the Government chooses to exercise its powers in clause 38. For this reason, we believe that early publication of the general duties of dutyholders could help to alleviate concern in the industry and facilitate the development of appropriate insurance products.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
29
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government consult further with the insurance industry and introduce the Bill only when it (a) can publish for simultaneous consideration draft building regulations showing how it will exercise its powers under clause 38 (dutyholders and general duties) and (b) has commissioned an evaluation of the availability …
Read more
We recommend that the Government consult further with the insurance industry and introduce the Bill only when it (a) can publish for simultaneous consideration draft building regulations showing how it will exercise its powers under clause 38 (dutyholders and general duties) and (b) has commissioned an evaluation of the availability of adequate insurance for all dutyholders, and reported accordingly to Parliament.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
30
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
It seems to us that few measures are more important to raising levels of industry competence than a system of third-party accreditation and registration for design and construction professionals and that the Government must include provision in the Bill itself for the establishment and national oversight of such a system. …
Read more
It seems to us that few measures are more important to raising levels of industry competence than a system of third-party accreditation and registration for design and construction professionals and that the Government must include provision in the Bill itself for the establishment and national oversight of such a system. (Paragraph 107) 62 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
31
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We strongly recommend that the Government 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.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
32
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We accept that the detail of the Gateways is best left to secondary legislation, but we think it is essential that this detail be published as soon as possible so that the industry can start to prepare for implementation. We recommend that the details of the Gateway process be published …
Read more
We accept that the detail of the Gateways is best left to secondary legislation, but we think it is essential that this detail be published as soon as possible so that the industry can start to prepare for implementation. We recommend that the details of the Gateway process be published in draft secondary legislation at the same time as the Bill.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
33
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We are concerned that the Government’s proposed extension of permitted development rights would allow many building projects to bypass Gateway one and thereby weaken the whole regulatory framework for the design and construction of higher-risk buildings. We urge the Government, if it does proceed with its PDR proposals, nonetheless to …
Read more
We are concerned that the Government’s proposed extension of permitted development rights would allow many building projects to bypass Gateway one and thereby weaken the whole regulatory framework for the design and construction of higher-risk buildings. We urge the Government, if it does proceed with its PDR proposals, nonetheless to find a way of retaining the benefits of Gateway one.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
34
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We are persuaded that Gateway process would be greatly enhanced by a requirement to appoint dutyholders before Gateway one. We recommend that the secondary legislation that will establish the Gateway process mandate the appointment of dutyholders before Gateway one.
Read more
We are persuaded that Gateway process would be greatly enhanced by a requirement to appoint dutyholders before Gateway one. We recommend that the secondary legislation that will establish the Gateway process mandate the appointment of dutyholders before Gateway one.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
35
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We are concerned that the Bill only removes dutyholder choice in respect of higher- risk buildings. As a result, the majority of building control work will remain exposed to the weaknesses and conflicts of interest identified by Dame Judith Hackitt. We see no good reason not to replace dutyholder choice …
Read more
We are concerned that the Bill only removes dutyholder choice in respect of higher- risk buildings. As a result, the majority of building control work will remain exposed to the weaknesses and conflicts of interest identified by Dame Judith Hackitt. We see no good reason not to replace dutyholder choice with a system of independent appointment for all out-of-scope work.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
36
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that dutyholder choice be removed entirely from the building control system and replaced by a system of independent appointment, and that this be made explicit either in the Bill or in secondary legislation to be published alongside it.
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the recommendation to remove dutyholder choice entirely from the building control system and replace it with independent appointment.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
37
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We understand the concern from the private building control profession about the conflict of interest arising from the regulator’s dual role as building control body for higher-risk buildings and regulator of the building control profession. While we recognise that starting afresh with this Bill would be time-consuming, this is an …
Read more
We understand the concern from the private building control profession about the conflict of interest arising from the regulator’s dual role as building control body for higher-risk buildings and regulator of the building control profession. While we recognise that starting afresh with this Bill would be time-consuming, this is an issue which needs to be addressed if there is to be public confidence in the new system.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
38
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
The Government should provide clear justification for combining in one body both regulation of the industry and decision-making in relation to higher-risk buildings. If this is desirable, there must be a clear statutory requirement that those involved in decision-making about individual cases of professional competence are wholly operationally independent of …
Read more
The Government should provide clear justification for combining in one body both regulation of the industry and decision-making in relation to higher-risk buildings. If this is desirable, there must be a clear statutory requirement that those involved in decision-making about individual cases of professional competence are wholly operationally independent of those involved in regulation of higher-risk buildings.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
39
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We understand the argument that local authority building control teams should be audited in the same way as registered building control approvers, and we are only partially convinced by the provisions allowing for the duties of a failing local Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 63 authority to be …
Read more
We understand the argument that local authority building control teams should be audited in the same way as registered building control approvers, and we are only partially convinced by the provisions allowing for the duties of a failing local Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 63 authority to be transferred to another local authority. We think the Bill should make explicit provision for the regulator to monitor and assure the competency of local authority building control, perhaps by mandating UKAS accreditation for all LABC teams.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
40
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that the Bill place an explicit duty on the regulator to monitor and assure the competence of local authority building control teams through provisions comparable to those for the registration of building control approvers, perhaps by mandating UKAS accreditation for all LABC teams. (Paragraph 132) Occupation
Read more
We recommend that the Bill place an explicit duty on the regulator to monitor and assure the competence of local authority building control teams through provisions comparable to those for the registration of building control approvers, perhaps by mandating UKAS accreditation for all LABC teams. (Paragraph 132) Occupation
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
41
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We are concerned at the lack of detail in the draft Bill, or any draft regulations, identifying how the accountable person regime will operate in the case of multiple and complex ownership structures and repairing obligations, particularly where there are multiple accountable persons. This is another aspect which is crucial …
Read more
We are concerned at the lack of detail in the draft Bill, or any draft regulations, identifying how the accountable person regime will operate in the case of multiple and complex ownership structures and repairing obligations, particularly where there are multiple accountable persons. This is another aspect which is crucial to the operation of the scheme of the draft Bill yet remains unworked. It will need to be scrutinised closely when the Bill is introduced.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
42
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Bill provide for a general duty to co-operate on accountable persons in respect of buildings for which there are multiple accountable persons and that the Government publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill setting out the sorts of behaviours that would be expected under such a duty.
Read more
We recommend that the Bill provide for a general duty to co-operate on accountable persons in respect of buildings for which there are multiple accountable persons and that the Government publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill setting out the sorts of behaviours that would be expected under such a duty.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
43
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We are concerned about how the relationship between accountable persons and responsible persons will work in practice and are disappointed the Government have not taken the opportunity to rationalise all aspects of building safety—at least as regards fire risk—within a single, consistent, piece of legislation.
Read more
We are concerned about how the relationship between accountable persons and responsible persons will work in practice and are disappointed the Government have not taken the opportunity to rationalise all aspects of building safety—at least as regards fire risk—within a single, consistent, piece of legislation.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government recognises the Committee’s concerns about the practical relationship between Accountable Persons and Responsible Persons and the overlap in their roles.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
44
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
In the short term, we recommend that the Government publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill outlining how it expects accountable persons and responsible persons to co-operate in practice. In the long term, we recommend that the Government review the operation of the two regimes with a view to rationalising and …
Read more
In the short term, we recommend that the Government publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill outlining how it expects accountable persons and responsible persons to co-operate in practice. In the long term, we recommend that the Government review the operation of the two regimes with a view to rationalising and simplifying the legislation.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
45
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We believe that the Bill could easily mitigate the problem of some accountable persons lacking the time or expertise to understand their responsibilities adequately through the inclusion of a duty on the building safety manager to make accountable persons aware of their responsibilities under the Bill.
Read more
We believe that the Bill could easily mitigate the problem of some accountable persons lacking the time or expertise to understand their responsibilities adequately through the inclusion of a duty on the building safety manager to make accountable persons aware of their responsibilities under the Bill.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
46
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Bill place a duty on the building safety manager to inform the accountable person of their responsibilities under the Bill.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
47
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We think that the duty on the accountable person to take all reasonable steps to prevent a major incident lacks clarity and that without statutory guidance, especially on the meaning of “all reasonable steps”, the provisions will likely be a source of uncertainty and concern for those assuming the role …
Read more
We think that the duty on the accountable person to take all reasonable steps to prevent a major incident lacks clarity and that without statutory guidance, especially on the meaning of “all reasonable steps”, the provisions will likely be a source of uncertainty and concern for those assuming the role of accountable person. We are also persuaded that the definition of “major incident” sets too high a threshold. (Paragraph 148) 64 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.”
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
48
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill statutory guidance describing the kind of actions that accountable persons will have to take to comply with their duty to “take all reasonable steps” to avoid a “major incident”. We also recommend that the definition of “major incident” be amended to …
Read more
We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill statutory guidance describing the kind of actions that accountable persons will have to take to comply with their duty to “take all reasonable steps” to avoid a “major incident”. We also recommend that the definition of “major incident” be amended to include incidents that might reasonably foreseeably cause death or serious injury.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
49
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We agree that the safety case report is one of the most onerous responsibilities on the accountable person and that in order to prepare for implementation the industry will need to know what the safety case report will look like and what information it must contain. We therefore recommend that …
Read more
We agree that the safety case report is one of the most onerous responsibilities on the accountable person and that in order to prepare for implementation the industry will need to know what the safety case report will look like and what information it must contain. We therefore recommend that the Government publish guidance alongside the Bill outlining what information safety case reports will be required to contain.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
50
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We agree that the role of building safety manager and the supply of adequately skilled individuals to fill the role will be critical to the success of the new building safety regime for higher-risk buildings. We also agree that without sight of the competence framework the industry cannot begin to …
Read more
We agree that the role of building safety manager and the supply of adequately skilled individuals to fill the role will be critical to the success of the new building safety regime for higher-risk buildings. We also agree that without sight of the competence framework the industry cannot begin to recruit and train individuals to fill the role and that unless the Government publishes the competence framework soon the implementation of these provisions will be seriously impeded.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
51
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Deferred
The Government must announce before the Bill is published whether it intends to adopt the competency framework for the role of building safety manager proposed in the report from Working Group 8. If it does not, it must publish with the Bill the full details of the framework it does …
Read more
The Government must announce before the Bill is published whether it intends to adopt the competency framework for the role of building safety manager proposed in the report from Working Group 8. If it does not, it must publish with the Bill the full details of the framework it does intend to adopt.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
52
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We think that a national system of accreditation and registration for building safety managers will be critical if stakeholders, particularly accountable persons, are to have confidence in the competence of persons undertaking that role, and that any accreditation should be done to agreed common standards.
Read more
We think that a national system of accreditation and registration for building safety managers will be critical if stakeholders, particularly accountable persons, are to have confidence in the competence of persons undertaking that role, and that any accreditation should be done to agreed common standards.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
53
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government provide, either in legislation or in statutory guidance, for a national system of accreditation to agreed common standards and for a central register of building safety managers.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
54
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We agree that building safety managers could well struggle to access professional indemnity insurance and that the Government must work with the industry to facilitate the design of appropriate products. We also think that early sight of the competence framework and precise responsibilities of building safety managers could help to …
Read more
We agree that building safety managers could well struggle to access professional indemnity insurance and that the Government must work with the industry to facilitate the design of appropriate products. We also think that early sight of the competence framework and precise responsibilities of building safety managers could help to alleviate concern in the industry and facilitate the development of appropriate insurance products.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
55
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government work with the insurance industry to facilitate the development of appropriate professional indemnity insurance products for building safety managers. In particular, we again recommend that the Government publish the competence framework and the precise responsibilities of the building safety manager.
Read more
We recommend that the Government work with the insurance industry to facilitate the development of appropriate professional indemnity insurance products for building safety managers. In particular, we again recommend that the Government publish the competence framework and the precise responsibilities of the building safety manager.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
56
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We agree that the lack of clarity in the Bill around the respective responsibilities, and therefore liabilities, of the accountable person and building safety manager could cause confusion and concern, especially where non-compliance could result in criminal sanction. (Paragraph 171) Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 65
Read more
We agree that the lack of clarity in the Bill around the respective responsibilities, and therefore liabilities, of the accountable person and building safety manager could cause confusion and concern, especially where non-compliance could result in criminal sanction. (Paragraph 171) Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 65
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
57
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government publish statutory guidance alongside the Bill outlining the respective responsibilities of accountable persons and building safety managers.
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and states that statutory guidance will outline the respective responsibilities of Accountable Persons and Building Safety Managers.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
58
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We are concerned that resident engagement provisions could be too onerous a responsibility on accountable persons and that in many cases it would be done inadequately or not at all. We also agree that the Bill establishes a top-down model of engagement and that the formation of resident groups could …
Read more
We are concerned that resident engagement provisions could be too onerous a responsibility on accountable persons and that in many cases it would be done inadequately or not at all. We also agree that the Bill establishes a top-down model of engagement and that the formation of resident groups could both empower residents and lighten the responsibility on accountable persons.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
59
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We recommend that the Government consider facilitating, possibly in the Bill itself, the formation of resident groups in every higher-risk building and that these groups be required to include representatives of every type of resident in the building.
Read more
We recommend that the Government consider facilitating, possibly in the Bill itself, the formation of resident groups in every higher-risk building and that these groups be required to include representatives of every type of resident in the building.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
60
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Acknowledged
We think the power in clause 87 to order residents to give access is wide enough to cover the risks within the scope of Part 4, and the duties of an accountable person under clauses 72 and 73.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
61
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We would encourage the Government to consider making it clear on the face of the Bill whether the power in clause 87 includes authorising the use of force but express no view on the conclusion to be reached.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
62
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Not Addressed
We agree that electrical safety should be an integral part of the building safety system and that the Bill is an opportunity to require regular electrical safety checks in higher-risk buildings. We are clear, however, that no further specific duties should be placed on the accountable person with regard to …
Read more
We agree that electrical safety should be an integral part of the building safety system and that the Bill is an opportunity to require regular electrical safety checks in higher-risk buildings. We are clear, however, that no further specific duties should be placed on the accountable person with regard to electrical appliances, as their existing duties are already extremely onerous, although they should be required through the engagement strategy provisions to inform residents of their duties under clause 86 and to provide guidance to facilitate their compliance with those duties.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
63
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We recommend that the Government include supplementary provisions in the Bill for mandating regular electrical safety checks in higher-risk buildings. (Paragraph 188) Construction Products and Supplementary Provisions
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
64
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We strongly agree that there is insufficient clarity around the future product testing regime, although we acknowledge that discussions on the detail are ongoing. We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill its proposals for improving the product testing regime.
Read more
We strongly agree that there is insufficient clarity around the future product testing regime, although we acknowledge that discussions on the detail are ongoing. We recommend that the Government publish with the Bill its proposals for improving the product testing regime.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
65
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Deferred
We are not persuaded that third-party certification alone would provide the transparency and accountability that we and the Hackitt report have previously recommended and still believe that details of test failures and re-run tests should also be made publicly available.
Read more
We are not persuaded that third-party certification alone would provide the transparency and accountability that we and the Hackitt report have previously recommended and still believe that details of test failures and re-run tests should also be made publicly available.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
66
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We recommend that the Government provide for the publication of test failures and re-run tests and for the establishment of an independent and unified system of third- party certification in order to introduce greater transparency and rigour into the regulation of construction products. (Paragraph 195) 66 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the …
Read more
We recommend that the Government provide for the publication of test failures and re-run tests and for the establishment of an independent and unified system of third- party certification in order to introduce greater transparency and rigour into the regulation of construction products. (Paragraph 195) 66 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
67
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We recommend that the Government establish the capacity of the testing market in the UK and, if necessary, provide the necessary funding to increase that capacity so as not to hinder the implementation of the new product testing regime.
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
68
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We are persuaded that schedule 8 fails to treat products as parts of systems, though we recognise that discussions on this point are ongoing. The future testing regime must assess a product’s performance in combination with other products as well as in isolation.
Read more
We are persuaded that schedule 8 fails to treat products as parts of systems, though we recognise that discussions on this point are ongoing. The future testing regime must assess a product’s performance in combination with other products as well as in isolation.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
69
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
We recommend that the Government make provision, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation, for a testing regime that treats products as parts of systems, perhaps by mandating the provision of a certificate confirming how the product performs when combined with other products.
Read more
We recommend that the Government make provision, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation, for a testing regime that treats products as parts of systems, perhaps by mandating the provision of a certificate confirming how the product performs when combined with other products.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
70
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
The construction products regulatory regime envisaged in the Bill and accompanying documents fails to recognise that a single product may have more than one application and that it might be considered safety critical in one application but not in another. Further, this weakness in the regime could be exacerbated by …
Read more
The construction products regulatory regime envisaged in the Bill and accompanying documents fails to recognise that a single product may have more than one application and that it might be considered safety critical in one application but not in another. Further, this weakness in the regime could be exacerbated by the apparent intention to designate product families, rather than individual products, as safety critical.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
71
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that the Government set out, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation to be published alongside it, how the regime will certify individual products, as opposed to product families, and take account of products with more than one application.
Read more
We recommend that the Government set out, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation to be published alongside it, how the regime will certify individual products, as opposed to product families, and take account of products with more than one application.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
72
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
It seems obvious that the provisions in Schedule 8 for the designation of European standards are intended to cover products with European technical assessments. It is less obvious why schedule 8 refers only to “other overseas standards”. We understand why it has caused confusion in the industry, although we accept …
Read more
It seems obvious that the provisions in Schedule 8 for the designation of European standards are intended to cover products with European technical assessments. It is less obvious why schedule 8 refers only to “other overseas standards”. We understand why it has caused confusion in the industry, although we accept that there might be a good reason for the drafting.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the committee's observation regarding confusion in Schedule 8's reference to 'other overseas standards' and will address this.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
73
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Government make clear that the schedule as worded will cover such products or amend it so that it does.
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
74
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We cannot judge the adequacy of European harmonised standards, but we agree with the industry that the Government should indicate soon whether it has any plans to review hENs and commission new standards. The Government should indicate whether or how quickly it intends to review existing European harmonised standards.
Read more
We cannot judge the adequacy of European harmonised standards, but we agree with the industry that the Government should indicate soon whether it has any plans to review hENs and commission new standards. The Government should indicate whether or how quickly it intends to review existing European harmonised standards.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
75
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
On balance, we are broadly satisfied with the scope of the new homes ombudsman and with the definition of terms establishing that scope, though we think that the Government should include among those permitted to make a complaint prospective buyers who are forced to pull out of a purchaser owing …
Read more
On balance, we are broadly satisfied with the scope of the new homes ombudsman and with the definition of terms establishing that scope, though we think that the Government should include among those permitted to make a complaint prospective buyers who are forced to pull out of a purchaser owing to the actions of the developer. (Paragraph 215) Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 67
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
76
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Accepted
We recommend that the Bill include among those permitted to make a complaint to the new homes ombudsman prospective buyers who are forced to pull out of a purchase owing to any behaviour by the developer that is itself grounds for a complaint. We also recommend that the Bill require …
Read more
We recommend that the Bill include among those permitted to make a complaint to the new homes ombudsman prospective buyers who are forced to pull out of a purchase owing to any behaviour by the developer that is itself grounds for a complaint. We also recommend that the Bill require developers to establish their own complaints procedures and to inform purchasers of their rights under the new homes ombudsman. Finally, we recommend that the Government monitor the performance of the scheme and amend its scope if necessary. (Paragraph 216) 68 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government