Recommendations & Conclusions
11 items
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
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
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
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
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
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
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