Building Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 21 September 2021.

Clause 21 - Authorised Officers

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted, except for the water that is provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another, and members of staff, space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Clause 22 stand part.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I welcome the Committee back to its deliberations.

Clause 21 allows the Building Safety Regulator to authorise individuals to exercise powers on the regulator’s behalf. However, before making an authorisation, the regulator must be satisfied that the individual being authorised is suitably qualified to exercise that role. This power is designed to enable the effective functioning of the Building Safety Regulator’s functions in respect of higher-risk buildings.

Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review found that the regulation of higher-risk buildings could be improved by bringing together Health and Safety Executive expertise, local authority building control expertise and fire safety expertise from fire and rescue services. As we have already discussed, clause 13 enables the Building Safety Regulator to secure the assistance of staff from local authorities and fire and rescue services in its work on higher-risk buildings.

This clause goes further and consolidates the independent review’s recommendation, allowing the regulator to authorise others, including officers of these bodies, to exercise powers on its behalf. Under its general powers, the Building Safety Regulator will also be able to secure expertise from the private sector to deliver building functions on higher-risk buildings. In certain circumstances, the regulator may want to authorise such individuals to exercise powers, and this clause enables that to be done. The regulator will be able to authorise such individuals only where they have been appropriately trained to exercise these powers.

As some individuals will have more competence and expertise than others, the Building Safety Regulator will have discretion to confer different sets of powers on different individuals. For example, one person might be authorised to make applications for search warrants because they have appropriate experience, whereas another might be authorised to do site visits and seize documents.

In practice, that could work as follows: the Building Safety Regulator may request assistance with building control matters from the local authority, which provides an appropriately trained building control expert to assist with the regulator. The building control expert could be given Building Safety Regulator powers to enter non-domestic premises with or without a warrant. However, the Building Safety Regulator may decide not to designate this individual with the power to enter domestic premises, on the grounds that they do not have the necessary experience and training to do so. Deciding to enter domestic premises requires a balance to be struck between a person’s right to privacy—the resident—and the public interest in making entry to obtain, for example, evidence of wrongdoing. Not all those working with the regulator will have the necessary experience and training to make such decisions.

The full list of powers available is set out in schedule 2, which I will now turn to in some further detail. With the introduction of new duties and new processes into the building control regime, authorised officers will play a significant role in ensuring compliance with the new regime. This schedule provides officers who have been authorised under clause 21 with a suite of powers to enable them to assist the regulator in carrying out its building functions. This includes powers of entry, inspection and collection of evidence that mirror existing powers used effectively under similar regulatory regimes, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. These powers are designed to be flexible and to be useful in every situation that authorised officers may encounter.

To ensure proportionality, as with existing practice, warrants will be required to enter residential premises or any premises where it is expected to be necessary to use force to enter. If an application is made to a magistrate for a warrant to enter domestic premises, additional powers may be requested, where required. Those are powers, first, to use force to gain entry; secondly, to collect and take away evidence; or, thirdly, take other personnel—for example, experts—on to the premises.

Compliance with the requests of authorised officers will be integral in ensuring the effective functioning of the new regime and will avert potentially dangerous situations for residents. As such, authorised officers have been provided with the powers necessary to enforce compliance where required. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 provides that failure to provide information upon request to authorised officers will be a criminal offence. Deliberately providing information to the regulator that is false or misleading, when required to provide information or in the other circumstances in the clause, is an offence under clause 23.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that establishing criminal offences of obstructing the regulator’s work solidifies the regulator’s position, which is vital in ensuring residents’ safety?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

My hon. Friend is quite right: we must ensure that every player in the design, development and construction of in-scope buildings recognises the importance and powers of the regulator and the penalties that may apply should any attempt be made to obstruct or impersonate it. The offences will carry a maximum custodial sentence of up to two years to provide an effective deterrent to non-compliance. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises the power and veracity of the penalty.

I hope that members of the Committee will agree that this clause is key in enabling the regulator to carry out its functions effectively, drawing on the expertise and involvement of local authorities and fire and rescue services.

Clause 22 makes it a criminal offence to obstruct or to impersonate an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator. Under clause 21 and schedule 2, authorised officers will play a significant role in exercising powers on behalf of the regulator. This clause is designed to protect authorised officers by ensuring that they are not impeded and that they—and, by extension, the Building Safety Regulator—can go about their business of keeping residents safe.

Clause 22 does that by deterring and, if necessary, enabling the punishment of those who seek to obstruct or impersonate authorised officers—behaviour that could severely disrupt or sabotage critical building functions. The difference in penalties for obstruction and impersonation are proportionate to the expected gravity of each offence, reflecting the greater intent required to impersonate an authorised officer. The penalties mirror existing penalties for obstructing or impersonating a police officer and reflect similar provisions protecting staff of other regulatory bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the Financial Conduct Authority.

The two clauses are crucial components of building the regime of the Building Safety Regulator and I commend them to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

As the Minister rightly said in his introduction, clause 21 ensures that appropriately trained individuals secure the involvement of local authorities, key stakeholders and fire and rescue teams in working with the Health and Safety Executive and the regulator.

The current definition of at-risk buildings is those of 18 metres and above. I have said throughout proceedings on the Bill that the scope of “at risk” should be broadened, and we will debate that under later clauses.

We welcome the recommendations, which draw on the findings of the independent review conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt.

How will the regulator ensure that individuals are appropriately trained and qualified under the framework? An example arose yesterday on social media of a resident living in a block in Bournemouth. The block was signed off by a previous employee of the council but it has been riddled with fire safety issues that we in this room and beyond are all familiar with. The individual has now set up as a private contractor, free to assess so-called fire safety issues in other at-risk buildings.

Clause 22 is straightforward, and we agree with it. Although it is beyond the Minister’s remit, a £1,000 fine for impersonation seems little deterrent, given the amount of money involved in building construction. As the Minister said, current levels of fines under the justice system for impersonating police officers will apply.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

It is a pleasure to be back on a Committee with you, Mr Efford, and to see you in the Chair. I shall keep my comments brief because my right hon. Friend the Minister articulated most of the relevant points in his customary clear manner. I do not want to be repetitious.

Clause 21 is positive. It reinforces the non-siloed approach that we need to take to building safety. The Building Safety Regulator has the ability to work with different agencies and ensure it can meet its goals. The ability to gain entry to buildings and ensure compliance is important. We discussed the issue last week and it was clear that safety has to be at the heart of this. We must ensure that the mechanism safeguards residents.

We also discussed last week the need to ensure that the regulator is not beholden to anyone—that it is independent. I was heartened by the comments made last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister about the regulator always being the independent voice, especially in its engagement with third parties to deliver the objectives in clause 21.

Clause 22 deals with the criminal offence element. As I said in my earlier intervention, it reinforces the role of the Building Safety Regulator. It says to the industry and to stakeholders, “You have to take this seriously. You cannot stop the regulator doing what it needs to do to keep people safe.”

The introduction of a level 3 fine seems proportionate, but I implore the Minister to use a degree of flexibility. As circumstances change, things might need to become a bit more severe. I hope not. I hope that the Bill will lead to a sea change in the environment we have seen hitherto. The fact that we have put obstruction of the regulator on a statutory footing will reinforce that.

I fully support the clauses and wish them well.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and concur with his sentiment that we must ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has the flexibility to do its job properly and the enforcement powers to ensure that all players across the in-scope sector recognise the importance and veracity of those powers.

As we move through the Committee’s deliberations we may disagree on matters of scope, but I hope that as we build the Bill—clause by clause and schedule by schedule—the House, of which this Committee forms a part, and the sector will recognise the powers that we are creating for the Building Safety Regulator and the importance of the law.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked a couple of questions about clauses 21 and 22. He will know—he has heard me say it before in this Committee—that it is the responsibility of the Building Safety Regulator to build multidisciplinary teams that include local authority resources, fire and rescue service resources and those of others. We believe that the duty on them to co-operate will ensure the right level and that the right skills and expertise are available to the regulator.

We are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to identify appropriate training arrangements for authorised officers. The powers available to authorised officers are very similar to existing powers available to local authority building control, the HSE and so on. We do not believe that new and further training and skills will be required, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about training.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned enforcement and penalties. We believe we have struck the right balance in the penalties that apply to the obstruction or impersonation of an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator. If he rereads the explanatory notes, he will see that impersonation of an enforcement officer acting on behalf of the Building Safety Regulator is subject to a fine not of £1,000, but to an unlimited fine. If someone were to obstruct the regulator or an enforcement officer, the fine is £1,000. We have created that differentiation because we want to make it clear that impersonating an enforcement officer is a much more grave offence than obstructing an officer, even though that is an important offence in itself.

Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)

I am interested in the point that the Minister is making and in how the penalties for obstructing and impersonating compare with those for obstructing and impersonating other officials.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. For example, if an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator is obstructed, a level 3 fine of £1,000 may be levied. That compares with a similar fine for obstructing a police officer. However, given the nature of policing, the warrants held by police officers and the threats and difficulties that police forces can sometimes encounter, it is also possible for one month’s imprisonment to be imposed on an obstructer of a police officer. We have tried to make sure that the penalties are proportionate, and I trust that the Committee will agree that they are.

Having said that, I trust the Committee will see that clause 21 and schedule 2 enable the Building Safety Regulator to carry out its functions effectively, drawing on the expertise and involvement of local authorities and fire and rescue services. Clause 22, which we have just debated, enables the punishment of those who seek to obstruct or impersonate authorised officers, and I hope that the Committee will agree that these are good and proportionate clauses. I commend them to the Committee.

Clause 23 - Provision of false or misleading information to regulator

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The Committee will see that there is a theme running through the clauses numbered 20-something. Clause 23 makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information to the Building Safety Regulator in circumstances specified in subsection (1). The Building Safety Regulator will have powers to make a number of individual regulatory decisions based on the information provided by duty holders. As such, the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions have a direct effect on the safety of residents in high-rise buildings. It is therefore essential that correct information is supplied to the regulator to ensure that the residents in the building are safe and that the proper and requisite requirements of building safety are adhered to. This power aims to deter the provision of any information that could impair the regulator’s decision-making capability.

The independent review recommended a stronger enforcement regime in line with the approach taken in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This offence carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years imprisonment, which mirrors the maximum sentence for the similar offence in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Again, that takes forward the recommendation in the independent review. The weighty custodial sentence in this provision seeks to provide a strong deterrent against the provision of false or misleading information. This is to preserve and promote the effective functioning of the Building Safety Regulator and the safety of the building and residents.

We will come on to clause 138, but it is worth referencing it in the context of clause 23. It will allow for any officer of the corporate body to be held responsible for the same offence if they participated in the offence in the ways set out in clause 138. However, it illustrates that there are similar and sufficient powers for the BSR to apply to corporate bodies, and that again mirrors the provisions in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. This goes above and beyond the current building safety enforcement regime and it creates a stronger incentive for those who are directing companies to provide accurate information to the BSR. I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause. I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 24> - Review by regulator of certain decisions made by it

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 25 stand part.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will speak first to clause 24. The Government support the independent review’s recommendation that the new regulatory system should have

“a clear and easy route of redress to achieve resolution in cases where there is disagreement”.

I suspect that, from time to time, there will be disagreements. We are committed to ensuring that, where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, they are resolved as quickly as possible for all parties involved. Our fundamental and overriding objective is to make sure that buildings and the people in them are safe.

The Building Safety Regulator will make a significant number of regulatory decisions under the new legislation. The approach to any disputed decision will be two-staged: first, an internal review by the regulator and following that, if necessary, an appeal to the tribunal. It will be in both parties’ interest that an independent team within the regulator carry out an initial review of any disputed decision. This will ensure swifter resolution for both parties.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

The Minister has mentioned a two-tier approach, so will he clarify whether that will put lengthy delays into the whole process?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The very reason for having a two-stage process and an initial stage is to try to make sure that disputes that can be resolved quickly are resolved quickly and to minimise the number of disputes that go to the first-tier tribunal. That can be a more lengthy process. Our objective is to move as swiftly as we can through any disputes. We believe that will be for the public good.

As I have just said to my hon. Friend, clause 24 provides the legal basis for a person affected by the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions to request to have that decision internally reviewed. In the initial years of operation, we expect that there will be a substantial number of requests for review owing to the natural adjustment required by all industry actors to the new regulatory regime. We expect, and we intend, the Building Safety Regulator to make every effort to resolve disputes at the internal review stage. We believe that will be the swiftest way of achieving resolution. The right of appeal to the courts remains because individuals will be able to appeal against a decision made on review to the tribunal if they think it is unsatisfactory.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

The Minister has mentioned appeals. Will he say more about what the Government are going to do to ensure that the regulator is transparent in those appeals and in the outcome of the reviews?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

We certainly want the system to be transparent and the outcome to be agreeable to both parties, so that things can be done as swiftly as possible. We certainly want to make sure that the right resources are made available to all parties to ensure that that can be done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of swift and transparent resolution.

As I have said, the right of appeal to the courts remains and if I give an example of how the system may work in practice, it may assist the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. Relevant duty holders may have submitted a full gateway-2 application with all its constituent parts. The Building Safety Regulator, however, finds some of these documents to be not compliant, so does not approve the application to enable construction to begin. The developer then lodges an appeal—an internal review—against the Building Safety Regulator’s decision within the period prescribed. The BSR then decides the most appropriate form of review and how comprehensive the review will be. If the developer is not content with the final decision of the regulator, they can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal. I might add that this clause is intended for certain types of regulatory decisions, such as the example of the refusal of a gateway application, but it does not include enforcement decisions, which will be appealable directly to the tribunal. The clause reflects our intention that, where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, we want them to be resolved as rapidly as possible for all parties involved.

Where disputes regarding the regulator and its decisions occur, and given that the BSR will make a significant number of regulatory decisions, it is in all parties’ interests for them to be resolved in an expedient and expeditious manner. Clause 25 therefore specifies that a decision by the BSR, if disputed, must initially be reviewed by the regulator’s independent internal review procedure before an appeal can be lodged with the first-tier tribunal. The intention behind this clause mirrors that of clause 24, because it seeks to ensure swifter resolution for both the individual who has lodged the request and for the BSR by providing an alternative dispute resolution procedure. It is important that disputes are swiftly identified and rapidly resolved, we hope, to the satisfaction of all parties. We believe that the two clauses provide an expeditious set of methods, so I commend them to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Again, we welcome the ability to request a review and the provision for a first-tier tribunal, which will create the necessary expertise going forward. The detail of quite a lot of the provisions is left to secondary legislation, so will the Minister expand on some of that? Would he also provide some clarity on the persons directly impacted and an example of when the regulator would intervene because it is not happy with the work carried out by the developer? In what circumstances could the developer apply for a review?

Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am a lawyer, so I would say this, but I agree that it is super-important for disputes to be dealt with properly. That was a key plank of the Minister’s explanation of the clauses. I am also pleased that a right of appeal to the court remains, but I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure that the regulator reviews decisions and whether there has been any assessment of how long reviews can take. We know that the issues are incredibly complicated, so there should be some investigation into that now and an ability for the regulator to check their own homework and for us to do so too.

When a developer lodges an internal review against the Building Safety Regulator’s decision within the prescribed period, the explanatory notes to the Bill say:

“The Building Safety Regulator decides the most appropriate form of review and how comprehensive the review will be.”

If the developer is not content with the final decision of the BSR, it can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal and that is what we were discussing earlier. The thing that shone out for me when we heard from the witnesses, particularly those affected by building safety concerns in their own homes, was the lack of trust in a range of policies and the legislation. It is therefore incumbent on us all to create the trust so that those people are able to rely on what we are doing. We have talked about transparency in the dispute resolution process and that is obviously key, but I would like to know a little more about how we will ensure that good transparency runs through the disputes process.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. We are clear that the process should be as collaborative as possible. We want it to be fair and transparent. When disputes arise, we envisage that the first stage of that dispute will be an informal discussion between the parties. That is normally part of the process that the HSE employs in other examples. If there is an internal review and if that is followed by an appeal to a first-tier tribunal, all those discussions and decision points will of course be publicly aired in the normal way.

What we want fundamentally to ensure is that the BSR has the flexibility to do its job effectively and to build casework and a casebook of knowledge and expertise that it can then use in cases as they develop. That is one of the reasons why—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale about secondary legislation—we are employing statutory instruments largely through the affirmative procedure. That will give the Commons in Committee and in the full House the ability to scrutinise, debate and vote on the issues. Fundamentally, it allows us as the Government, on the recommendations and advice of the BSR, to improve legislation rather than write it into the Bill and thus require further primary legislation should we find that events and examples arise to require that. We are trying to be flexible.

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The Minister talked about internal discussions and internal reviews and, if necessary, going to the first-tier tribunal, which he said ordinarily happens under the HSE. How long might that process take? How long does it normally take under the HSE? Will he address the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the need to build trust into the system?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is true to say that the first-tier tribunal element of any dispute resolution procedure can take months before a hearing is held. The tribunal is a busy organisation. It can, indeed, take a little longer, depending on the nature of the case, for a decision to be handed down. That is why informal discussion and decision between the appellant and the Building Safety Regulator are sensible in resolving smaller disputes, particularly in the early stages of the regulator’s existence when there are likely to be a number of disputes and a body of casework by which internal dispute resolution will be conducted. The two-tier mechanism is the right way of ensuring swift dispute resolution, enabling all parties to get on with their work.

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

I thank the Minister for his patience on this point.

I note from the Minister’s use of language that it is “anticipated” that most cases will be dealt with informally at an early stage and that only exceptional cases will go to the first-tier tribunal. Can he assure the Committee that in the event of many cases going to tribunal and lots of leaseholders getting caught up in this lengthy, slow and bureaucratic process he will consider intervening to bring in other mechanisms to speed up the resolution of disputes?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Without making any firm and final commitment to the hon. Lady, and as I said to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, one of the reasons we are using secondary legislation in the Bill is to provide the Government, of whatever colour and stripe, and on the advice of experts such as the Building Safety Regulator, with the ability to make changes to the operation of the legislation as the terrain develops. As I said during our deliberations last week, we committed during the covid emergency to increase the resources of the Health and Safety Executive. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to determine in the spending review the exact amount, but we have committed to ensuring that the BSR and associated bodies have the appropriate resources to do their work. We expect a material number of dispute cases to occur, at least initially as the regulator beds in. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Lady says.

I am grateful to the Committee for its questions and deliberation. Clause 24 aims to ensure that where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, they can be resolved as quickly as possible, which is to the advantage of all parties involved.

Clause 25 ensures that disputed decisions must initially be reviewed by the regulator’s independent internal review procedure before an appeal can be lodged with the first-tier tribunal—again, to ensure that a degree of consistency and transparency runs through the BSR’s deliberations.

With those final remarks, I commend clauses 24 and 25 to the Committee.

Clause 26 - Cooperation and information sharing

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

As the Committee will have heard me say earlier and, indeed, last week, the duty to co-operate is key to the approach that we are taking in the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and its powers.

At the centre of the Government’s strategy to implement our improvements to the building safety system is the setting up of the first national Building Safety Regulator. To deliver its functions effectively, it is vital that the Building Safety Regulator is empowered to work closely with other public bodies with responsibilities for building safety and standards and for dealing with residents’ concerns.

Clause 26 and schedule 3 will foster and enable that joined-up working in two ways. First, they will create statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other public authorities that have statutory responsibilities for the safety and standard of buildings and for supporting residents. These powers will apply only to specific functions relevant to building safety and standards and supporting residents; they will never override data protection requirements.

To take a practical example, when regulating high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, the Building Safety Regulator will typically set up a multidisciplinary team, including the local authority and the fire and rescue authority. The Bill creates legal information sharing gateways enabling the authorities expected to be represented in this multidisciplinary team to share intelligence about residents’ safety, and use it to co-ordinate their respective operational activity. It is entirely appropriate that this collaborative approach to regulation is supported by reciprocal duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities, and between the Building Safety Regulator and fire and rescue authorities. We are also taking this opportunity to provide legal clarity for local authorities and fire and rescue authorities so that they may share information about building safety and standards issues across all buildings.

Secondly, the Building Safety Regulator, certain ombudsmen and the Social Housing Regulator are all likely to receive numerous complaints and concerns from residents. The Government intend that these bodies should co-operate and work together to support residents. For example, if a resident of a high-rise residential building sends an urgent safety concern to an ombudsman to be investigated, these provisions enable the concern to be passed to the Building Safety Regulator as the body able to take action.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

The Minister mentions the duty to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other regulators, and the information-sharing gateways. Will he tell us a little more about that, and why ombudsmen and the Building Safety Regulator will need to work together?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The reason is that it is entirely possible that a resident who has concerns will send them to an ombudsman, even though the Building Safety Regulator is the appropriate repository of that concern.

An example that we will all recognise is that often as Members of Parliament we receive our constituents’ concerns because we are the easiest people with whom to raise those concerns. The appropriate place to express the concern might be the local council and a local councillor, so we share information with our local councillors when constituents raise concerns. An ombudsman who receives a concern from a local resident in a high-rise, in-scope building should be able to share appropriate information with the Building Safety Regulator, and that is what these provisions do. The police share crucial intelligence. The fire and rescue service shares crucial intelligence. It is important that the Building Safety Regulator and other ombudsmen have the same opportunity. Schedule 3 enables the sharing of information between the Building Safety Regulator and two other bodies: the police, who may need to investigate more serious criminal matters; and the Secretary of State, who ultimately oversees the building regulatory system.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being incredibly generous in taking interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned ensuring efficiency in the broader process. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that by enabling data sharing we can ensure that concerns and complaints are addressed by the appropriate person? More importantly, it brings expediency to the process so that, if necessary, intervention by the regulator can be timely and a resolution can be found.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Underlying our approach is the need to ensure an efficient and expeditious method of information sharing, whereby resolution is achieved.

It is also possible that, with effective information sharing, it will be possible over time for the Building Safety Regulator to understand the data flows between concerned residents and itself. The regulator will understand why information goes to ombudsman A or ombudsman N rather than to the regulator, and that will enable it and its multidisciplinary agencies better to communicate to involved parties what the correct and therefore most expeditious route to data sharing should be. By sharing data, everything can occur more quickly and people can be better informed.

Schedule 3 contains regulation-making powers enabling the creation of limited further information sharing gateways and duties to co-operate. For example, if evidence necessitated a change to the scope of the higher-risk regime, such that it proved essential that the Building Safety Regulator co-operated and shared information with further regulators, it is appropriate that regulations enable this.

Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)

I am grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. Schedule 3 clarifies information-sharing powers on building safety and standards between local authorities and fire and rescue services. Will he provide further information on how personal and confidential data is to be managed appropriately?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

We certainly do not want inappropriate data to be shared. As I said earlier, these powers and data-sharing rights relate specifically to the work in hand of the Building Safety Regulator. They do not override ordinary data privacy rules and requirements. We shall certainly—as this House will want to—monitor that that data is used appropriately.

Given the potential significance of new duties to co-operate and of information-sharing gateways, any regulations creating them will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a Committee of the House—if necessary, on the Floor of the House—therefore, there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on them.

Placing duties to co-operate and powers to share information on a statutory footing will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and to ensure resident safety. That will all be done as expeditiously and transparently as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

We support the clause and the schedule. They are pragmatic, common sense and based on learned experience—the experience of those who were ringing alarm bells for a considerable number of months with regards to Grenfell and other tragedies before that. The evidence is crystal clear: people being passed from pillar to post and information being lost and in some cases hidden from key stakeholders. Strengthening the provisions and the regulatory regime is most welcome. In 2018, I noted, Kensington and Chelsea was again found wanting by the Information Commissioner—on withholding information about building safety in Grenfell. The Minister was right, as were others in all parts of the Committee, about building trust in the new regulatory regime. That is vital.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I feel that my contribution might be slightly repetitive, given the broad agreement on the clause in Committee.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale was right that the clause is pragmatic. He was spot on when he said it is about rebuilding trust in the processes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I trained as a lawyer and I know the frustration when bodies do not share information with one another. We have to remember—the hon. Member for St Albans picked up on this in her interventions—we are dealing with people who do not understand the systems, but will have to access them. After looking at the array of information, should someone send their concern or query to the wrong body—unaware that they had done so—we have to ensure that it is still actioned. We are dealing with situations and problems that impact on people’s lives: this is about the safety of individuals in their homes. Where that happens, we have to ensure that seamless sharing of information and co-operation between the agencies—the clause does that.

It is also right for those organisations to co-operate with one another. As we touched on last week in our deliberations, we cannot have a siloed approach. Organisations have to communicate and work together. We have to build a structure within the legislative framework that not just enables that, but to a degree ensures it happens and almost makes it the default that they have to share information, because that is the system in which they find themselves—so there is no way they can avoid doing so.

That being said, the proof of how this will work is in how it is delivered operationally. What will be vital for the regulator to do and for my right hon. Friend the Minister to work on is to ensure that the operational delivery works, that the systems are there to allow that to happen and that the communications are there, that agencies are talking to one another and we have computer systems that do not just fall down at the first moment, but can operate. Once the system becomes operational, I will be looking at how it functions.

I am heartened to see an emphasis on data privacy. We have to get the balance right. Ultimately, we are dealing with personal data. We still need to ensure the right of individuals to have their personal data safeguarded, and their right to remain anonymous, where necessary, is also important. We must ensure that data is dealt with appropriately.

It is right to handle the situation by putting a duty on the different stakeholders. The way we have had to deal with these horrendous issues has been through a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach, so we are going to have to build networks. As is often the case, when the networks are built, there is then pressure to ensure that operational delivery works.

I support the clause and am heartened to see what is in schedule 3. We have to ensure that the clause can deliver, and it will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister, his ministerial colleagues and the civil servants to ensure that can happen. If the clause delivers and we ensure that it works, we will have a seamless system that people trust, and people will know that if they have concerns, they will be addressed.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. For me, this is about funding, as it was last week. We go back to delivery. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is absolutely and intrinsically about the safety of the people we are talking about, but without the funding for the organisations he mentioned—the fire authorities and the councils—it will fall down. Will the Minister ensure that the correct funding is ring-fenced for the organisations to be able to ensure the safety that is required for the people in the buildings?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

The hon. Gentleman touches on a really important point. I have a couple of points to address it. Last week, we heard from the Minister that there would be, broadly speaking, a new deal for funding. We also have to look at the procurement mechanisms that are used, in which I have a particular interest. They are really important and must be well scrutinised. We must use the procedures available in this place to ensure that that is done properly.

I was very heartened by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said last week on funding. As Members of this place, we have to ensure, in the ways we do as Back-Bench Members, that he follows through. I have found in the two years I have served as a Member of this place that funding is one thing, but making sure it is used effectively—not just properly—is another. One way to ensure that the organisations to which we say, “Right, build me a system,” can do that is to have the guidance in place, if, for example, we are talking about the systems that will have to be developed. The fire authorities’ primary function is to protect people. They are not whizz kids at building IT systems. We need to ensure that there is a method by which that could be done.

Equally, as I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will agree, local authorities have many different duties. I think of my own local authority, Sandwell. It could have one department doing four things at the same time. They have to prioritise. They cannot be procuring systems at the same time as dealing with building safety. There has to be a way.

The clause has triggered a broader conversation. I want to stay within scope and I do not want to stray too far, but when we think about how we ensure co-operation, clause 26 highlights that there are broader discussions about ensuring that is done in the right way. I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby on funding. The Minister touched on that last week. Let us see how that goes, and scrutinise it. Ultimately, it is about processes working.

This is the right clause. Sharing data and information will be important, but it is about ensuring that that can be done properly and that the systems are there. I am absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend will do his best to ensure that that happens in the best way possible.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and other members of the Committee for their contributions. As a former IT professional, I spent 18 years implementing IT systems, so I will certainly not commit to this Committee or beyond that all the IT that the HSE and its associated bodies may use will work optimally all of the time. However, we certainly want the Building Safety Regulator to work optimally all of the time.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West mentioned the importance of the propriety of data and its use. We want to ensure that data and information can be shared effectively even if they are sometimes of a confidential nature where residents’ safety is concerned. The Bill allows certain public bodies to share information with the Building Safety Regulator, but it does not require them to do so. The ombudsman, of whichever source or nature, will be able to make decisions about what information to share based upon individual circumstances. When, for example, it appears that lives are at risk, we believe that it appropriate that the information could be shared with the Building Safety Regulator. That is why the shadow Building Safety Regulator in the Health and Safety Executive has already started to work with other public bodies to identify the sorts of detailed safeguards that will be required to ensure that personal information is appropriately protected, while issues that might pertain to risk to life are also fully understood so that data are properly and proportionately shared.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is being generous in allowing me to intervene. Given his expertise as an IT specialist, does he not agree that one of the key things that we must do across Government when we implement these systems is take a lessons-learned approach? Will he assure me that he has looked in detail at some of the previous occasions when we have tried to implement such systems and that he will ensure that his officials will take away the lessons so that we can support the agencies in the most effective way possible as we set up the system?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Once again, my hon. Friend flatters me in his description of my expertise. I have certainly had some experience of IT programmes in the context of Government that have gone awry. The national IT programme, Connecting for Health, is just one example. I certainly agree to keep a gimlet eye open on the way IT is deployed in this and other circumstances while still recognising the operational independence of the agency and the Building Safety Regulator.

My hon. Friend is right to ask for lessons learned. That segues nicely into the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale when he talked about the importance of learned experience in the context of Grenfell. He is right. That is one of the reasons we want to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator and the associated multi-disciplinary teams have the flexibility to learn. Again, that is why we want to use effectively secondary legislation and regulations rather than primary legislation so that there is the flexibility to build the new authority.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the challenges of withholding information, and I refer him back to clauses 22 and 23 when we dealt with that issue and made it very clear that withholding information is a grave offence that can be punishable by a fine. He is right also to stress the importance of trust and flexibility. Again, that is a reason why we want to build the multi-disciplinary teams so that the BSR can co-operate with other expert parties. That will help to build the confidence of residents in high-rise blocks as well as that of developers, large and small, and those involved in the construction industry that there is the appropriate degree of co-operation and trust.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

There are a number of live applications to the building safety fund, and this is a practical plea on behalf resident leaseholders that many in the Committee will be familiar with. The information on progress is not being shared, and that is a genuine building safety issue that causes considerable anxiety. It has been raised on the Floor of the House, and it is relevant to the discussion that we are having now. It is a practical plea that many residents and leaseholders up and down the country have raised.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I shall expand a little on the scope of this debate to answer the hon. Gentleman very briefly. He will know that we have put aside £1 billion of public money for the building safety fund, and a significant amount has now been disbursed. If there are specific examples of challenges around information being shared or the speed of delivery being effective, I will be happy to look at them.

In summary, clause 26 and schedule 3 will empower the Building Safety Regulator to work closely with other public bodies with responsibilities for building safety and standards. They will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and ensure residents’ safety.

I am very grateful for the contributions that we have heard from across the Committee but, before I conclude, I should refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby who asked about resources. He will know from our deliberations last Thursday that I made it clear that we have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive by 10% of its total budget during the covid emergency. We have also committed to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator is appropriately funded. That is a matter for the spending review, but we have also—he will have seen this as we have progressed through the Bill—put in place clauses that will allow the Building Safety Regulator to charge and levy fees on appropriate parties to ensure that cost can be recovered. I hope that will give him some assurance that we have at the forefront of our minds appropriate funding to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator can do its work.

I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 27 - Fees and Charges

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I beg to move amendment 7 in clause 27, page 14, line 24, after “fee” insert “or charge”.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment 8 and clause 27 stand part.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Let me begin by speaking to amendments 7 and 8. They are minor and technical, and they align the language on the charging powers in clauses 27 and 56—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will be taking close note—by inserting additional references to charges alongside fees. We will say more about that in future. The intention is to avoid any unintended ambiguities or inconsistencies in the charging provisions created by the Bill. The context is that clause 27 contains important provisions enabling the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that enable the Building Safety Regulator to charge.

Charging powers are necessary to deliver Dame Judith’s recommendations in the independent review that the regulator should charge, and to put the regulator on a sound financial footing. The amendments ensure that there is no ambiguity that regulations under clause 27 can allow the Building Safety Regulator to make charges as well as levy fees. Charges are a slightly broader concept than fees, because fees typically relate to a service. Someone provides me with a service, so I pay them a fee. A charge could go wider by covering additional activities, such as regulatory interventions needed to bring the regulated party back into compliance with the regime. The recommendations of the independent review indicated that where possible, regulated parties should bear the cost when their behaviour results in additional regulatory activity. When the regulated parties have caused such activity, they should potentially bear the cost. We therefore want the Bill to allow charges that meet the recommendations of the independent review to be applied. Fees and charges provided for in regulations under clause 27 will of course remain within the bounds set by “Managing Public Money”.

Let me turn now to clause 27 itself. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator receives the funding required to enable it to deliver.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. What he was outlining was extremely interesting. Are we establishing the polluter pays principle?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The hon. Gentleman is attempting to lead me down a path that I suspect he will return to later in the Committee’s deliberations. As I said, we want to ensure that should a regulated party engage in behaviour that results in additional activity for the regulator, the regulator should be able to charge. I will confine my answer to that very specific set of grounds.

Mark Logan (Conservative, Bolton North East)

It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Will the Minister explain a little more how leaseholders will be protected from unfair charging in relation to regulator fees?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Yes, of course. Let me be really clear—we will discuss the building safety charge specifically in future deliberations—that we certainly do not want such costs to be passed on to individual residents or leaseholders. The point of the clause is to ensure that where regulatory activity is required by the Building Safety Regulator as a result of an identified party’s actions, that identified party pays for the cost. That certainly should not be passed on to leaseholders or other residents.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; his characteristic generosity is shining through. I do not wish to lead him astray, but I am conscious of the broader spirit of what we are debating. We have just deliberated over clauses that talk about fines and sanctions. Will my right hon. Friend consider using the funds raised from that, and ensuring that they can be fed through to the regulator? I am sure he will agree that when it comes to funding, a holistic approach is a good way to ensure that we can maximise the resources this vital regulator needs.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will make some remarks about that as I advance through my speech on clause 27, but we certainly want to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator can recover associated costs from the regulated parties involved.

The independent review recommended that the regulator for buildings in scope of the new and more stringent regulatory regime should fully recover its costs from those it regulates. The recommendation reflected that duty-holders who require the most intervention by the Building Safety Regulator should pay more. The principle of charging within the building safety regulatory system is not new. Local authorities can already charge for building control work under the Building Act 1984, as can approved inspectors. The Bill needs to enable the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator, both to implement the independent review’s recommendation and to put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

May I say once again what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford? My right hon. Friend mentioned the independent review’s recommendation that the regulator for higher risk buildings be funded by this full-cost recovery approach. Can the Minister explain why the Building Safety Regulator is going to charge fees and how those fees compare with those of other regulators?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The Building Safety Regulator will charge fees in the normal way, and there will be a mechanism to levy that charge on an identified party. It will be the identified party’s responsibility to pay in the normal way. The fees are consistent with the sorts of fees that are paid through other regulatory mechanisms that local authorities, for example, employ, too. That comes with the caveat that we want to ensure that full-cost recovery is achieved by the Building Safety Regulator, so the charges will rather depend what the costs are. I trust that if there are charges for additional regulatory activity on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, it is in the interests of the identified parties not to cause that additional regulatory activity. That is another means of ensuring that everybody behaves appropriately.

Clause 27, alongside clause 56, provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees and recover charges from those it regulates.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

As I wish to maintain my 100% record of interventions, I will give way on this occasion.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could he explain how we will prevent these charges being passed onto leaseholders? Is there anywhere in the Bill we can tie it down?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

We will discuss the building safety charge in later clauses. I will make it absolutely clear at that point how appropriate costs may be passed on to leaseholders, what the caps are and what it is not appropriate to pass on, such as the examples I am giving here.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

I thank the Minister.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

The clause enables regulations to be drafted to allow fees to be charged for the Building Safety Regulator’s general functions in part 2 of this Bill, its functions regulating the higher-risk buildings in occupation and its functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Government’s approach will ensure that fees and charges are appropriate. In line with the principles set out in “Managing Public Money”, the Building Safety Regulator will not make a profit on fees and charges for its regulatory activities. They are merely a means of cost recovery.

Setting out fees in secondary rather than primary legislation and allowing the Building Safety Regulator to put certain details in a charging scheme will ensure that fees can change over time. I hope that helps to address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw asked.

Initially, the Building Safety Regulator will have to use assumptions to develop fees, but once set up it is standard practice for a public body setting a fee for cost recovery to recalculate fees based on actual experience. This allows the regulator to learn from experience and change the way it charges fees over time to ensure they are both effective in recovering the appropriate amount of money, and proportionate and fair to those charged. Making provision for fees in regulations allows for regular scrutiny of proposed charges through consultation and, importantly, by Parliament. To deliver the recommendations of the independent review and put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing, we expect that the regulator will charge the accountable person for regulating their actions under part 4.

We will have an opportunity to debate all the issues about which costs the accountable person should fairly be capable of passing on to leaseholders when we come to part 4. However, I will briefly reassure the Committee that part 4 of the Bill ensures that any costs associated with enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or resulting from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person cannot be passed on to leaseholders through the building safety charge, so the potential costs we are talking about in the clause cannot be passed on to a leaseholder in that way.

That safeguard provides a financial incentive for the accountable person to do the right thing, as I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, because the accountable person will bear the Building Safety Regulator’s costs when it has to tackle serious failures. The Government are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to develop these proposals, building on its strong track record of successfully delivering cost recovery regimes—a track record that dates back to 1975, so it has some 46 years of experience.

The Health and Safety Executive rightly aims for the Building Safety Regulator to become a world leader in its field and to share best practice and expertise with international partners on a commercial basis. That is another means by which some funds can be raised. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to approve commercial charging by the Building Safety Regulator. This power will be used only with the consent of the Secretary of State and in line with Government guidance on charging.

We believe the clause is vital to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator has the funding required to enable it to do its critical work, that the accountable parties do the right thing and that any costs associated with these clauses are not passed on to leaseholders or residents through the building safety charge. I commend the clause and the amendments to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank the Minister. The amendments are a tidying-up and technical exercise that we quite naturally support. I heard what the Minister said about fees and charges, and obviously there have been a number of questions about those fees and charges potentially being passed on to leaseholder residents. I know that where there is a regulatory failure, and fees and charges are passed on to the accountable person, those cannot—I am seeking clarity on this one—be passed on to leaseholders. Is that the same for service charges as well?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

This might seem quite a technical clause and set of amendments, but it is an important one. I speak as the Member for the 14th most deprived borough in the country. I am conscious that we have to strike a balance, and I was quite reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said.

Starting from the beginning, it is not uncommon for bodies to charge fees in respect of their activities, where necessary, and in particular bodies that exercise a function such as the regulator. In a way, clause 27 and the accompanying amendments are not uncommon in the nature of what we are discussing. The broader point, which has been made by Members on both sides of the Committee, is that we have to ensure proportionality. That was the key point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale.

We need to find a way to ensure that the regulator itself is financially stable and can carry out its work properly; it has to be able to undertake tasks that will be so important in keeping residents safe, and in ensuring that the industry knows it is being regulated and watched. A lot of the detail will be set out in secondary legislation, and it will be incumbent on all of us across the Committee to grasp the detail of that to ensure that it is done in the right way. I think of the leaseholders in my constituency who would not be able to afford ridiculous levels of service charge; it would not strike them as proportionate. However, there is clearly a balance to strike.

I listened to the intervention from the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. She is a distinguished former council leader, and at some point she will have had to make decisions about what to charge for council services. It is difficult, when leading a public body, to decide how to balance those charges with the needs of the public. I do not envy anyone in that situation. Ultimately, we all agree that we want to deliver a public service in the way that has the least impact on the livelihoods of the people trying to use it. They are taxpayers too; they want to feel that they receive that public service when they pay their taxes.

Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has articulated, the key principle is ensuring that the regulator can carry on. What I am trying to express to my right hon. Friend—something that he has articulated in his contributions—is the need to be open-minded in terms of how that operates. We all accept that there has to be a fee-charging regime, but we have to ensure that it is proportionate and accepts the fact that the people at the right end of that are leaseholders and residents, and those are the people we are here to protect and serve. We need to make sure there is the right balance. I get the impression from the contributions made from across the Committee that there is acceptance that this has to be done. It is probably broadly agreed that the methods proposed in the clause are the way we need to do this but, as with much of our deliberation of the Bill thus far, the detail will come afterwards in the secondary legislation.

I am conscious of the need to ensure that we have a regulator that is well funded but that does not impact too much. We want to encourage proper behaviour in the marketplace. It is important in this clause to ensure that that is done in the right way. I support the Government amendments and the clause. I am heartened by what my right hon. Friend has said thus far and I appreciate that we will deliberate further on these matters: I do not want to be called to order. I just want to get on record that we should keep as open a mind as possible as we progress, but the detail, particularly with clause 27 and the amendments, will be in the secondary legislation, which I await with interest.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for the interest that the Committee has taken in this clause. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked about service charges, which are a well-established regime separate from the one that we are discussing here. I can reassure him on the question of costs. We recognise that the costs of the regulator will be a small fraction of the building safety charge and we will discuss that in greater detail under the appropriate clauses. To reiterate my earlier point, the Bill ensures that fees associated with breaches of the new regime can never be passed on to leaseholders. That is to ensure that the accountable person pays the costs of the wrongdoing and not the leaseholder. I hope that that is clear.

Clause 27 provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator, which is vital to ensuring that it has the funding required to enable it to deliver its critical work. Government amendments 7 and 8 ensure that there is no ambiguity about regulations under this clause allowing the Building Safety Regulator to make charges to identify parties as well as fees. I commend amendments 7 and 8, with clause 27, to the Committee.

Clause 28 - Service of documents

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 29 stand part.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Clauses 28 and 29 are quite short, and concern how documents will be validly served by the Building Safety Regulator. Clause 28 is a technical provision, setting out how documents will be validly served, whether physically or electronically, on and by the regulator, in connection with its functions under parts 2 and 4 of the Bill.

It may assist the Committee if I point out that service of documents under the Building Act 1984, as amended by part 3 of the Bill, is dealt with in section 94 of that Act. Section 94 is itself amended by paragraph 58 of schedule 5 to the Bill, to modernise it and take account of the regulator’s role as a building control authority. We are amending an amendment to another Bill. The effective provisions of clause 28 essentially mirror what is already in the Building Act, but updated to reflect changes in practice since 1984.

Turning briefly to clause 29, this provides key definitions used in part 2 of the Bill, and provides for a specific place within part 2 as a helpful index of the terms contained within it.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Without pressing the Committee further, I shall conclude my remarks there and commend it to the Chamber. The hon. Lady may wish to make a speech.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I call the Opposition Front Bench speaker.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I wished to intervene on the Minister.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The Minister has sat down.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I wanted to ask a question.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

If you put it in the form of a speech, then I am sure the Minister will have the courtesy to respond to you.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Again, we have moved on considerably since 1984. If we take our minds back to 1984—I notice that some probably cannot—we have since seen the development of emails and various other things. This certainly brings those provisions up to date, with the narrative descriptions contained in clause 29. I will give way to my hon. Friend and colleague.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I thank my hon. Friend, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I wanted to pursue the question, which I raised with the Minister last week, on the definition of a residential building. Is it anywhere where one sleeps overnight—whether temporary, permanent, or one’s sole residential home? I listed a series of residential spaces that do not come under the definition of a normal tenancy or leasehold property, such as student accommodation, other forms of residential licences, hotels, guest houses, and so on. I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale could pursue this with the Minister in his contribution, referring to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of clause 29.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

That intervention is rather long.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank my colleague for her intervention. I am fairly confident that the Minister will oblige by furnishing her with an answer, if not now then soon.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am sure that many on the Committee are wondering what on Earth I could have to say about the service of documents. I would, of course, have given way to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I was hoping to rise to put an important question to the Minister, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was able to help the hon. Lady.

I know this is an incredibly technical clause, but I speak from some painful experiences around service of documents in my previous life. While it might seem straightforward and we look at the clause and think, “OK, fair enough. It is very prescribed and descriptive”, I must say that having explained how service of documents works to numerous people, that is not the case.

My right hon. Friend the Minister articulated incredibly well how it will function. On the face of it, it is straightforward. We look at subsection (2) on how documents may be given and think, “OK, that seems pretty straightforward to me”. I implore him—I hope I am not going astray, Mr Efford, but I am sure you will tell me if I am—that we must ensure this is communicated to the people who will be utilising it. These are people who may not have a lot of experience of how documents are served. They are not doing this all day, every day. From my past life, I know the pain of having people who do not have the experience and are trying to do this themselves, and it causes issue after issue.

One thing that may come out of this, which touches on some of my previous comments, is around the idea of data share and co-operation. Without sounding flippant, the documentation we served and the information that would be exchanged using the process will be an important part of a vital regulatory process. It is vital that we ensure that is communicated as clearly as possible and the individuals who use the processes laid out in clause 28 understand how that operates. I do not want to see circumstances where legitimate problems and concerns are delayed because of a misunderstanding or issue with the process.

I reiterate my concern that if we do not ensure the provisions of clause 28 are translated down in a usable way to individuals, we run the risk of processes we have built up to now and have deliberated in previous clauses not being as effective as we would like.

I am glad that the clause understands that times have moved on. Gone are the days when things were couriered round. Email has been revolutionary. I remember from my professional life having to run round to another firm’s office to serve stuff. I was the junior so I made tea and served documents.

I am happy to see an understanding that the provision can be amended under subsequent regulations too. We have to be conscious that time and technology moves on, and we must ensure the process can continue and still function as things progress. While this may seem to be a very technical clause—I hope I have answered the question as to why on Earth I am speaking on this particular point—it underpins the importance of this process. Ensuring that the service of documents is done in a clear way and that those who utilise the process, from the large corporations down to the individual, understand how it functions properly will be key to ensuring that everything we have done up until now functions appropriately. I am heartened by the Minister’s contribution and he was very clear. I am glad to see that, as with most clauses in the Bill, there is a degree of flexibility in clause 28, and it is a vital part of this important Bill.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. Let me assure him that it is our intention through the clause to ensure that neither he nor anyone else has to jump on their moped and serve papers in a rather more 1984 way than they may ordinarily have to, given that now, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale rightly identifies, email and modern methods of communication allow for a much more speedy and clear way of serving documents. We want to ensure that the law reflects that.

On the questions raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about in-scope buildings, I do not want to stray on to other amendments and clauses unduly, but let me to try to help her by reminding her of what I said last week. In-scope buildings are high-rise residential properties of seven storeys, or 18 metres, or more. Other in-scope buildings include care homes of the requisite threshold and student accommodation, for example, because we have said that such properties need to have two or more dwellings. She offered a list of other potential properties. I think she mentioned hotels, which are covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and which tend to have a number of entrances and exits, and fire doors. Equally, prisons are covered by the 2005 order. I think there are seven immigration centres in the country, and none of them meets the height threshold that we have set out.

We have tried in all circumstances to act in a proportionate way that follows the advice and direction given to us by the independent review and Dame Judith Hackitt’s 53 recommendations. That does not, of course, preclude future changes to the Building Safety Regulator’s responsibilities. We have outlined how that may be done, and I am sure that we will go on, in further clauses, to do more of that. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some clarity on her question, which she managed, if I may say—tongue in cheek—to shoehorn into this clause. It is a skill not unknown to many of our other colleagues. I think that you have been guilty of that, Mr Efford—or rather, you have demonstrated the skill—in another context.

I remind the Committee that the clause essentially mirrors one that is already in the Building Act 1984. It updates it to reflect the changes in practice, as well as technology, since 1984, while clause 29 defines key definitions used in part 2 of the Bill, which we will further come to. They are technical clauses, which have none the less generated some interesting and, if I may say so, skilful debate, and I commend them to the Committee.

Clause 30 - Higher-risk buildings etc

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 30, page 22, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations define ‘building’ for the purposes of this section.

(5) The regulations may in particular provide that ‘building’ includes—

(a) any other structure or erection of any kind (whether temporary or permanent);

(b) any vehicle, vessel or other movable object of any kind, in such circumstances as may be specified.”

This amendment enables the Welsh Ministers to define “building” for the purposes of section 120I of the Building Act 1984 (inserted by this clause).

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 36 and 37.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The amendments relate to Welsh Government Ministers. They provide the Welsh Ministers with the necessary flexibility to define “building” for the purposes of proposed new section 120I of the Building Act 1984, to be inserted by clause 30 of the Bill. This is the same power as the Secretary of State has for England in new section 120D(4)(a) and (5). New section 120I contains a power for the Welsh Ministers to define “higher-risk building”. The additional power for the Welsh Ministers to define “building”, provided for by amendment 17, will ensure that Welsh Ministers can add clarity to the definition of “higher-risk building” as required.

Amendment 36 makes the power for the Welsh Ministers to define “higher-risk building” subject to the affirmative action procedure, but the power to define “building” under new section 120I(4) will be subject to the negative procedure, which mirrors the position in England. Amendment 37 disapplies for the purposes of new section 120I the definition of “building” that exists in section 121 of the 1984 Act. Again, this mirrors the position in England as regards new section 120D.

As the Committee may have gathered, these are important, although technical, amendments to ensure that Welsh Ministers have the necessary power to provide a clear definition of the types of structures that can be captured by the definition of “higher-risk building” and therefore subject to the more stringent building control regime provided for by part 3 of the Bill, which will be reached in due course.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I said that the amendments are technical, and so they are, but as to the clause itself, it provides a definition for which buildings will be higher-risk buildings and therefore subject to the design and construction portion of the new, more stringent regulatory regime. It also provides for what must be done if a decision is taken to alter that definition in the future. For Wales, it provides the Welsh Ministers with the ability to define their own higher-risk buildings. To support the Committee’s scrutiny and, indeed, that of Parliament, we published, upon the Bill’s introduction, the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations. Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review recommended implementing the new regulatory regime for buildings of at least 10 storeys. However, the views of stakeholders were gathered and they advocated expanding the scope still further. That is why we are defining the height threshold for a higher-risk building in England as at least 18 metres in height or at least seven storeys. We are being ambitious, providing the certainty that the markets require with our threshold approach while maintaining the focus on the taller buildings that the independent review advocated.

We agree with the pre-legislative scrutiny report about including more detail in the Bill, which is why we now define the height threshold of the regime within primary legislation and in the Bill. There may be incidents or emerging evidence in future that indicate that the definition of higher-risk building may need to be altered. Consequently, we included the power in section 120D(6), and its use would be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament so that a Committee of the House—or indeed the whole House—would be able to discuss, debate and vote on the matter. However, any change must be proportionate. It must not slip into risk aversion. That is why the checks and balances outlined by sections 120E and 120F are necessary. We must understand the costs as well as the benefits. This is why any decision of expansion must consider the expert advice or recommendations of the Building Safety Regulator.

Taken together, sections 120D to 120H provide for a proportionate approach to defining higher-risk buildings and to the design and construction portion of the new regulatory regime. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Again, we accept the provisions in the clause giving the Welsh Government the desired and important flexibility particularly for buildings that are at risk. Buildings at risk have caused considerable debate and the Minister has referred to the original recommendations by Dame Judith Hackitt. There has been lots of debate in the built environment and among key witnesses. I know that members of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government have heard similar evidence advocating for a broader definition of what is at risk. Clearly, many residents and leaseholders are in buildings below 18 metres that are certainly at risk.

I referred earlier to the fire in a care home in Crewe, not far from my constituency in the north-west of England. It was a home for vulnerable people and was constructed out of interesting materials and the results were unfortunately all too plain to see. Thank the Lord, nobody lost their life, but they did lose their home and their possessions. They were definitely at risk. In Runcorn in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the Decks development has had a live application to the building safety fund. A number of buildings are 18 metres and above so they are in scope of the definition in the Bill, but some are below 18 metres and they are constructed with even more inflammable material. Again, they are very much at risk.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

It was Dame Judith Hackitt who initially suggested that the threshold be 30 metres. Does the hon, Gentleman agree that 18 metres or seven storeys is significantly more ambitious?

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Yes, but what I heard from the witnesses —the evidence is crystal clear—is that there are buildings, such as hospitals, that have vulnerable people. One thousand hospitals will not be within the scope of the Bill, because they are below 18 metres. According to the Department’s own figures, 13,200 care homes will not be classed as at risk under the current regulatory landscape.

The clause will provide that flexibility, which the Minister referred to. If there are thematic incidents, fires or failures related to building safety, the Secretary of State has the welcome flexibility of the regulator in the future. We certainly want the definition of risk on the record, as witnesses have requested throughout.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I shall be brief, as I am conscious of the fact that we have already touched on the clause.

The point on which I wish to comment, which was highlighted in the comments of the hon. Member for Amesbury, is the ability of the Secretary of State to liaise with the Building Safety Regulator, as provided in the clauses added to schedule 5 to the Building Act 1984. The key is the facility to recognise that circumstances change—specifications change, the industry changes. The clause gives the Department the flexibility holistically to utilise the Building Safety Regulator, ensuring that subsequent regulations reflect reality.

We have debated the 80 metres specification, but we heard during the evidence sessions that flexibility is necessary. There are many shades of grey in this space—it is not all black and white. The clause pretty much mandates the Secretary of State to have regard to the Building Safety Regulator’s advice and to take on board its recommendations. That is vital, because the way in which we have structured the BSR in the Bill thus far is for it to act not just as an enforcer but as an adviser too, and there will be individuals within the organisation who have the expertise and skill.

The clause provides the flexibility that we will need, and as we come to secondary legislation we will see how important that is going to be. As we build the legislative framework, it will be important that Ministers have the agility to take advice and react to the market. The market and the specifications now will not be the same in five years’ time or 10 years’ time. We must ensure that if things need to change we can act expeditiously. Clause 30 is the right clause. It provides that flexibility to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his officials and I therefore support it.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for their contributions.

My hon. Friend for West Bromwich West is quite right: we heard from witnesses that it is important to have an objective set of criteria when defining risk. I appreciate that there are different shades of opinion. We heard from Sir Ken Knight and Dan Daly, who are experts in their fields, suggesting that an objective threshold would be a sensible mechanism for adjudicating risk.

We chose high-rise residential buildings of at least 80 metres after engagement with stakeholders and judged that the risk to multiple households is greater when fire spreads in residences of that height. We are following the recommendation of Dame Judith’s committee to focus on residential buildings. We have responded to the concerns of stakeholders. That is why, rather than set a threshold at 10 storeys, we chose to set it at above 18 metres or seven storeys. The reason that it is and/or is to make sure that we mitigate the risk of gaming just below 18 metres. Adding the seven-storeys requirement makes it much more difficult for a regime to be gamed.

We certainly heard evidence that properties and buildings that are below 18 metres are generally less at risk than those above that height. The BRE Group has said that, as have the National Fire Chiefs Council and Dame Judith in her independent report. That is not to say, however, that we are not mindful that changes cannot take place in future. That is why we have set in place in the clauses a mechanism by which the Building Safety Regulator will have a duty to keep the safety of persons in and around taller buildings constantly under review. Indeed, when we reach it, we will see that clause 139 requires an independent and periodic review of the effectiveness of the building regulatory regime. We have put in place measures that will allow for an expansion of the in-scope regime following advice and recommendations to the Secretary of State by the Building Safety Regulator after a three-part test. We think we have been proportionate and have also allowed in the Bill sufficient scope for appropriate expansion if and when experts deem it necessary.

Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)

I agree with the Minister that 18 metres or seven storeys is a sensible starting point for the regime. I welcome that it is more ambitious than the 30 metres originally recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt. However, will he explain why he chose such a threshold, rather than a matrix of risks and specific factors?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I understand why some regard a matrix or a set of matrices to be a better mechanism to employ. The problem with a set of matrices is that they are subjective. It is possible that one assessor could rule that a building is in scope of the regime and another rule it or a similar building out of scope. That would create unnecessary confusion in the regime. It is much more sensible that we have an objective threshold that everyone understands, be they the experts on the gamekeeper’s side of the fence or those on the poacher’s side. Everyone understands what the rules are.

The hon. Members for Weaver Vale and for Brentford and Isleworth, who is no longer in her place, mentioned other potential buildings. I have explained how it is possible, through advice from the Building Safety Regulator, to expand the regime, but I simply reiterate my earlier point that some of those buildings, such as prisons, hotels and hostels, are subject to the Fire Safety Order. They tend to have multiple means of exit and signage appropriate to guests entering and leaving the building. They are governed by a different regime. The Ministry of Defence’s buildings have their own fire safety arrangements and the Crown has its own arrangements under the Building Act. Those provisions have not been introduced and enforced but, as this Bill goes through the House, we will consider whether the Building Act provisions that apply to Crown buildings should be put into force.

We are not blind to the fact that the regime can be refined and improved. As I say, that is one of the reasons why we want to use secondary legislation as a mechanism for delivering the Bill in the most effective way.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I seek some reassurance, on a point that was brought up by the Association of British Insurers and others throughout the Bill’s passage so far, and during pre-legislative scrutiny. With regard to those experts, can the Minister reassure us that there is a sufficient pool of people who not only will be trained and available but, importantly, will get professional indemnity insurance to assess the builders?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I think I said in previous remarks that the multidisciplinary teams that the Building Safety Regulator will employ presently have many, if not most, of the skills and experience necessary to execute the roles in the new regime, so we do not anticipate that a significant amount of further training will be required. With respect to professional indemnity insurance, however, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made it clear that, in the final resort, they will provide a backed scheme to ensure that proper professional indemnity for risk assurors is provided. I hope that gives him some certainty.

I will close by restating the key function of clause 30, which is to provide a definition for which buildings will be considered higher risk and, therefore, which buildings will be subject to the design and construction portion of our new and more stringent regulatory regime. Importantly, it also provides for what must be done if a decision is taken to alter that definition in the future—that very clear, staged process, which will ensure that proper tests, proper consultation and proper cost-benefit analysis are undertaken in order to deliver an expanded regime, if that is required. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 32 - Building regulations

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Clause 32 provides the powers to set procedural requirements in building regulations, which, among other things, will include the procedures for a new building control route for the design, construction and refurbishment of higher-risk buildings, the mandatory occurrence reporting framework during the design and construction of those buildings, and the golden thread of information during design and construction. I will explain each of the paragraphs—there are quite a few of them—in turn.

Proposed new paragraphs 1A and 1B of the Building Safety Act 1984 provide for building regulations to set procedural requirements relating to work, particularly for applications for building control approval. They will provide the basis for the new gateway process for creating new higher-risk buildings, and for a new refurbishment process when carrying out certain building work on higher-risk buildings. We will also be able to put in place new procedures for building control applications to be made to local authorities. The powers provided under the paragraphs will enable building regulations to make provision about notices that must be given to building control authorities—for example, when work commences—the issue of certificates, and the effect of such certificates. These regulations will also make provision for consultation arrangements, such as when building control authorities need to consult fire and rescue authorities on fire safety measures relating to building work. They will also include timeframes for providing consultation responses. Regulations made under these powers can also set out the grounds for granting or refusing an application.

With regard to the gateways, these paragraphs will allow for building regulations to set out new prescribed documents that must be included in applications for building control approval alongside plans for higher-risk buildings. They will also allow building control authorities the ability to set requirements when granting applications for building control approval. For example, the powers taken in proposed new paragraph 1B of schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 would allow for staged approval routes for higher-risk buildings to provide greater flexibility for more complex developments—as we know, there can be many varied and complex developments. Applicants will be able to submit their application in stages with permission from the regulator, and in those circumstances building control approval will be strictly limited to the approved stages of work. Applicants will then need to submit plans and documents for other stages of work for building control approval before work on those stages begins.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

It is very good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Efford. The Minister is discussing the powers that have been strengthened for both the regulator and local authorities—something I certainly welcome—and, following on from that, the ability to set requirements when granting applications for building control approval. Could the Minister talk a little more about these gateways and explain in further detail what happens in them, particularly gateways 2 and 3?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The gateways are a crucial means of ensuring the quality and consistency of work, so that poor work or work that does not meet sufficient standards is spotted and stopped. Gateway 2 will be a hard stop that replaces the present building control deposit of plans stage: a gateway 2 application will be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator for approval. It has to demonstrate building regulations compliance, including that plans should be realistic for the building in use and will deliver a building that is safe to occupy. It will be an offence to start building work without Building Safety Regulator approval. We will say more about those gateways in secondary legislation.

Gateway 3 replaces the current completion and final certificate stage of building work—that is, when building work is complete. Again, it will be a hard stop, whereby an application must be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator with building plans and information about the building. The Building Safety Regulator can and will carry out inspections, and if it is satisfied—as far as it can determine—that the building complies with the building regulations requirements, it will issue a completion certificate. These are quite stringent processes that, as I trust my hon. Friend will recognise, are powerful tools. In circumstances where building control approval is strictly limited to the approved stages of work, applicants will then need to submit their plans and documents for other stages of work for building control approval before work on those building stages can begin.

The powers that we have taken in proposed new paragraph 1B will also allow applicants to submit applications for building control approval with plans and any relevant prescribed documents they consider appropriate for refurbishment in higher-risk buildings. That will ensure that applicants are not subject to disproportionate requirements when proposing relatively minor refurbishments, which could be replacement windows or changes to the central heating or lighting system, for example. However, the regulator will be able to refuse the application if prescribed information is not provided on request. All these provisions together will strengthen the regulatory oversight of design and construction.

New paragraph 1C makes further provision on the issuing of certificates to building control authorities by members of approved schemes. The powers provided by the new paragraph will enable building regulations to set out how schemes may be approved, the time periods for approval, the suspension and withdrawal of approvals and requirements about insurance cover for work covered by certificates.

Currently, there are arrangements whereby those carrying out specified types of work can self-certify that the work is compliant with relevant building regulations requirements and notify the local authority accordingly under the competent person scheme arrangements. This provision recognises that there are a significant number of low-risk building jobs for which it would be disproportionate to require building control authorities to approve or inspect. The powers in new paragraph 1C will enable us to put in place a robust statutory framework for those competent person scheme arrangements.

New paragraph 1D creates a power to enable building regulations to make provision about the supply and retention of information. This power will be used to require a golden thread—we have heard that term before, Mr Efford, and we will hear it again—of information to be created and maintained through the design and construction of high-risk buildings.

Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)

I welcome the Minister’s saying that there will be provisions to deliver the golden thread, which will be critical in helping to ensure that buildings are safe throughout their life, and I welcome the fact that new paragraphs 1C and 1D will contain requirements on the giving, obtaining and keeping of information and documents. Will this clause also ensure that developers will not be able to switch to cheaper and less safe materials during construction?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I think it will—in fact I am sure it will—because it will require that, in design, construction and refurbishment, information that is needed to demonstrate compliance with specific building regulations is available. It will also require that information garnered through mandatory occurrence reporting, which we discussed in Committee last week, will be available, and there will be a clear legal requirement on duty holders to hand over that information. The power will also be used to require certain information about safety occurrences to be provided to the regulator. I will discuss that a little more in a moment.

New paragraph 1D also creates the power to make regulations to set out the information and documents that must be stored in the golden thread, and to set out standards that the golden thread must be held to. We know there is currently a lack of information about higher-risk buildings, which makes it difficult to design, construct and refurbish them safely. We are also aware that where there is that information, it is often not kept up to date, not accurate or not accessible. We believe that having accurate, up-to-date information is critical to ensuring that buildings are managed safely, and this new paragraph will ensure that the information is recorded and that it is accurate, kept up to date and accessible to those who need it.

Dame Judith’s review recommended that a golden thread be put in place for higher-risk buildings. We agree, and the recommendation is being executed, recognising that it is critical to ensuring that buildings are safe.

New paragraph 1E enables the implementation of a key recommendation of Dame Judith’s independent review: mandatory occurrence reporting, which I mentioned a moment ago, for higher-risk buildings going through the design and construction phases. Mandatory occurrence reporting is intended to provide a route by which valuable building safety intelligence and trends will reach the Building Safety Regulator and be shared with industry.

The effect of that proposed new paragraph is to enable regulations to be drawn up that require duty holders in design and construction to establish a mandatory occurrence reporting framework to facilitate the reporting of occurrences on site so that the duty holders, who have an obligation to report them to the regulator, become aware of occurrences in good time. Mandatory occurrence reporting will aid in driving intelligence-led enforcement on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, promoting safety-conscious culture change and improving safety standards and best practice across the built environment.

Proposed new paragraph 1F enables building regulations to prescribe the form and content of documents or information that must be given as part of a building control application. Those documents will be a key part of the new building control routes for higher-risk buildings. Proposed documents include a design-and-build approach document, a fire-and-emergency file and a construction control plan. The documents must demonstrate compliance with building regulation requirements and be realistic for the building in use—I made that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. That will ensure the consistency and quality of building control applications for higher-risk buildings.

The proposed new paragraph also allows for building regulations to set out how documents and information must be given. For example, it may be necessary to submit documents to the Building Safety Regulator via an online portal. It will also enable certain building applications to be refused if a document is not provided to the building control authority on request.

In order to check compliance, building control authorities must be able to inspect and test work, equipment, services and fittings, and to take samples. New paragraph 1G provides powers for building regulations to make provision for that. Building regulations will also be able to prohibit work from being covered for a period to allow the building control authority to inspect the work and to provide for the building control authority to cut into or lay open the work. Related amendments are also being made to section 33 of the Building Act to enable a building control authority to require a person carrying out the work to carry out tests of the work.

New paragraph 1A, which we discussed earlier, will allow building regulations to set prescribed timetables according to which building control authorities will need to determine applications—for example, gateway 2 applications, change control applications, and gateway 3 applications. That will help prevent unnecessary delays.

New paragraph 1H will allow building control authorities to extend that timetable where necessary, with agreement from the applicant—for example, if a development in hand is particularly complex. That will provide greater flexibility than under the current regime.

New paragraph 1I enables the drafting of regulations to allow persons affected by decisions made under the Building Act, or building regulations, to appeal against them. The Government supports the recommendation of Dame Judith’s independent review that the regulator must be “fair and transparent”. Where developers want to challenge a decision by a building control authority, it is right that they can do so. This clause makes provision to create routes of appeal to the regulator and the tribunal in England, and to Welsh Ministers or a magistrates court in Wales, whichever is appropriate. It also makes provision to set up procedural and administrative arrangements.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

We have discussed appeals. As part of the process, it is important that we have a robust and accessible appeals process, which is easy for people to undertake. Does the Minister share my opinion that these appeals need to be conducted in a reasonable amount of time? They have a habit of dragging on for long periods. With something as important as this, does he agree that people should have an assurance that when they make an appeal it is not just accessible but that they can expect an answer within a reasonable time period, to correct whatever problem has arisen?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of appeals. We have said in regulations that if the time limit is not met between the regulator and the applicant, and if an extension is not agreed, then the applicant can submit an application to the Secretary of State for a decision. That is a last resort. Through these provisions, we want to ensure that decisions can be made swiftly and efficaciously, so that challenges that may be brought to the Building Safety Regulator by a developer are dealt with rapidly, and a safe development can be advanced as quickly as possible. These include grounds for appeal, and the period during which an appeal can be lodged are also included in this clause.

There are a number of related consequential amendments in draft schedule 5. These include repeals of sections 16, 17 and 31 of the Building Act, which will become redundant with the introduction of new applications for building control approval under paragraphs 1A and 1B in clause 32.

That includes repeals of paragraphs 2 to 5 of schedule 1 to the Building Act, which are directly replaced by the new paragraphs 1A to 1I in clause 32, and amendments of existing references in the Building Act to, for example, the deposit of plans to the

“making of applications for building control approval”.

These new powers apply in Wales as in England, so the Welsh Government will be able to amend its building regulations as necessary. I appreciate that these are technical and rather dry paragraphs, but they are important to the success of the Building Safety Regulator, its powers and the appeals mechanism. Therefore, I commend clause 32 to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank the Minister for his thorough and detailed examination of the clause. The independent review made several recommendations for stringent new building control procedures to increase the regulatory oversight of design, construction and refurbishment—if we take our minds back to Grenfell, that was a refurbished building—of higher-risk buildings and of building work subsequently carried out. One concern, which was echoed by the Select Committee, is that a lot of detail is again left to secondary legislation, as the Minister referred to. To draw upon the golden thread, as a means to explain to Members not just in Committee but beyond, does the Minister have an example of the golden thread from beginning to end? Has he done some scenario planning of the application of the hard stop? How does the new regime capture permitted development? How does it capture those refurbishments and those conversions of offices into residential buildings?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I grateful for the opportunity to speak on clause 32 which although very technical, is none the less very important. I want to speak about mandatory occurrence reporting, because I think that is a key matter. In order to understand trends and where consistent issues are becoming a problem it is key that disasters such as Grenfell are not allowed to repeat. We need to spot problems early. That comes back to the broader point of collaboration and working together. This is a collaborative piece. To ensure that the legislation works for the future and that we have a market that truly works for everyone, we must ensure that information is shared. We must ensure that trends are spotted early. It is about treating the issue as a partnership between stakeholders. To have the BSR acting as the centre point and information gatherer will be key.

The clause needs to provide certainty, although we will need to see the secondary legislation that will derive from the Bill. We need to ensure that leaseholders and residents have certainty and that they know where they stand, but we have a market to meet, and we must build houses. We know that we have a housing shortage and that we need to construct more places for people to live. To do that, we must have a regime that works. We must know that, ultimately, those who use the regime and construct property understand the rules by which they play. Equally, the balance must be struck so that they cannot game the regime either. That is why there needs to clarity.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale is right that we need to examine the detail in secondary legislation. We need to see what the structure of that will be. It is all well and good to say “we’ll prescribe this, and we’ll prescribe that” but we need to know what specific forms will look like, how people will fill them out, whether they will be usable in a commercial context or will that encourage an organisation, a builder, a company or whoever to circumvent the system, because they think, “Do you know what? It’s a little too complex for me to do, so let’s see how I can fiddle it around”? The wording of the clause goes some way to delivering this, but we need a system that says to builders and stakeholders, “Look, it is within your interests to play within the system and comply with the regulations, and to share the information as part of the mandatory occurrence reporting.”

We have spoken about the impact in Wales as well, and it is important that, ultimately, we have that consistency in England and Wales. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale will know that there is a lot of cross-border buying and selling, and we must ensure that there is consistency so that people know where they stand in terms of the regulations. I am sure that he has many building firms that will do work both in England and in Wales, so they will need that consistency to know exactly the rules within which they are playing. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about the conversations he has had with colleagues in Welsh Government to ensure that. That will be a real test of clause 32 and the subsequent secondary legislation, so that the marketplace that must fit within the regulatory framework knows where it stands. I come back to the point I made before, which is ultimately about ensuring that we can continue to have a market that builds houses, to address the situation that we have with local house building.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

I want to touch on a couple of things. Enforcement is key. We heard lots of evidence about the need for culture change. Enforcement gives us rules and regulations, which the sector needs, but we need to change the culture. Listening to the Minister’s response, I am at a loss to know where the enforcement will come from and how it will be funded. It would be good to get a real understanding of how this golden thread will be enforced. We listened to evidence from the Fire Brigades Union about how fire safety officers have been decimated. We know about local authority cuts. I would really like an understanding, on the record, of where the enforcement will be made and how it will be funded. We had rules, regulations and laws, but without enforcement we still had Grenfell. Hugely important moving forward is how the new set of regulations will be enforced to ensure that it is adhered to and we get the culture change that we desperately need.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am sure that there are some points that my right hon. Friend the Minister will pick up. I agree that enforcement is a really important part of this and has to be done properly. We discussed funding this morning. As my right hon. Friend indicated, there has been a funding uplift. As I said this morning, it will be on us to ensure that that works and is done in a proportionate way. I have no fear in saying that. It is our job to do that. Without being too repetitious, it is perhaps slightly frustrating, but the secondary legislation will be an important part of it, because that will show the meat of how the enforcement will operate.

It comes down to the operational delivery of all this. The clauses are very technical. They are there to lay the base framework. From my very limited time in this House, when we are passing legislation the big thing that we always have to think of is how it will work in practice. There are probably broader debates, particularly with clause 32, about what that will look like. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby touched on cultural change. It is important that the clause acts as a catalyst for that. As I touched on, it is about ensuring that there is a framework by which construction firms and builders know to operate, that there is an ability to share that information, and that building regulations flow through to ensure that we know where we are and that a really stringent process is followed. We must also be able to see the information that is required—the safety reports and fire reports—to ensure that we have the golden thread and the pathway that we have discussed, to ensure that we have built a story of compliance and safety, and to ensure that if we have to review the pathway to the construction of a building we can see that it has followed the tests and that corners have not been cut.

Clause 32 provides that base framework, but I stress that the meat will come in secondary legislation. As always, my plea to the Minister is that we continue with the flexible approach that he has adopted so far in relation to this piece of legislation. It is about being adaptable. The clause gives us the framework, but we know that the market changes, pressures change and risks change. When we come to report on building regulations, we must ensure that, as we look at clause 32 in secondary legislation, it has the room for manoeuvre to react. If we have to ramp up the reporting mechanisms, we must be able to do so. Equally, they must be robust enough to manage that.

We must remember, and I know my right hon. Friend is completely aware of this, that it is the leaseholders and residents who are at the core of this. Clause 32 was described as dry and technical, but it is a linchpin clause because it sets the rules of the game, which will protect some of the most vulnerable residents and leaseholders—the people we have been sent here to stick up for. We will ensure they have that framework and that right of redress. It is an important clause and I support it. I am really interested to see the secondary legislation that follows and it has my full support.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the Committee for considering the clause. I am grateful for the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. He raised the question of cross-border co-operation between English authorities and the Welsh Government. I can assure him that my officials have been in close contact with the Welsh Government to ensure that provisions apply properly. Of course, because the devolutionary settlement came after the Building Act 1984, certain changes need to be made to the Act. There certainly has to be a recognition that the Building Safety Regulator does not apply in the same way in Wales as in England. The building control authority in Wales is the local authority—although a local authority can for the purposes of independence designate another local authority to act as the building control authority in a particular instance of a high-rise residential or in-scope building in their authority jurisdiction.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked a number of questions about the golden thread. I agree that it is a hugely important element of the Bill and an important element to demonstrate trust and compliance to the regime. It is about giving information about a building that allows someone to understand the building. It also provides information to effectively manage the building. It needs to be created before building work starts and it must be kept updated throughout the design and construction process—for example where through the change control process, the plans for the building work are changed. That also needs to be captured in the golden thread.

When the building work is finally completed, the golden thread must be handed over to the person responsible for the occupied building, called the accountable person. The information required will have to demonstrate compliance with specified building regulations and information required through mandatory occurrence reporting. We will set out specific requirements for the golden thread in secondary legislation. The nature of the information and the documents that must be stored as part of the golden thread are potentially subject to change over time in accordance with technical developments in safety standards and safety practices. Some flexibility in the listed information and documents is required, and that is why we propose putting it into secondary legislation rather than putting it in the Bill.

I can give an assurance to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who raised the issue of enforcement. We talked about that last week in Committee, and I pointed out the funding that has been made available to the Health and Safety Executive to help set up the shadow Building Safety Regulator. We have talked today about the fees and the charges that may be applied, as well as the spending review commitments we will make to the Building Safety Regulator.

I will give one example of enforcement. If mandatory accounts reporting data is not properly captured or provided as part of the golden thread, that is an offence that the Building Safety Regulator can pursue through means of prosecution of an appropriate designated party. We are giving the Building Safety Regulator, we believe, appropriate teeth to do its job.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will give way briefly, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will want to get on.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I asked the Minister about permitted development and how that will be captured by the golden thread. It will be detailed in secondary legislation, as is mirrored throughout the Bill. I understand some of the practicalities around that, but given that this is a central aspect of improving the building safety landscape, surely the detail should be in the Bill. Look at permitted development. Will there be refurbishments from office to residential? Grenfell was a refurbishment. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that matter.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am happy to look at the matter for the hon. Gentleman and make sure that we properly cover all eventualities in secondary legislation. I point out that with respect to permitted development rights, it is unlikely—although I would not say impossible—that buildings that fall into the scope of the currently defined regime will be built using permitted development rights. I suggest to him that such a building would very likely require planning permission using the normal routes.

I am very happy to make sure that we cover off those sorts of considerations when we look at secondary legislation. We need to make sure that it is sufficiently flexible to take account of future safety arrangements, future technical designations and future planning rules, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are considering very shortly. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 33 - Dutyholders and general duties

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Clause 33 relates to amendments to schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 to enable building regulations to require prescribed appointments and to impose duties on those appointed and other relevant persons.

We agree with recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 of Dame Judith’s review, which ask that key roles and responsibilities in the procurement, design and construction process are specified. Clause 33 contributes to their implementation. It is only right that those who commission building work and who participate in the design and construction process take responsibility for ensuring that building safety is considered throughout the project, thereby ensuring that residents are safe and, importantly, feel safe.

The amendments to the 1984 Act create a power that we will use to make regulations that will identify and place duties on those involved in the procurement, design, construction and refurbishment of all buildings. The duty holders will be those people or organisations who commission the building work and undertake the design and construction or refurbishment building work. In other words, they will be clients, principal designers, designers, principal contractors and contractors, and all other persons involved in the work.

These are the key roles that are most important in initiating, overseeing or influencing activity to ensure building regulations compliance throughout the procurement, design and construction phases. Duty holders will be required to actively consider and manage building safety risks throughout the process, to ensure that designs, if built, comply with building regulations requirements as well as the building work.

Draft regulations have been published alongside the Bill. The Committee may find the draft Building (Appointment of Persons, Industry Competence and Dutyholders) (England) Regulations 2021 useful for more detail. The draft regulations set out the framework of duty holders and their duties. The main duty holders will be the client, the principal designer and the principal contractor. However, everyone undertaking design or building work, including designers and contractors, will also have duties.

The duty holders will need to have systems in place to plan, manage and monitor the design work and building work, to ensure they co-operate and communicate with each other, and to co-ordinate their work. The regulations also require duty holders to have the relevant competence—the skills, knowledge, experience, behaviours, and organisational capability—to undertake work, and to ensure that those they appoint are also competent to carry out that work. We will discuss that in more detail when we come to consider clause 34.

The regulations made under clause 33 will hold to account all involved in building work, making them responsible for the work they do and the decisions they make, ensuring those buildings are safe for those who live and work in them. I commend clause 33 to the Committee.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

Clause 33 is just common sense, really. It is ultimately about ensuring that those people who are appointing people, or those organisations that are making appointments to do work, are doing so in a way that is right and safe. I am conscious that I should not stray on to clause 34, but it is about ensuring that they appoint people with the ability to do the work and to perform those basic duties that we would expect.

I am slightly surprised that we need clause 33, to be honest, because to me it is common sense that if we were going to appoint people to do a job, we would make sure they could do it properly in the first place. None the less, we have seen, and we have heard in the evidence, that it is needed. It is probably a sad indictment of the market and the industry we are dealing with that we need to specifically prescribe in legislation that people who are appointed to do the work can do so in the way they need to, and that we will require building regulations to specify what that looks like.

I turn to the general duties as specified in new paragraph 5B. A lot of this stuff would appear to be relatively straightforward; it is just about ensuring that people are undertaking the work in the right way. I will not make too many comments on industry competence, because I appreciate that that is addressed further on, but, broadly speaking, for many of these clauses it will be interesting to see the regulations that follow and how that is prescribed.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

Is the hon. Gentleman wondering, as I am, about professional indemnity insurance and the ability of all duty holders to secure that?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

That is a good question. What will be needed is a broader conversation with the industry, and the evidence from the Association of British Insurers was about that industry engagement. What we are trying to do with this legislation is to bring about cultural change, so that cultural change must be holistic. As part of that, we must be open to having those conversations with insurers and with all parts of the sector. I am just thinking about these duty holders, and the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is about remembering what the sector is.

Obviously, it is not just the firms that are building or constructing these developments: it is the insurers, the subcontractors and the people who provide the materials. The sector encompasses all those people as well, so how far do we extend these duties? Again, these are questions that we are going to have to deal with, perhaps through secondary legislation: how far do those appointments go? What do they look like? Who are we appointing? Who are we applying them to?

Those are all academic questions that I do not wish to tempt my right hon. Friend the Minister to answer today, because I appreciate that we will go into further detail about them, but I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby triggers a further conversation that is definitely worth having. Broadly speaking, though, clause 33 is about doing what many of us would consider to be common sense, and for that reason—although it is quite surprising that we need it—I fully support it and hope that it becomes part of the Bill.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

To reiterate, the effect of clause 33 is that those who commission a building, design it, construct it, and may refurbish it will be required to make formal appointments, so that everybody knows what everybody else’s role in this is, and proper and effective enforcement action can be taken against them.

A principal designer has to be appointed, and the role of that designer is understood; a principal contractor is appointed, and the role of that contractor is understood. The new regulator will be able to hold the principal persons to account using the range of enforcement tools that we have discussed, and we have also discussed the mechanisms for funding them as effectively as possible. Local authority building control will also have a range of enforcement powers, so although this clause may be common sense—as my hon. Friend has suggested—it is an important mechanism for codifying building safety, while also making sure that there is sufficient flexibility in the law to take account of future changes in circumstances that the House of Commons may wish to rapidly respond to through secondary legislation, rather than writing all the law on the face of the Bill.

Although clause 33 is possibly common sense, and although it is yet another rather dry and technical clause, I reiterate that it holds everyone involved in building work accountable for the work they do. It makes them responsible for the work they do and the decisions they make, which will ultimately help to ensure that golden thread of information and the safety of buildings. As such, I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 34 - Industry Competence

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The Government want residents to have confidence that those working on their building are competent to do their job properly and in compliance with building regulations, in order to ensure safe and high-quality buildings. This is vital to underpinning our reforms of building safety. Building regulations currently have minimal provisions about how design and building work should be done. Our intention is to set out more specific requirements relating to the competence of persons doing any design or building work.

Clause 34 therefore amends the Building Act 1984—which, as we know, is 37 years old—creating powers to prescribe in building regulations the competence requirements relating to the principal designer and principal contractor, the appointed persons, and any other person. We intend to use this power to impose in building regulations a general duty on anyone doing design or building work to have the appropriate competence to do their job in a way that ensures compliance with building regulations. Building regulations may also impose duties on those appointing the principal designer, the principal contractor and any other person, to ensure that those whom they appoint meet the competence requirements.

Mark Logan (Conservative, Bolton North East)

Will increasing confidence in the competence of duty holders be a vital part of restoring faith and confidence in the construction industry?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Yes, I think it will be. We have seen a significant decline in confidence in the sector, and we have certainly seen a decline in trust. We believe that imposing competency requirements will contribute to the golden thread not just of information, but of trust, which we need to re-engender among residents living in in-scope buildings, and in the wider building sector more broadly. I agree with my hon. Friend, because I believe that it will help to reinvigorate trust.

The requirements will apply to all design and building work that is subject to building regulations—not just for higher-risk buildings—and to both organisations and individuals. For individuals, the competence requirements will relate to their skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

My right hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. He touched on the skills piece for individuals. The running theme within the Bill is about co-operation and communication with different stakeholders. How important does he think it will be for the BSR to be engaged, particularly with further education providers, in order to ensure that the benchmarks that are set as a result of the clause can be met in the training that it provides to future members of the industry?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I certainly think that trade bodies and professional organisations should develop suitable ways for their members to demonstrate their competence. I also want to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a broad reach within the understandable constraints of not losing or diluting its very important focus on high-rise and other in-scope residential buildings.

I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about reaching out to higher and further education providers, but if I may stretch the point a little, it is certainly the case that by working with our colleagues in BEIS and across other Government Departments, we are building a skill set in the construction industry—young people going into construction and becoming bricklayers or skill supervisors. We need to ensure that they have the wherewithal to build their careers, but we also need to ensure that their professional trade bodies are providing them with competence, and that that competence can be properly assessed by the Building Safety Regulator and its officials.

For organisations, the requirements will relate to the organisational capability—the ability of an organisation to carry out its functions properly under the building regulations. Where the principal designer or principal contractor is an organisation, subsection (3) enables building regulations to require the organisation to ensure that the individuals leading the work have the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours to manage their functions. To provide more detail on how the competence requirements will apply, we have published draft regulations to sit alongside the Bill.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this new regime for driving up competence levels will not have a negative impact on industry capacity, particularly in areas such as mine—this might be slightly outside the scope of the Bill—where the sector already has issues with recruitment?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We certainly do not want to see skills and capacity further stretched. I will give her one example of the stimulant action that the Government have taken to support the sector. Last November we announced funding just touching £700,000 to train up 2,000 external wall system 1 assessors. I believe that their training commenced in January this year, so they will be coming on stream to provide the sorts of services that are needed. We certainly want to ensure that, in that instance and others, we have appropriate capacity to do the work required.

In addition, the Government intend to provide statutory guidance in the form of an approved document to support duty holders in meeting these requirements. This is a short but important clause, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

It is incredible that this is not part of the status quo, because we are talking about competence in the construction sector. Of course, this is a changing landscape, with everyone, as the Minister says, having the appropriate knowledge, skills and competence to carry out the new requirements of the regime. There is a lot of onus on the client and the principal contractor. Who assesses whether the principal contractor is competent? What does competent look like? Again, it seems that this may be outlined in guidance and secondary legislation. How do people know whether somebody is genuinely competent to construct or refurbish a higher-risk building? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am mindful that just looking at this clause triggers a lot of thought processes. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale has just said, we might have thought that this was already a given: that if we get someone to do a job, they should have the skills and qualifications needed to do it properly. It triggers some broader thought processes on how we embed these legislative and regulatory standards within the system more broadly.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his response to the intervention on education. Clearly, as a result of this clause, we will have to embed this within the culture, which will require that stakeholder engagement. I was heartened to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would take that away and ponder it.

The key thing, as with all of this, is how it will operate in practice. The sentiment of the clause is the right one: in order to ensure that people living in high-rise buildings are safe, those buildings must be constructed by individuals who know what they are doing, and the onus must be placed in statute on the organisations constructing these buildings to ensure that the competence and skills base is there.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon raised an important point in her intervention about getting the balance right. I think this does get the balance right, in that it ensures that we can still recruit to the industry, so that a flow of workforce still comes into it, but things clearly have changed since 1984. My right hon. Friend the Minister articulated that by highlighting that the existing regulations are 37 years old. Just to put that in perspective for the Committee, that is slightly before I was born. I was born in 1992—I do not know whether that horrifies some Members.

I am the grandson of a builder, and it is clear that building sites have changed in 40 years. The expectations and complexity of the jobs that firms are now undertaking require the ability to know that the competencies are there. We now have a raft of qualifications, and different levels of experience and needs, as I have said in previous contributions—I am sure everyone has noted that meticulously. None the less, it is important. Things have changed and moved on. We are operating and trying to regulate an ever-changing marketplace that has new technologies coming on board and new materials coming into play, and we need the individuals who operate in this space to have the skillsets and ability to react to that.

The one thing that I would say—perhaps this will be addressed in secondary legislation—is that in my profession, we always had to show continuous professional development. We had to show that we had not just sat there after qualifying perhaps 10 years ago, because things had moved on.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

On the issue of competence, last week we touched on training—the funding of training and who is going to do it. We will need lots and lots of people, and that is a huge opportunity for this country, but who will monitor the competence? Will it be accredited? Will there be an agency to accredit it? Again, this all links back to the evidence that we have been listening to over the past two weeks about culture change. This can start right at the very beginning of somebody’s career, and it can be hard-wired in. It would be good to get an understanding of who will oversee the competence, and how the training will be delivered and—I am going to say the magical word again—funded.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I am sure he and I are both passionate advocates of technical and vocational education, and this clause says that we have to treat the industry with some respect. That means having in place accreditation structures that are properly recognised. I get what he says about funding, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard his plea. I say to the hon. Gentleman—if you will indulge me, Mr Efford—that he has a sympathiser in me, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will at some point have conversations with the Department for Education and the Treasury about how that looks. The hon. Gentleman is right. Ultimately, although this is a short clause, it leads to so many different things. That is the key thing. Ultimately, as he articulated well, if we are going to ask for this, we need to know what the accreditation models are and the FE providers need to know what the structures are for providing this training. All those conversations come out of clause 34.

Mark Logan (Conservative, Bolton North East)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

Of course, although I am not a member of the Privy Council just yet.

Mark Logan (Conservative, Bolton North East)

My hon. Friend’s exchange with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby got me thinking. I am interested to hear from the Minister in his closing remarks on the clause about the financial implications of ensuring that we have competency in the industry. What assessments has his Department, or indeed the Department for Education or the Treasury, made? In the longer term, what benefits does he see the clause giving to UK plc on the long-standing issue that the UK has had with productivity, vis-à-vis some of our peer countries in the G7 and G20, for example?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am not sure whether the question was to me or to the Minister, but I will give my opinion, as I am sure the Minister will give his.

From my perspective—you are being very indulgent, Mr Efford, so thank you—what clause 34 does for productivity is to push the point on accreditation and on being sure that people have qualifications, so that a young person thinking about where to go hears, “Come to this trade, because you will get skills, qualifications and accredited.” I know from my communities that a lot of the time it is about how something is pitched or framed. If we want to attract young people into jobs and skills, we have to say what they will get from it. If a young person can get accredited and feel, “You know what, I have a qualification, and can take this further. I can move forward and go different places with it”, that is one way to deal with the productivity issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East said in his intervention. There are many other ways as well.

I was trying to articulate a point on the role of the Building Safety Regulator in setting industry competence. We have said throughout our deliberations on the subject of safety that we cannot see the BSR only as the executioner who comes in at the end, when it has all gone wrong. It cannot do that; it has to be leading the way—that is the key bit. That comes back to the point that I made before—my hon. Friend doubled down on it for me with his intervention—which is about ensuring that the link-in with the different stakeholders allows us to implement what is going on in clause 34—to ensure that the training bars are there, the levels are in place and we know where we start. When we train up the next generation of people for the construction industry, they need a clear idea of the knowledge base that is necessary.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long and knowledgeable contribution. I was listening to what he was saying. What a wonderful opportunity for the trade unions to be involved in training right from the outset. Does he agree?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I will make a probably revolutionary point: I might be a Conservative MP but, yes, trade unions have a part in this—110%. The discourse with the trade unions is beneficial. I, too, have benefited from positive relationships with my trade unions when necessary. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Again, part of that is the holistic approach. That is the whole point of how the clause has been constructed. It allows us to be flexible and to have those ongoing conversations, which will be important in the implementation of the legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister is listening intently and absorbing this—I am grateful to him for doing so—and he will pass it on to his officials, because to make the Bill effective we will have to be as broad brush as possible with engagement.

To conclude—I am sure many hon. Members are disappointed—clause 34 as drafted, as I said about clause 33, does something that is basic, which is that people who undertake a job of work should have the ability to do it. I hope I have articulated that in some way in my contribution, but as I have said, that will trigger a lot of further conversations. We need this to work. We need to ensure that the people undertaking the work on these high-risk developments—which we still need, because we have a housing shortage and we need to build more houses and more places for people to live—have the relevant qualifications. To that end, the secondary legislation, the guidance note, the approved document referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the competence standards being developed by the British Standards Institution, will all be important. We need to ensure that they are translated into a workable approach that brings together all the different stakeholders —we have discussed trade unions, further education providers and the industry more broadly—so that when 16, 17 or 18-year-olds decide to follow this profession as a career, they know what is expected of them. Speaking from my own experience, it can be odd when people do not know what the benchmark is.

Mark Logan (Conservative, Bolton North East)

This might be a bit of a long shot, but if there is more competency among the young individuals going to firms, might that not lead to fewer cases of malpractice and, indeed, bankruptcy down the line? Some of my constituents in Bolton North East have had issues with builders who have gone out of business and then subsequently set up other companies. I would be interested to hear what my hon. Friend makes of that particular point.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I shall answer briefly. I am not entirely sure whether clause 34 would address those issues. Malpractice is a business competency issue. In terms of the ability to undertake the work, clause 34 sets the base expectations, but I do not think it will solve all of that. To sum it up, clause 34 sets the base, and will, I think, trigger further conversations, similar to those we have had today. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for being open to those conversations, which he has very much listened to. I certainly await the approved document and the BSI’s intervention with great interest. Thank you, Mr Efford, for indulging me today.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Having listened to the debate, I feel that both Whips on duty may be concerned by the outbreak of political amity that seems to have gripped the Committee, with Liverpool extending its hand across the Chamber to shake the hand of West Bromwich West. It is a sight to behold and is possibly not to be seen again any time soon. The debate on this clause has been a useful one. It demonstrates the importance of getting competency standards properly understood and properly driven up.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale said that it is amazing that we are talking about the issue of competency now. He is, of course, quite right. It is surprising that, with Governments of different stripes and colours over the last 37 years, none have acted in a comprehensive way to deliver the sorts of outcomes that Grenfell has taught us that we need.

1984 was a long time ago. None of us, I think, would want to now wear the clothes that we were wearing back then. Some of us could probably not even get into them. It is right, therefore, that we should revise the Building Act 1984 to meet the challenges of today and recognise that competency is something that we should address in this Bill. That is what we are doing.

We believe, with due respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, that industry must lead the way to improve the competency of those working on higher-risk buildings, and, with Government support, that is what industry has been doing. The competency steering group and its sub-working groups published a report in October of last year.

The Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West has suggested, is sponsoring BSI to create a suite of national competency standards for high-risk buildings. They include core criteria for building safety in competence frameworks and a code of practice, which sets out key principles to be used by different sectors to develop their sector-specific competence frameworks. It also includes the competence standards for the principal designer and principal contractor.

As we heard in evidence and in the line-by-line scrutiny we undertook last week, the Health and Safety Executive is setting up an interim industry competence committee. That will be followed by the statutory industry competence committee within the Building Safety Regulator, to ensure that once the Bill is in force we support the industry to raise competency and contribute a pipeline of people for the new regulatory regime.

To answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, he is right that unions have an important role to play. We had a conversation a week or so ago, and I pointed out to him that the National House Building Council has opened a bricklaying school in my constituency, supported by Redrow. It cuts in half the time it takes for bricklayers to learn their skills, become competent at their profession and receive an appropriate qualification. That is an example of industry working together with third-party organisations to provide the skills, supported by the Government, to ensure that buildings are built properly and effectively.

As I said in my earlier remarks, building regulations currently have minimal provisions about how design and building work should be done. That is wrong and we wish to address that. It is our intention to deal with that through this clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Clause 35 - Lapse of building control approval etc

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

This clause replaces section 32 of the Building Act 1984, that bell-bottom flare and platform-shoe Act that we need to reform in order to make it more competent. I do not mean to be flippant, but we need to make it more appropriate to the modern day. This clause also amends section 52 and schedule 4 of the Act, to simplify the process under which a building control approval given by a building control authority, or an initial notice issued by a registered building control approver, or a public body’s notice, lapses if work has not started after three years.

The changes will bring the Building Act in line with how unused planning permissions lapse automatically after three years if work has not started. Currently, if work has not started after three years, a local authority can issue a notice that any plans approval issued for that work has no effect, or to cancel any initial notice that has been issued for that work.

Rather than placing the onus on the local authority to identify and take proactive action to issue a notice that the building control approval has no effect, or to cancel the notice, the new section 32, and amended sections 52 and schedule 4, allow for the approval or notices to lapse automatically. This simplifies the system and saves the local authority the administration of having to issue the notice of cancellation.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

It looks as if my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West is about to intervene, so I will pre-empt him by giving way.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

My right hon. Friend Minister might intend to touch on this—if so, I apologise for pre-empting him—but in the scenario of a multi-purpose development, could he clarify what would happen if a developer of builder had started work on one building in a multi-building development? Would that still lapse? I am conscious that that is a way in which the system might be gamed.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

If the buildings are connected, so to speak, they will be treated as one. The new provision also rules out any possibility of a developer seeking to game the situation by starting work on one building on a multi-building site and using that to allow the approved building control application, or its initial notice, to continue to have effect for the whole site, even if the site is not built out for many years. It is only for those individual buildings on which work has started that the approval or notice will not lapse; if work has not started, the approval or notice will lapse. This should have the benefit of encouraging sites to be built out more quickly as developers will want to avoid having to resubmit applications. The issue of build-out is raised by colleagues across the House in a wider context, and we may address it in that wider context in another place at another time. Under powers in the clause, we will define in building regulations when work can be considered to start. These amendments will apply in both England and Wales. They are important and sensible changes to simplify how the Act operates.

This is a small but important change, and I commend clause 35 to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

As stated, it is about time that the scenario is brought up to date with the current planning regime. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—this touches on the future conversations that we will undoubtedly have in this place—on whether, if the build-out has not occurred within three years, the response should be to say, “Use it or lose it”.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Our approach—the House’s approach—should always be to make good and effective law. We are all concerned when permissions are granted, be they for tall buildings or smaller buildings, but build-out does not take place. There can be perfectly good and legitimate reasons for that, but there can be less good and less legitimate reasons. The challenge that we have in this Committee and in a broader context with respect to wider planning reform is to ensure that in encouraging build-out, we do not unintentionally create new ways in which those who wish to do so can game the system. Neither do we want unfairly to disadvantage small and medium-sized builders, and we certainly do not want to disadvantage self and custom-build contractors, or people adding an extension to their home.

We have to make sure that we get the regulations right. I think we have attempted to do that through the small change made in clause 35. I am very happy to work across the Floor more broadly, but hon. Members can be assured that we will attempt to do similarly when we bring forward our more substantive changes to planning reform in the future.

Written evidence reported to the House