Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 18
18
Paragraph: 71
Given the importance of the right definition of “building safety risk”, we recommend that the...
Recommendation
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.
Paragraph Reference:
71
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
43. We welcome the Committee’s satisfaction with the wording of Clause 16 of the draft Bill. Based on further feedback during pre-legislative scrutiny we have amended the clause to provide greater clarity on the risk that needs to be managed under part four of the bill. Specifically, we have amended “fire” to “spread of fire”. 44. Government will publish guidance clarifying that dutyholders must mitigate or control the building safety risks regardless of the cause (including electrical and gas failures). 45. We agree that the definition of “building safety risk” should be kept under review. The Bill makes express provision for this. Government has designed the regulation power under clause 16 of the draft Bill to ensure the definition of “building safety risk” can be expanded in the future should the evidence support it. 46. In addition, Clause 5 of the draft Bill provides that the Building Safety Regulator is required to keep under review, on an ongoing basis, the safety of people in and about buildings, including the risks arising from buildings. As part of its broader oversight function, the Building Safety Regulator will also have a range of data, on existing and emerging building standards and safety risks, at its disposal. 47. This function supports Clause 17 of the draft Bill, which enables the Building Safety Regulator proactively to make recommendations that a new building safety risk should be prescribed, should they be of the view that it would cause a major incident if it occurred in a higher-risk building. If the Secretary of State decides not to act on such a recommendation, he must publish his reasons for that decision.