Building Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 23 September 2021.

Clause 36 - Determination of certain applications by Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

May I remind the Committee to switch electronic devices to silent and to email speaking notes to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk? We begin today’s session with clause 36.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I welcome the Committee back to this final line-by-line scrutiny session before we go into recess again.

The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a stringent regulatory framework to enable the design and construction of better and high-quality homes while providing industry with the clarity and certainty that it needs. Dame Judith’s review found that unnecessary delays in the system must be minimised, and we wholeheartedly agree with that finding. The gateways and building control system have been designed to ensure appropriate consideration of building regulations compliance, including building safety, throughout design and construction.

Applicants in England are encouraged to work with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that decisions are reached in good time or extensions are agreed, and the Building Safety Regulator will make decisions on a variety of matters relating to building control. They include deciding whether to approve or reject the following types of applications: gateway 2 building control applications, change control applications, gateway 3 applications and certain refurbishment applications. To provide industry with certainty for project and financial planning, the Building Safety Regulator will have prescribed periods in which to decide such applications.

Where further time is required—there may be occasions when that is necessary—extensions can be agreed between the regulator and the applicant. However, it is necessary to have an alternative route through which an applicant can get a decision on their application if the Building Safety Regulator has not issued a decision within the required timeframe and an extension has not been agreed, and clause 36 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed to act on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances. We envisage that there will be very few applications that follow this path each year. Like applications decided by the Building Safety Regulator, there will be no set timeframe in which applicants can expect such a decision.

In Wales, failure by the building control authority to decide on an application relating to a higher-risk building will similarly allow the applicant to apply to the Welsh Ministers, or a person appointed by them, for a decision on the application. This is a means by which decisions can be expedited, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

We agree with the Minister.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

This is a really important clause. My right hon. Friend was rather succinct in his comments, but he touched on the balancing of the environment with the Bill. As we talked about in our previous deliberations earlier this week, we want to ensure that we can still have the environment in place in order to continue to build, because we still need to build homes and ensure that there is an adequate process in place. The important part of the clause, which links to other clauses that we have debated so far, is about ensuring that there is an adequate process in place to ensure that there are no delays and that we have adequate building taking place in an expedient manner.

We also need to ensure that those who want to play according to the rules, as I discussed on Tuesday, know how to do that and can ultimately have their matters determined in an expedient manner. I am sure my right hon. Friend will touch on that in his remarks when he responds later, but I want to ensure that in the clause we maintain the balance between a proper determination to ensure safety for leaseholders and residents and an expedient manner to determine applications, which will be important.

I will not talk about the impact in Wales. I commented on that during our previous deliberations, but I fully support the clause, which strikes the right balance in the underlying tensions in the Bill. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s comments in due course.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the Opposition for what appears to be their support for this fairly uncontentious and important clause. I am also obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for his contribution. He is right to say that we want to ensure that building can progress expeditiously and safely. That is why we have put in place sensible review points—the gateways and the hard stops that they provide for. It is also why we have included this clause in the Bill to ensure that where there are occasions—we do not envisage many—when the Building Safety Regulator has failed to issue a decision and no extension to the timeframe has been granted, there is a means by which the applicant can move to get a decision.

We have not specified a timeframe by which the Secretary of State or the person or body appointed by the Secretary of State will be obliged to make a decision because we anticipate that in those very few circumstances a decision might not have been made because of the complexity of the arrangements. That then allows the Secretary of State or the appointed body time and space to come to a conclusion.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

And on the word “conclusion” I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He said that there would not be specific timeframes in the Bill, but can he assure me that there will be ongoing monitoring? The one thing that the clause seeks to achieve is an expedient process, which previous clauses have done as well. Will he touch on how monitoring of the process will be implemented to ensure the aims of the clause are enacted?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was going to say. In secondary legislation we will specify what we believe to be proportionate timescales in which the Building Safety Regulator will have to come to a decision on applications before them. That will place proper focus on the Building Safety Regulator and ensure that applicants get the focus and engagement that they deserve. We will ask the regulator to provide data, and the regulator will report on the number of applications that it receives and the outcome of each application, including the timeframe of each decision and whether extensions were agreed.

Over time, a body of information and evidence will be developed, which, apart from the secondary legislation statutory timeframes for adjudication that we will set, will enable the sector to see the average timeframes and outlier timeframes that the adjudications take and be able to make its decisions accordingly with respect to appeals to the Secretary of State or to the Secretary of State’s appointed appeals body.

We think that in practice the clause and its provisions will be used infrequently, but it is an important backstop, which is why we have included it. It provides, as I say, a legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances, and in Wales for Welsh Ministers to do similarly. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 37 - Compliance and stop notices

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Dame Judith’s review found that the existing building safety enforcement regime is not fit for purpose. That is partly explained by the absence of powers for building control authorities to immediately halt dangerous or non-compliant work. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening enforcement powers for regulators to act against non-compliant building work. Clause 37 takes forward the review’s recommendation and provides more effective powers for building control authorities to ensure compliance with building regulations.

Compliance and stop notices are designed to tackle all forms of non-compliance with building regulations during the design and build stage of all buildings, irrespective of their risk level or intended use. Compliance notices will be available where there is, or is likely to be, a contravention of building regulations. Stop notices are intended to be used where a compliance notice is contravened, or where building regulations are likely to be contravened in such a way as to cause serious harm to people in or around the building.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Not wishing to break my batting average, I will of course give way.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It has to be welcome that we are strengthening the powers of the regulator and local authorities. As the Minister rightly says, these are vital tools for building control authorities, and there is currently no power available to stop non-compliant building work being continued or completed, which is clearly a concern. I am very keen that we do something about that. It is very important that it is tackled.

Will the Minister clarify, first, how the powers will change the bad behaviour that we have seen across the industry? We know that most people in the industry are responsible, but for those who are not, what will we do? How will this change that behaviour? Secondly, what enforcement powers will the Building Safety Regulator have for gateway 2 following on from this?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. On the new powers changing bad behaviour, what we want through the entirety of the Bill is to effect culture change. The clause on its own will not achieve that, but it is part of the cumulative weight of the Bill, which will over time effect culture change. We envision that the additional tools that we are providing to the Building Safety Regulator, and the statutory powers that will be provided, will contribute significantly to that culture change. Safety cases, more regulation of the building control sector, and the gateway assessments and the hard stops involved in them will all play their part in driving that culture change.

We also envision an escalating set of powers for the Building Safety Regulator, and as we move through the late 30-something and early 40-something clauses, I think I will be able to provide further illumination to the Committee on what those enhanced powers will be. Additionally, it will be an offence to start certain building work in higher-risk buildings without building control approval, and stop notices could be used to stop work that is being carried out without approval. We believe—I think this goes some way towards addressing my hon. Friend’s point—that these are critical tools for building control authorities, because as he says, there is currently no power available to stop non-compliant building work from being continued or completed.

Compliance and stop notices will also provide a proportionate but effective way to require companies to rectify non-compliant work swiftly, without the need to bring a prosecution. Compliance notices will require non-compliant work to be rectified within a specified period. As the result of some work may be dangerous, stop notices will be able to halt that work. The stop will normally apply immediately, but a building control authority will have the option of setting a date from which the stop will take effect. Breach of either of these notices will be a criminal offence, punishable by an unlimited fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment. To ensure that all individuals involved in contravening the law are held responsible for their actions, directors and managers of companies found to be complicit in such breaches can also be prosecuted for the offence, as will be further set out in future clauses. This sends a strong signal to those managing companies, as well as individuals, that they will be held responsible for their building safety duties.

The Government intend that these stronger powers will act as more effective deterrents for individuals and their corporate associates who wish to engage in non-compliant building work in the belief that they will not face any consequences for doing so. They will, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I should have said earlier, Mr Efford, that it is yet again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

We welcome the increased regulation—the compliance and stop notices recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review—but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will these powers given to the regulator apply to buildings that are 11 to 18 metres tall, and will compliant products be kitemarked for ease of inspection to ensure that they are compliant, or not?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I should also have said in my previous contribution that it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair today, Mr Efford, and I thank you for your indulgence during our previous deliberations. You are being very generous with your time in the Chair.

I have a few questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister as well, dovetailing with what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said. The one concern I have is about individuals who purchase their property pre-completion of construction—because that does happen in these settings too—and what protections we can devise for that. I have seen it happen before: people have put down a deposit or spent significant amounts of money on legal and transactional fees to get to a particular point. I heard what my right hon. Friend said, and I agree that we are talking about extreme cases of individuals who are flouting the rules or not following them, but my concern is that as we embed new sets of regulations, issues often become apparent quite commonly and quite quickly. I am sure that those of us who have been Members much longer than I have will have seen the array of issues that arise when new legislation comes into effect during its initial implementation.

My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether he is open to a broader discussion about what we can do to avoid potential blockages in transactions as an unintended consequence of this. What we see is that people who are trying to let or purchase properties are left in limbo, with a back and forth for months on end, while stop notices are issued and remediation is done. Clause 37 seeks to ensure that remediation is taken, and, more importantly, that work in the initial process is compliant in the first place and we do not reach a situation where stop notices have to be issued.

Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)

I agree with my hon. Friend that clause 37 takes forward the important recommendations in the review to ensure that building control authorities are issuing compliance and stop notices in relation to the contravention of building regulations. Does he agree that the clause will also strengthen the powers for the regulator and local authorities?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

To answer my hon. Friend’s question, we need to go back to what Dame Judith Hackitt said. She found a fundamental flaw in the regulatory framework. Effectively, it was giving unscrupulous developers almost a free pass at times. It was not fit for purpose. I believe that clause 37 will achieve the aims that my hon. Friend has articulated.

I suppose this comes back to the point that the Bill is a balancing act. My central concern is about the vulnerable leaseholders at the heart of this—the people we expect to live in these developments. There are always two sides to the coin. We need to ensure that these leaseholders are not stung at the outset by developers who are not following the rules in the first place. I am trying to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need to ensure that those processes are in place and that they work with bodies. This comes back to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby articulated in our previous deliberations around resourcing and funding, and ensuring that our local authorities, building control authorities and the regulatory framework have the expertise. We are not just trying to pigeonhole things into one particular resource package.

I notice the reference to the appeals process in clause 37. I am sure colleagues have read it in as much depth as I have. It talks extensively about the appeals process. That requires our court system to be functioning in a way that allows the process to be as expedient as possible. I do apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister; he has got a shopping list of asks from me on one clause. He probably thought it would be a little less demanding than this. I ask him to ensure that there are ongoing discussions between his Department and the Ministry of Justice about ensuring that this is implemented in an expedient way.

We need to ensure that there are stop notices for those that have put thousands of pounds into a development they are waiting for. I have constituents in similar situations who have written to me who are left out in the cold because a developer issued a stop notice that goes back and forth for months, because they have reserves of money where they can fight and fight, or it is backlogged in the courts for months. We know of the issues with backlogs in the courts in other areas. I will not test your indulgence, Mr Efford, by going down that route. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister continued that dialogue with his colleagues across Government to ensure that the clause does not have unintended consequences that I am sure he does not want to see.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

As my hon. Friend has said, I think it is very important that when these rules are contravened action is taken and that that action is appropriate. I note from the clause that, as well as a criminal offence, there is a maximum penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment. One of my concerns has always been that there are other people in this chain—be that secretaries, directors, managers and so on. I notice that we will come to that when we consider clause 39. Does he agree that putting that criminal offence in there and being clear about what is happening when that is contravened strengthens the clause even further?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Dame Judith Hackitt’s review highlighted a shameful system. Putting in place a criminal offence shows that we will not and should not tolerate this shoddy behaviour any more, and nor should those individuals who have had to suffer the highest cost as a result of it. He is right in what he says in the spirit of his intervention. He listed the plethora of individuals who would be caught by this and I do not disagree that they should. People should not be able to hide behind the corporate veil and dodge liability. He is right that, in drafting the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister and his team have ensured that it is all-encapsulating. What we do not want to see—perhaps I am being optimistic, but I hope not—is individuals being able to dodge this.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

On a point of order, Mr Efford. For clarity, are we talking to clause 37 or clause 38, which is about offences?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am grateful for the point of order, but as far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West is in order. He seems to be speaking to sections of the clause. I think you can take it as read, because I have not interrupted him, that he is in order.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am talking to clause 37. To help the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, I am responding to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. He asked a specific point about the categories of people caught by clause 37, so I am just expanding on that and explaining why it is right for those individuals. I am saying, just as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out in his opening comments—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale agrees with me—exactly why those individuals should be caught by the clause.

I was in the process of winding up my comments prior to that point of order. I fully support the clause, which brings out issues that my right hon. Friend the Minister needs to address. I do not want it to result in unintended consequences and I hope that he can give me a reassurance, to take back to leaseholders who have been caught out and, more broadly, to the industry, that there will be no delays. The clause is an important development in stop notices. It will enable our regulatory framework to act quickly to prevent serious situations from occurring and, I hope, prevent other scenarios from causing issues down the line. I want to be sure of that, so I press my right hon. Friend for a guarantee that he will do whatever he can to ensure that the process operates expediently and that it will have no unintended consequences.

Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)

It is a pleasure to be back before you so quickly this week, Mr Efford. I will be brief. I want to expand on the issue of the need for culture change. Hon. Members have already raised this and the Minister himself has said that the clause is part of the cumulative weight of the Bill to achieve a culture change. That is crucial. Not only is Dame Judith correct in her assessment and desire to see change, which has led to clause 37. The lay public would be genuinely shocked, if they had no experience of these worlds, to learn that there is currently no power available to prevent non-compliant building from creating these issues.

I welcome clause 37 and I am glad that the Government are addressing the issue. bringing matters forward. However, to really achieve culture change, there need to be prosecutions. We know that we are far off that at the moment. What discussions has the Minister had with stakeholders and others on the formulation of the regulator and the creation of clause 37? There is a real appetite not only to enforce the clause and the new, strengthened powers but to drive them through to prosecutions, which are the true deterrent and which will lead to change in the industry.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the Committee for its deliberations on clause 37 and for the questions that have been asked of me. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked me two specific questions. First, will the measures in clause 37 also apply to buildings below 18 metres? The answer is yes. Perhaps I can explain further. I said that these powers are critical tools for building control authorities. The building control authority could be the Building Safety Regulator, for in-scope buildings, or local authorities, for other buildings. The Building Safety Regulator will use clause 37 for enforcement purposes on the buildings for which it is responsible, and local authorities can use the powers in the clause for buildings for which they may be responsible.

The hon. Gentleman asked me, secondly, about product compliance and kitemarking. In our witness sessions, we heard some evidence on the importance of having good product development and specification. There are clauses later in the Bill that address the question of product specifications, so we can have debates about those.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West made a passionate speech, calling for a proper recognition that in-flight work and development have to be properly understood and recognised. He said that it is important that we do not unintentionally create bad or poor effects for players across the sector, particularly the residents of in-scope buildings. We are working with representatives across the building control system to effectively benchmark the existing regulatory capacity and to ensure that all the actors in the regime have the capabilities to abide by it and an understanding of the consequences if they do not. That is one of the reasons why we are using secondary legislation—to ensure that we are able to properly understand what it is that we need to implement in granular detail, having consulted stakeholders and taken on board comments from members of the Committee.

As I have indicated, we are also working very closely with the shadow regulator, the Health and Safety Executive and others to ensure that we transition to the new regime in such a way that we mitigate the effects of in-flight development. We do not want to endanger people in and around buildings that have been built unsafely, but to ensure that those buildings can be properly, safely and expeditiously built within the constraints of the new regulatory regime. We need to make sure that the transition is effectively executed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made the very important point that we need to ensure not only that the penalties in the Bill are understood but that prosecutions can effectively be brought. We have tried to ensure that through this and other clauses, and through discussions with officials and colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and in expert bodies, such as the HSE. That has helped us to build an approach that will ensure that there are sufficient and appropriate penalties, in an escalating manner, that the sector will understand and that can be applied successfully should they be necessary.

We want to give the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities the powers they need to do the jobs we are asking of them. With that, I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

Clause 38 - Breach of building regulations

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

A breach of building regulations can have serious consequences for residents in occupied buildings We saw that four years ago in the Grenfell Tower fire and we have seen it on other occasions. The independent review found that

“where enforcement is…pursued, the penalties are so small as to be an ineffective deterrent.”

That is why, to repeat some of the points I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the Government are committed to ensuring that where building regulations are contravened, building control authorities have the necessary powers to enforce the rules and offenders receive a proportionate penalty for their non-compliance.

Clause 38, alongside clause 37, will provide a stronger deterrent to those doing building work and, where necessary, stronger sanctions for building control authorities to use. At the moment, offenders can only receive unlimited fines for their contravention of the law. Even where directors or managers are complicit in their company’s wrongdoing, they are sheltered from the consequences, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.

The new custodial sentence we are introducing serves to reflect the gravity of breaching building regulations and, alongside clause 39, which we will discuss shortly, brings the threat of imprisonment to any director or manager of a company who is found to be complicit or negligent in an act of non-compliance. We intend for the higher custodial sentence to operate as an effective deterrent against negligent, reckless or dangerous behaviour.

Where previously prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act 1984 had to be brought within two years, making the offence triable in a Crown court removes the time limit altogether, enabling building control authorities to prosecute breaches of building regulations even when they come to light much later. There is no longer a two-year limit to court action.

This clause goes further and makes clear that the section 35 offence applies not only to breaches of the building regulations themselves, but to requirements imposed under building regulations, such as conditions imposed as part of building regulation approvals. The increased coverage will send a signal that no requirement under building regulations can be ignored without consequences.

As with other changes we have already discussed, this provision aims to encourage those involved in building work to do the right thing and to disincentivise substandard building work. To return briefly to a previous debate, in order to make this absolutely clear, whatever planning route a building is subject to, all relevant building work must comply with building regulation, whether it is on a higher-risk building or otherwise, and whether it benefits from permitted development rights or not. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale made that point in our previous sitting and alluded to it in his previous contribution.

In addition, the extension of the enforcement period under section 36 of the Building Act from one year to 10 years will provide another effective route through which building control authorities can enforce building regulations. This clause responds to the review’s recommendation that the sanctions available under the Building Act be enhanced to enable building control authorities to act effectively but proportionately whenever they encounter non-compliance. They will now have stronger powers to ensure that all buildings are designed and constructed in line with regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

We welcome the stronger sanctions, given the gravity of the consequences and the context, which the Minister referred to, of the tragic events of Grenfell over four years ago.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I, too, welcome the clause. I wish to raise a couple of points with the Minister about the defences under proposed new section 35(2) of the Building Act, relating to instances where duty holders believe wrongly that another duty holder has reported an incident. It will be

“A defence to the offence of failure to report where the person being prosecuted was not aware of the occurrence which gave rise to the requirement to report”.

I want to ensure that the scope of the defences is as tight as it can be. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck. We are fully aware that incidents happen; human failure can happen and we cannot eliminate that, so we have to take account of that within the regulatory framework, but we need to tighten the circumstances where this defence can be used. I am conscious that there is a risk that developers will see this as an opportunity to do some finger-pointing and say, “It wasn’t me. It was him,” or, “No, he missed that and I missed that.” I know that is not the intention behind the defences under clause 38, but can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure me that there will be appropriate guidance on implementation and enforcement of the provisions of clause 38, which is really important?

We have an obligation to follow through on what Dame Judith Hackitt noted in her report, particularly about the regulatory landscape. Ultimately, we do not want people who have not done right by the people we are trying to protect to find some way of getting round things. I know my right hon. Friend has worked hard to ensure that does not happen, but given that the broader point of the clause is to send out a message, particularly through custodial sentences, that breach of building regulations is serious—we are dealing with human life, as we saw with Grenfell—I want to get some reassurance from him that he will tighten that up.

I welcome the enforcement period extension. I think that is right. My right hon. Friend touched on that in his comments, so I do not need to repeat that. If he can give me those reassurances, I will be immensely grateful.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to you, Mr Efford, and my hon. Friend, who is quite within his rights to ask for reassurances.

I reiterate that clause 38 needs to be read in conjunction with clause 37. I made it clear that the current building safety enforcement regime is not fit for purpose; there are too many gaps and loopholes. With compliance notices and stop notices, clause 37 tightens the regime. Clause 38 is designed to ensure that in the event of contravention of such notices, the enforcement powers and penalties are that much greater. If my hon. Friend reads clause 37 in conjunction with clause 38, he will see that we are doing exactly that—tightening up the loopholes from compliance and imposing stronger and more effective penalties where there are contraventions.

As I said in my opening remarks, the clause responds to the independent review’s recommendation to enhance sanctions available under the Building Act 1984, which is now some years old. We are committed to doing that and ensuring that where building regulations are contravened, building control authorities—the Building Safety Regulator or local authorities on whom the hat fits—have the necessary powers to enforce the rules and offenders receive a proportionate penalty for non-compliance.

It will be for building control authorities to act effectively but proportionately whenever they encounter non-compliance. We will come to that in more detail in further clauses. We are giving those building control authorities stronger powers to ensure that all buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with regulations, and to sanction those who do not follow those regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 39 - Liability of officers of body corporate etc

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will be more succinct in respect of this clause, because it follows on from clauses 37 and 38 and I referred briefly to it earlier.

Many of the persons with responsibilities under the Building Act 1984 are and will be corporate bodies, or “legal persons”, rather than individuals, who are known as “natural persons”. Any corporate body operates only through the actions of its employees, controlled by its managers and directors. As such, if there is an offence by a corporate body, there is likely to be some measure of personal failure by those in positions of seniority.

That liability is already provided for in a number of other pieces of legislation, including, most notably, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The end result is that directors, managers and other such persons are just as criminally responsible as the company at which they have either made decisions directly leading to an offence being committed, or been negligent in allowing an offence to occur.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

Will my right hon. Friend clarify how that will apply when there is only one director of a corporate body?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am not a lawyer by training, although involvement in the Bill has given me some legal background—not all of it as exciting as watching “Crown Court” on television. A corporate body and the director are separate legal entities, so normally two separate prosecutions would occur. However, in practice, both prosecutions would be conducted at the same time. If there were a conviction, it would be for the court and the judge to sentence the corporate body and the individual appropriately. Although the law says that they are two separate persons, the court action would take place in conjunction and the sentencing of both entities would be as the court decided. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

My hon. Friend appears to be moving to intervene. I am conscious that I have failed to give way only once—to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth—and that was by accident, so in order to keep up my almost perfect track record, I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is characteristically very generous. I would be interested to hear how the clause would deal with developers that dissolve, disappear or fall into difficulties as a result of this. He has been assisting me with a matter in my constituency, where a developer dissolved and left the residents in a bit of limbo, so he knows all about that.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

My hon. Friend is stretching my legal knowledge, although not quite to breaking point.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am not sure that the question is entirely within the scope of the clause.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

In the sense that we are discussing companies, if a company has dissolved by the point of prosecution, it cannot be prosecuted. However, to address my hon. Friend’s point, that does not preclude the liability of individual company directors or managers. They can be prosecuted individually, even if the corporate identity itself has passed into history and is beyond prosecution.

The potential for criminal liability of directors and managers reinforces the duty of those who direct the actions of companies to uphold and promote building safety throughout the operations of their companies. We consider that it is a key contributor to our stated purpose of embedding building safety at all levels of industry, contributing to residents both being and feeling safe in their homes.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I thank the Minister for giving way. It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Efford. I cannot see a problem with the objectives of the clause and we will not object to it, but it gives me the opportunity to ask about the issue of personal liability insurance. We are picking up that construction trade professionals in the UK are increasingly struggling to get appropriate insurance. Have the Government done an impact assessment on the issue of liability insurance and how that impacts construction professionals?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the hon. Lady and I can ensure her that insurance, risk assurance and personal indemnity insurance, for example, are addressed in part 3, so I suspect that we will address those issues at greater length in the not-too-distant future.

In amending the Building Act 1984 through the clause, as well as increasing the maximum penalties under that Act, we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those responsible. I commend the clause—

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

—once I have given way to my hon. Friend.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. My question relates to something that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West touched on during discussion of clause 37. There is a sort of cloak of corporate responsibility that people have hidden behind for far too long. It is almost like a game of pass the parcel when it comes to taking responsibility for some defects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than enabling responsibility to be avoided, the clause widens the scope and makes sure we can focus minds? We will be increasing accountability rather than taking away from it.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said earlier, corporate liability is already provided for in other pieces of legislation—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example. By embedding this clause in the Bill we remind corporate players—directors, managers and other appropriate senior parties in businesses—of their responsibility, and that their businesses and they themselves can be prosecuted if the standard of work or the actions that they undertake fall below the standards required in the Bill, which then allows for criminal prosecution.

The clause will further engender and embed the culture change that we all desire, so that at some point in the not-too-distant future these sorts of court actions will become a thing of the past, because all players act in a responsible way to ensure that buildings are designed, built and managed safely. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank the Minister and other members of the Committee for their contributions. The clause responds directly to the Grenfell residents’ voices, which is most welcome. We had a situation where developers, subcontractors and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea put in inferior products and cladding, despite the recommendations for that building. We have seen that sort of thing littered throughout the industry, as people have said. The clause will act as a very effective deterrent, drive the culture change that we have spoken about, and apply the tragic lessons learned in recent years.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West and for Bassetlaw for their contributions, and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his recognition that once again the tragedy of Grenfell has opened our eyes to issues in the sector, the loopholes in compliance, and the paucity of penalties, which we are now collectively attempting to rectify. By agreeing to the clause we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those who are responsible for it—individuals, corporate bodies, or the individuals in senior positions who make up those corporate bodies. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

We now come to clause 30—[Interruption.] I am sorry; we now come to clause 40.

Clause 40 - Revocation etc of certain provision made under section 2(2) of ECA 1972

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I would be happy enough to speak to clause 30 again, Mr Efford, although I am not sure that that is the desire of the Committee. My eloquence and possibly my effluence covered all bases.

Clause 40 makes a technical but necessary provision to enable the revocation of out-of-date provisions in building regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 as we modernise the regulations in years to come. Although the major part of the building regulations was made using powers in the Building Act 1984, a few provisions were made using the powers in the European Communities Act. That Act has now of course been repealed, so those powers are no longer available, meaning that at present the provisions made under the Act cannot be amended or revoked.

The building regulations will need to be updated in the light of the changes being made in the Bill. As part of that exercise, we will be looking to consolidate the significant number of amendments made to the regulations in recent years, to make the regulations easier to use for industry and building control bodies. We will need to be able to revoke the existing regulations and replace them with new ones, and without the powers provided by clause 40 we would be in an anomalous position, in that building regulations made under the European Communities Act could not be revoked, so we would not be able to undertake a comprehensive updating and consolidation.

Clause 40 works by treating building regulations made using powers in both the Building Act 1984 and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act as a “combined instrument” and then provides, in subsection (2), powers for building regulations to revoke provision in a combined instrument. Clause 40(3) disapplies paragraphs 13 and 14 of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in respect of any regulations that amend provision in a combined instrument. This will mean that any such regulations will be made, like building regulations, under the negative resolution procedure. Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause also apply to Wales. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of schedule 8 to the 2018 Act do not apply to statutory instruments made by the Welsh Ministers, so subsection (3) does not apply to Wales.

Clause 40 is needed to allow us to make changes to building regulations, so that we can update and improve legislation. It is a very technical clause.

Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)

Revoking anything can lead to fears of an inadvertent reduction in standards. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the clause and the work behind it will achieve exactly the opposite?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

This is no back-door attempt to reduce standards now or to introduce poorer standards in the future. It is simply a necessary technical means of allowing standards to be introduced by overriding a now defunct Act; otherwise, we would not be able to repeal or change standards and regulations relating to it. For example, our future homes standard and, indeed, the future buildings standard go way beyond anything that was required of us when we were a member of the European Union or that is required of us under the European Communities Act. I assure the Committee that this is a technical change—a necessary legal and technical change—and not an attempt to reduce standards by subterfuge. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank the Minister and other Members who have made contributions. As the Minister said, this is a technical but necessary clause. He referred to the future homes and future buildings standards, and I would like to explore the interplay between the Building Safety Regulator and those up-and-coming standards.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The future homes standard, which we will consult on and will legislate on in 2023-24 to introduce in 2025, will require all buildings built from that point to be at least 75% more carbon efficient than buildings built under present regulations. Importantly, they will also be zero carbon rated, so they will not need to be retrofitted as we change the electricity grid. Those regulations will be in force from that point—clearly, they are not law yet—and all regulators will need to have regard to them and will need to issue appropriate guidance once those changes are enacted in law, so that local authorities, the Building Safety Regulator and product manufacturers understand what needs to be embedded in product creation and the design and management of buildings, subject to the law as it stands.

I will conclude—unless anybody else wishes to intervene; I do not think they do—by saying that this is a very technical clause that is very necessary to ensure that we have a regulation landscape that we can properly manage. I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 41 - Regulation of building control profession

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 41, page 50, line 24, at end insert—

“(7) Section 91B of this Act (cooperation and sharing of information between Welsh Ministers and other authorities) applies as if references to the Welsh Ministers included references to a person to whom the Welsh Ministers have delegated functions under this section.”

This amendment provides that section 91B of the Building Act 1984 (inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill) applies in relation to a person to whom functions are delegated under section 58Y as it applies in relation to the Welsh Ministers.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23 to 34.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

This group of amendments deals with duties to co-operate and information-sharing powers between Welsh Ministers, fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors. Schedule 3, which we debated and disposed of on Tuesday, already contains very similar provisions for England. To reiterate, that schedule creates statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other relevant public bodies. Furthermore, it allows local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to share information about building safety and standards and issues across all buildings, including buildings outside of the higher-risk regime regulated by the Building Safety Inspector.

Amendment 29 places duties to co-operate on Welsh Ministers and creates information-sharing powers for them, enabling them to work with other Welsh statutory bodies—fire and rescue authorities, fire inspectors, and local authorities. Sharing of information and co-operation are key elements in delivering the improvements that the Bill proposes. For Welsh Ministers, those duties and powers relate to their functions under part 2A of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 18 addresses the need for Welsh Ministers’ duty to co-operate and power to share information to be cascaded down where their functions in respect of building inspectors and/or building control approvers are delegated.

Amendment 25 removes the limitation on co-operation and information sharing between Welsh fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors, so that it is no longer restricted to higher-risk buildings only. Those bodies will work together across the whole range of buildings in Wales.

Amendments 24, 28 and 31 clarify that the duties to co-operate and powers to share information apply to Welsh fire and rescue authorities, as defined by amendment 33, and fire inspectors, defined by amendment 30. Amendment 34 mirrors clause 26, which we have already discussed and voted on. It confirms that information sharing under this provision must comply with the data protection legislation, so that people’s privacy rights are overridden only in certain specific circumstances. Amendments 23, 26, 27 and 32 make the consequential changes necessitated by the substantive amendments.

I am sure that Committee Members have followed all those amendments very closely, and I commend them to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Again, these are very technical but necessary amendments, which ultimately simplify and unify building control legislation, processes and procedures, and enforcement.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Dame Judith’s independent review raised serious concerns over the lack of a level playing field for approved inspectors and local authority building control. There were different statutory and non-statutory processes leading to incoherence, confusion and complexity in the system.

Clause 41 establishes a new registration and oversight regime to provide consistency across the public and private sector, and creates a new, unified building control profession. The new registration regime will raise standards in the sector and enhance public confidence by requiring a minimum level of demonstrated competence to provide building control services on different types of buildings. For the first time, individual building control professionals, whether in the public or private sector, will have to register with a regulatory authority. That is the Building Safety Regulator in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales.

We intend for the registration process to involve the demonstration of competence against a shared framework. Registered professionals, who will be called “registered building inspectors”, will need to adhere to a common code of conduct. We will now be able to hold individuals accountable for professional misconduct or incompetence. That is the foundation for clause 43, in which we set out certain activities and functions that building control bodies can carry out only by using a registered inspector.

Together, these clauses will change the way building inspectors work with and for building control bodies, giving the consumer greater assurance that an experienced professional will be checking their building against regulations. We are introducing an updated registration regime for private sector building control bodies, currently known as approved inspectors. They will have to register with the regulatory authority to work as a registered building control approver and will be held to professional conduct rules. We are introducing sanctions and offences for misconduct to ensure that those organisations that supervise building works are held to high professional standards.

Clause 41 also allows the regulatory authority to delegate those registration functions to another body. We are introducing a new framework for the oversight of the performance of building control bodies, levelling the playing field for local authority building control and registered building control approvers. The regulatory authority will be able to set the operational standards defining the minimum performance standards that building control bodies must meet. It sets out the reporting requirements that will enable the regulator to collect information to assess and analyse the performance of building control bodies and make recommendations to drive up standards. It gives the regulatory authority investigatory powers when building control bodies breach the operating standards, and a series of escalating sanctions and enforcement measures to address poor performance issues.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

This is, obviously, a necessary and very technical clause, setting out a strong new regime of how we can improve competence levels and accountability in the building control sector. I wonder if he could clarify how the regulator will deal with poor performing building control bodies?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

We want to make sure that such a body has the right sanctions available to it. We want to give it a robust set of powers to investigate performance and, where appropriate, impose escalating sanctions. In the most serious cases, the powers will include the cancellation of the registration of the building control approvers. It will mean potentially the effective taking over of the function of a local authority building control by appointed officers from another local authority. We want to give the regulator the tools to ensure that building control bodies are improving safety and performance, driving up standards, and that, where they themselves are not performing, there is a means by which sanctions can be applied. Clause 41 is essential to creating a more robust and competent building control sector, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

As the Minister says, this will raise the bar and raise the standards of building control throughout, as recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt and the review. It will do so through its process procedure and, very importantly, enforcement and deterrent. One of the concerns the Opposition raised with other clauses is the potential to have a two-track approach to building control with buildings below 18 metres. What assurances can the Minister give that that will not be the case and that standards will be raised in buildings that are below 18 metres, say, from 11 to 18 metres?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I, too, welcome clause 41 and its effect on the Building Act. I want to raise a point with my right hon. Friend the Minister around clarity. We will effectively have two bodies in England and Wales that will deal with this. In England it is the regulator itself and in Wales it is Welsh Ministers. I would be grateful if he will confirm that he will ensure that his Department will keep that discussion ongoing. The importance of the clause, as with the rest of the Bill, is to ensure consistency. We talked in previous deliberations about cross-border work. We need to ensure that the professionals who would sit within this regime have consistency and are conducting work across the English-Welsh border to ensure that we keep the market going and continue to meet those home building targets.

I agree that the Bill is long overdue. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out, it is about raising standards and ensuring that the profession knows what is expected of it. There is a broader point to be made on communication: making sure the points contained within clause 41 are communicated clearly, not just within the profession but more broadly. We have talked about how the impacts of making these regulatory and standards changes need to be communicated with the sector and with training providers, but they need to be communicated with the industry more broadly. If that is not done, we might have a situation in which people enter the industry without necessarily being clear about where they need to be. I would therefore ask the Minister to be sure that his Department continues to engage.

Considering the issues, the measure is long overdue. It is common sense and something that any other regulated profession would do. There is detail about the power to have investigations, and again we need to ensure that that system works and that the regulator is in place for that, in particular for proposed new section 58H—that system must flow properly. Sanctions, too, must be proportionate. The clause is a significant one, so I will not go into every single element of it, but will the Minister ensure that its implementation is reviewed and that we continue the discourse on it, notably on proposed new section 58I on sanctions for professional misconduct?

The regulator must ensure that it continues those discussions of what is appropriate. As we have touched on in other deliberations, circumstances change and things develop. I reiterate that to the Minister, and I ask him to ensure that his Department continues those communications, that the expectations of the industry are communicated and that under the mandate of clause 41 the regulator continues its conversations with Welsh Ministers, so that we can have consistency—that will be key, given its cross-border nature. We must ensure that the clause is implemented so it is how we want to see it work. I am sure he will, but I will be grateful for his reassurances.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am happy to give those reassurances to my hon. Friend. We will need to take care as we plan the transition to the new regime. I assure him that in our discussions with Ministers in Wales, with other Departments and with the Health and Safety Executive we are exploring appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure that the building control sector moves smoothly and safely from one uneven playing field to a more even one, in an orderly way, as I said.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked about the new registration regime. In the clause, we are attempting to create the oversight and the regime that will provide consistency across the public and private sectors, creating a new unified building control profession for all buildings in the sector. The new regime will not only raise standards in the sector, but enhance public confidence by requiring a minimum level of demonstrated competence to provide building control services on different types of buildings. One can imagine that with a high-rise, higher-risk building, the competence levels that the Building Safety Regulator requires could be higher than or different from those for other buildings. We might come to that in later clauses.

In the meantime, I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause is vital to create a more robust and competent building control sector. I commend it—

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Or I will commend it shortly, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Brentford.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

Brentford and Isleworth, to be precise, but I thank the Minister for being so generous in allowing my intervention. The submission from the Local Authority Building Control group welcomed this aspect of the legislation and the clause. It expressed one concern, which I am raising as a question, about CICAIR—Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register—which is designated by the Secretary of State to register and provide the oversight of approved inspectors. Has the Minister taken on board its recommendation that immediate action is taken to strengthen the audit process of CICAIR to include the requirement for external independent technical auditing in advance of the Bill being enacted? It wants to do that in order to improve current performance and standards.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am happy to work with CICAIR. We work with it to ensure that, for example, registration fees are proportionate. We will set out more details of that later. Fundamentally, we want to ensure that the registration and regulatory oversight process is sensible. I am happy to have further discussions with it and my officials about any appropriate audit trail. I am sure that the Building Safety Regulator—presently in shadow, but as it builds its approach—will also want to have those sensible discussions.

I will accept no more interventions and conclude by saying that the clause is essential to create a more robust and competent building control sector. I commend it to the Committee.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Before I call the Government Whip, may I say to Members that it is customary to stand in your place if you want to indicate to the Chair that you wish to speak? I am not an auctioneer. I was a London taxi driver, so I am good at spotting various gestures, but it would be helpful if you could stand in your place.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Before we begin, I remind Members that we have quite a lot of the Bill still to get through—we have only reached clause 42 of 147—and that points should be made succinctly where possible. I am sure the Committee will want to give due scrutiny to all of the Bill and the various new clauses that have been tabled. The explanatory notes to the Bill have been published, so I say gently to the Minister that he should not feel the need to recite them.

One Member has caught my eye and asked whether it is okay to remove his jacket. I am quite relaxed about that; if people want to remove their jackets, they can.

Clause 42 - Transfer of approved inspectors’ functions to registered building control approvers

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to you, Mr Efford, for offering me the opportunity to speak to clause 42. I am mindful of the points that you have just made about the importance of succinctness. Given that this is a relatively technical and uncontroversial clause, while reserving my right to speak as I feel appropriate to other clauses, I propose to move it formally. [Interruption.]

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I have made a request that people stand in their place if they want to speak. I call Mike Amesbury.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I concur with the Minister.

Clause 43 - Functions exercisable only through, or with advice of, registered building inspectors

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Once again, this being a relatively straightforward and uncontroversial clause, I propose to move it formally.

Clause 44 - Default powers of appropriate national authority

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will speak a little to this clause, because I think it bears some scrutiny. The Government are committed to driving up the standard of building control. Clause 44 strengthens the powers in relation to failing local authorities by giving the Secretary of State a new power in England to make an order to transfer building control functions of a failing local authority to another local authority. Currently, the Secretary of State only has the power to transfer the functions of a failing local authority to himself.

The clause should be read in conjunction with clause 41, and in particular proposed new section 58Z7 of the Building Act 1984, under which the regulator will be able to recommend that the Secretary of State makes an order to transfer the functions of a failing local authority building control department. Where such a department has consistently failed to meet the required standards and that is putting the safety of persons in or about buildings at risk, the Secretary of State could, for example, transfer only the management of the building control function to another local authority. That would mean that senior officers or managers from another authority would manage the failing building control department to return it to full compliance. Once the performance issues of the failing authority have been addressed, the Secretary of State will consult the regulator and revoke the order, returning the building control function to the local authority.

The clause makes a number of consequential and clarificatory amendments to sections 116 to 118 of the 1984 Act, including amending section 118 of the Act to allow for the variation or revocation of an order by the appropriate national authority to return the transferred functions to the original local authority. The Secretary of State must first consult the Building Safety Regulator and make additional provisions to deal with the transfer and discharge of any liabilities through the revoking or new order.

The amendments in clause 44 are important for improving the competence of building control teams, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I will be brief in my remarks to the Minister. I am just looking for some clarity and reassurance. The Executive and the Secretary of State obviously hold a lot of power here. What checks and balances will be built in, regardless of the political complexion of the Secretary of State?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Just to clarify, the present law allows the Secretary of State to transfer only to himself the power to take on the functions of a failing local authority. In terms of checks and balances, what we are trying to do is allow the Secretary of State greater discretion to transfer to another appropriate local authority the authority to discharge those functions on behalf of the failing local authority while it is brought back into competence. The effect is to ensure that another local authority—possibly one that is closer to the one that has failed or is similar in terms of the housing stock, and that has a greater degree of historical success in dealing with such issues—can perform the role of the local authority.

As I said in my concluding remarks, we have also ensured that any liabilities—in other words, any costs incurred by the local authority that is taking on the responsibility—can be properly recovered by that local authority, so that it is not out of pocket as a result of taking on those responsibilities. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues appear to support the clause, and I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 47 - Insurance

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I know that this clause is of some interest to members of the Committee, so I shall make some remarks and then address any questions or debating points in my concluding remarks.

The clause relates to the legal requirements for insurance for private sector building control professionals. When the private sector competitive element was introduced in 1984, a requirement was included in the Building Act of that year for approved inspectors to have “adequate insurance” from a Government-approved scheme in relation to the work that they supervise. The Bill maintains the double protection of requiring adequate insurance from a Government-approved insurance scheme. We believe that that is a sensible protection for approved inspectors, consumers and the construction sector.

The Bill also maintains the current requirement for approved inspectors to prove that they have insurance before they can obtain permission to start work on a new project—also known as the initial notice process. However, there have been difficulties in the past with a limited number of approved insurance schemes and no set definition of what constitutes the adequate insurance required. The problem worsened when it coincided with much wider insurance market changes, especially in 2019, and a reduction in the level of risk that insurers were prepared to accept. That led to cases of approved inspectors being unable to obtain insurance cover and, therefore, to operate. The number of approved inspectors involved was already small, but the effects on ongoing projects and local authorities that had to pick up the work were noticeable.

The Bill makes two main changes to reform and address that situation while keeping the fundamental requirement for insurance for approved inspectors. The first is a duty to prepare and publish guidance on what is adequate insurance cover. The second is the ability for the Secretary of State to designate bodies to undertake the functions both of joined-up guidance and of approving insurance schemes.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

Who might the Government approve to do that work on their behalf? Will it be part of the Building Safety Regulator’s role?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Over the next few weeks and months we will assess all potential organisations that might undertake that role. They will need to demonstrate expertise and capability, to determine whether they can meet the high standards set by any prospective building control insurance scheme. We will pursue an answer to that question over the next several weeks and months. I will be happy to update the House as we progress through that process.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

Sadly, the construction industry does not enjoy a lot of confidence, which is no surprise, mainly because of the fires we have had. Professional indemnity is very difficult to get; far more questions are being asked to obtain it. The Association of British Insurers has been very involved with the Government and is broadly very supportive of the Bill—it is the right step and will improve the building industry and commercial and residential premises. However, the ABI has made a number of significant comments about using modern methods of construction

“to ensure these buildings are built and maintained in a way which enables them to access affordable insurance for the lifetime of the property.”

It has also called on the Government to develop

“a publicly accessible database of buildings developed using Modern Methods of Construction which provides information on the materials used, methods of construction and relevant standards or certification”

and to mandate

“the installation of high integrity fire alarms in all new developments to address the high number”—

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Order. This is meant to be an intervention.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

I do not consider that the Bill will address all the insurance problems. I am concerned that we may end up in a situation where we do not get the buildings done, because of the insurance problem. I do not believe that we can do everything in the timescale to enable the construction of the homes that we need—

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Order. Can I say gently that we have not had much deliberation in this Committee, so I am loth to shut this down, but rather than making a long intervention, the hon. Lady should make a speech. I am sure the Minister will answer your points equally well whether you make a speech or an intervention. We cannot have interventions of that length. I assume the hon. Lady is finished.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

I will endeavour to find out how to make a speech when it is appropriate, and I will then do so.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I understand the point that she makes, which does bear 30 seconds of explanation. We are working with the modern methods of construction expert Mark Farmer to find ways of standardising the modern methods of construction sector. The off-site construction standards mechanisms that have been developed over the last few years to respond to that new marketplace give lenders and insurers adequate protections and assurances. Her point speaks to the wider issue that, in an evolving building terrain, where new methods of construction are being constantly developed, it is right that we have a flexible building safety regime to respond to those concerns. That is one of the reasons why, rather than placing lots of regulations and requirements in the Bill, we are using secondary legislation and regulations to respond to that evolving terrain. I think that modern methods of construction will be one of the areas in which the terrain responds.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

May I intervene?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)

I should not apologise, because I need to make a point. There is too much dependence on secondary legislation, and we do not have sight of it. When will it be introduced? I like to make informed decisions, but I am not able to when there is this constant reference to future regulations and secondary legislation. When I get to read about the regulations, it says that they are subject to or delegated to statutory instruments, so I am going from the Bill to secondary legislation and then to statutory instruments. Will they be affirmative or negative? I do not feel in a position where I am able to make an informed decision.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would say, somewhat reflecting what Justin Bates said in evidence a couple of weeks ago, that we could put a great deal in the Bill—in primary legislation—but that would make the law exceptionally unwieldy and unresponsive to the developing terrain of building assurance, building safety and methods of construction. As Mr Bates pointed out, it would also mean that we would have to sit here from now until some time in 2022 for line-by-line consideration of the clauses in the primary legislation. Secondary legislation allows us to be flexible and respond to the changing terrain, while also giving Parliament an appropriate degree of scrutiny and control.

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Given that the Government intend to use secondary legislation to such a large extent, does the Minister accept that it is vital that all stakeholders, particularly leaseholders affected by the legislation, have sufficient time to scrutinise it?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. She will know that we often consult on secondary legislation before laying the regulations, so that there is time for the community, in its widest context, to give feedback on that legislation. Whether the regulations are subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, there is ample opportunity for Parliament and the House of Commons to consider them, have a say and scrutinise that secondary legislation, either in a Committee such as this for the affirmative procedure, or with the entire Chamber praying against regulations subject to the negative procedure.

We have already published secondary legislation and a number of factsheets to support the primary legislation. We will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process, which, I remind the hon. Lady, is likely to be longer rather than shorter; this Committee stage will be followed by Report. There will be ample opportunity for the Committee and the House to look at the legislation and the regulations and to comment and vote on them.

The insurance market for approved inspectors is intricate and some bodies have specialist insurance expertise in this area. The power in clause 47 will enable the Secretary of State to appoint specialist bodies to undertake this important and complex work, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston alluded to, where the Government think that appropriate. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank the Minister and other Members for their helpful contributions. As has been said, insurance, particularly professional indemnity insurance, has caused considerable debate and angst, not only for the professionals involved, but about the future role of the accountable person and those involved in building control. The ABI and AXA refer to that in their submissions.

Members have spoken about secondary legislation. The market has to respond to this measure, and that is why more detail would have been helpful. The Minister’s comments on consulting key stakeholders are constructive and reassuring. I assume that the ABI will be one of those stakeholders, and those discussions may be taking place not quite as we speak but over the next few weeks—I hope that that is the case. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the clause and the new SIs provide adequate cover and deliver the culture change that we all want.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I will keep my comments brief. I want to touch on whether primary legislation is the appropriate place to set out the specification.

I fully appreciate and do not disagree with the comments that have been made on the need to see the detail. I completely agree with the comments of members across the Committee about the need to consult and to ensure that stakeholders are appropriately engaged. If we put this in primary legislation, I think there might be a slight unintended consequence of pigeonholing it too far.

My interpretation of the ABI’s evidence is that there is a need to ensure that appropriate stakeholder feedback is reflected in regulation. In other areas, it is not uncommon for insurance mechanisms such as those in clause 47 to be delegated to secondary legislation, because it allows time for that engagement and the pulling together of stakeholders. It also allows for drilling down into the detail, because that secondary legislation can focus specifically on those really important points. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it is appropriate to delegate to secondary legislation, but I also agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. There is concern in the industry, as we have heard, particularly about incidences of fire and the inability to obtain appropriate insurance. Clause 47 seeks to remediate that and to interlink that more widely, so that we can have the safety we have been talking about and the cultural change that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned a moment ago.

This is an important but technical debate on whether primary or secondary legislation is the appropriate place for the requirements in clause 47. Broadly speaking, I think my right hon. Friend is right, but I say to him again, and this has been echoed across the Committee, that Members are seeking to ensure the broadest level of engagement with different stakeholders as this progresses. That will be important in ensuring that the subsequent legislation that feeds off clause 47 reflects accurately what we are trying to bring about and, ultimately, that the clause achieves its aims.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I share the concerns about what is happening to the insurance industry in the context of building safety. I also share the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston about the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation for so many elements, including insurance.

I want to highlight a couple of issues that the insurance industry has raised with us. We have had submissions from AXA—one of the biggest insurers in the country—and from the Association of British Insurers, which says that it is

“concerned that significant detail is left to secondary legislation.”

The ABI has raised specific concerns about the availability and affordability of cover for fire safety works, an issue that is already hitting a number of professionals in the construction industry. It is concerned about the confusion over the definition of the accountable person and the building safety manager roles, and how that impacts on their ability to obtain professional indemnity insurance. It wants more detail so that there is no “potential for confusion”. The ABI is also concerned about the

“legal position where there may be multiple APs responsible for a building”,

and it is seeking

“a better understanding of the liabilities that flow”

from the issues of underwriting PI insurance, and particularly how those liabilities are split between the two roles.

The ABI goes on to say that

“the current market conditions make it a sub-optimal time”

—I love the term “sub-optimal”; it basically means “a rubbish time”—

“to be launching any kind of new regulatory framework requiring mandatory PI cover.”

Of course, we all want everyone involved to have adequate insurance cover in some form or another.

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)

I appreciate a lot of the hon. Member’s points and I share concerns about the very difficult situation. Does she agree, however, that if the legislation is too prescriptive, we could end up restricting the industry and as a result make it more difficult for it to adjust to what are actually asking it to do?

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

The hon. Member makes a good point. The problem with insurance is that it can dominate discussions about public policy because issues arise that are not covered by the original legislation and regulations. If something does not go ahead—we have seen tabloid headlines like, “Council stops children going on a school trip”—it is often not because it has been proscribed but because of the insurers. It has nothing to do with the council. We must understand the crucial relationship between the private sector and the insurance sector. The Government must be careful that any legislation on safety, such as this Bill, does not have unintended consequences.

In conclusion, the ABI wrote in its submission that

“there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to the problem of the cost of insurance for un-remediated high-rise residential buildings…However, market-led intervention by itself will not ‘solve’ the problem—there is likely to be a need for the Government to intervene to provide support for the relatively small number of buildings that are simply too risky for the market to insure at prices that are affordable to the majority of leaseholders.”

Is that something that the Government are considering? The last thing we want is to go from the current situation of having many unsafe new homes, to one where we have no new homes.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the Committee for its consideration of the clause. Before addressing the points that have been raised, let me reiterate that we believe that the reforms in the Bill, and particularly in this clause, by creating a requirement to publish guidelines in the future and providing the Government with the power to secure the involvement of specialist bodies in assessing what the insurance guidelines and approved schemes should be, provide clarity to assurers and the insurance market. I can assure the Committee that my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh has held a series of discussions with the insurance sector over the last year. Indeed, today he began a series of much more detailed bilateral discussions with the sector to make sure that the insurance provision is appropriate and available.

Before I address the points made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, let me address one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West about secondary legislation in the context of this clause. Although I understand the points that Members across the House, and not just in this Committee, express about secondary legislation, we must remember that if there is to be further Government legislation in the financial affairs space—in risk assurance or lending, for example—that could have a consequential effect on the regulations that apply to the insurance market with respect to building safety if we write those regulations into the Bill. Because of changes and other legislation that may come from other Departments, it is much safer for us to put our consequential arrangements in secondary legislation, which allows the Government the flexibility to respond more quickly and allows the House to scrutinise those changes.

I turn to the compelling contribution by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I recognise that she raised some questions about the relative roles and responsibilities of the accountable person versus the responsible person, and the way in which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will operate. We will certainly ensure, though guidance, that those understandings are clear. That is one of the reasons why, for example, we have specified that where there are potentially multiple accountable persons, there will be a principal accountable person. That should, I hope, give the insurance sector and other players in the market some clear direction and guidance as to who is responsible for what, and their relative responsibilities.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the difficulties with risk assessors, for example, getting assurance and insurance. We recognise that. One might say that the insurance sector has been rather sclerotic, but that is one of the reasons why we have worked closely with it, and one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made it clear when he was Secretary of State that we will provide for public indemnity insurance for EWS1 a Government-backed backstop where the market is not able to provide insurance for those inspectors that require it.

We have tried to ensure that we have sufficient flexibility in the clause to respond to the changing terrain of the insurance market and of building safety, and that we have provided, through other means, adequate resources and adequate assurances to the market that the Government are there to help where necessary. Having said that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 48 - Plans certificates

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Clause 48 aims to bring the process for checking plans when work is supervised by a registered building control approver more into line with the process when local authorities are the building control body—another example of our trying to level the terrain. Currently, section 50 of the Building Act 1984 enables an approved inspector, or registered building control approver as they will be called in the future, at the request of a person intending to carry out building work, to issue a plans certificate to the local authority. That can be issued if they have inspected plans of work covered by an initial notice, and are satisfied that if the work is carried out in accordance with the plans the work will comply with building regulations’ requirements.

At the moment, plans certificates are voluntary, and we know that only a small proportion of initial notices are accompanied by plans certificates. In contrast, where a local authority is the building control body, plans of building work have to be deposited for building work to be carried out on a building subject to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These plans have to be approved or rejected by the local authority.

Although approved inspectors or registered building control approvers will undoubtedly do a diligent job in checking plans, it is right that we seek to bring the processes more into line with each other. That will ensure greater transparency, bolster assurance that plans have been properly checked, and avoid any suggestion that those carrying out building work may get an easier ride depending on whether they use an approved inspector or registered building control approver, or a local authority. This will also provide a better basis for consultation between registered building control approvers and fire and rescue authorities on the fire safety aspects of plans.

We consulted last year on the principle of making plans certificates mandatory in specified circumstances. There was strong support for that, and clause 48 provides the framework for doing so. The clause inserts proposed new subsections (1A), (1B), (1C) and (1D) into section 50 of the Building Act 1984. They set out that if certain conditions are met, and the person carrying out the work so requests, a registered building control approver must issue a plans certificate and that these must be provided in the prescribed form.

Clause 48(2)(c) inserts proposed new section 50(7A) into the Building Act 1984. It enables building regulations to prescribe circumstances in which a plans certificate must be issued, and the consequences if a plans certificate is not issued.

Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will just finish this part and then I will give way to my hon. Friend, who I know is champing at the bit.

We can prescribe, for example, that plans certificates must be issued for buildings covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)

The Minister may be coming to this, but it would help my learning and understanding if he could clarify why we are not mandating plans certificates for all building works. It would be helpful to have a few more examples of where there will be mandated plans.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Order. Before the Minister responds, I gently point out again that I was reading his speech from the explanatory notes as he made those points. Will he point out to his officials that we do not need them to provide him with notes from the explanatory notes, which are already in the public domain, to read out here in Committee?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to you, Mr Efford. There are certain legal reasons why I say to the Committee what is in the explanatory notes. It helps the Committee to understand and ensures that those listening to my words also understand the way we intend to upgrade the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked why we do not mandate certificates for all building work. We think that it is a disproportionate response to expect plans for small-scale building work to be deposited with an approved local authority, and the same principle essentially applies for plans certificates. We need to make sure that proportion is maintained at all times.

I will reiterate the key function of the clause in order to help the Committee and to help you, Mr Efford, in guiding our deliberations. I am grateful to the Clerks for their ever-mindful guidance. The clause provides the framework for us to make important changes to the way in which plans certificates are issued. I hope the Committee will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Information gathering

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to debate clause 52 stand part.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will try to be brief. Clause 51 relates to local authorities gathering information about particular projects supervised by registered building control approvers where that project has become the responsibility of the local authority. Under the current system, approved inspectors are under no explicit duty to provide information about their casework to a local authority; only the owner of the building can be asked to provide information. There can be problems where an approved inspector ceases to operate or leaves a project unfinished, or indeed both.

In such cases, either the local authority or a new approved inspector will pick up the building control function, but it can struggle to obtain the information on the work completed thus far. In practice, that can result in delays to projects and a risk that building work continues without adequate oversight. It also means a stop-start approach to building control enforcement and more work for the local authorities trying to access that information, which are sometimes unsuccessful.

The changes introduced by the clause require registered building control approvers—or former ones, if they have ceased operating—to provide local authorities with information relating to their building work. Failure of the registered building control approver to comply with a request made by a local authority will be a criminal offence, which is newly provided for in the Bill. Registered building control approvers will also be under a duty to provide copies of that information to their clients.

Together, the measures will ensure a smooth transfer of information from registered building control approvers to local authorities where there is a change of building control provider.

Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)

I come from somewhere with multi-tier authorities and a very small district council which is responsible for planning. Should we be concerned about the measures being burdensome for local authorities?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We always apply the new burdens doctrine when applying new responsibilities to local authorities, and I am sure that will be the case here.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

As he is on his feet and complying with your adjudication that one should stand to intervene, Mr Efford, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

Thank you, Mr Efford; it is pleasure to know that there is a fellow taxi driver in the room. I didn’t realise you were an ex-cabbie—that makes two of us.

On the issue of local authorities, and the point that the hon. Member for North Devon has just raised, will the Minister ensure that local authorities actually have the funding to ensure that what he is outlining can work within this system?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I say, when we apply new responsibilities to local authorities, it is usual practice to apply the new burdens doctrine and thereby determine what further support local authorities might require. Incidentally, last year local authorities received their best funding settlement in 10 years. The Government are committed, through the spending review process, to ensure that this Building Safety Bill, the regulations that flow from it and the organisations and officers created by it are also adequately funded. Having made that point to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Briefly, I am sure these clauses are welcome; information sharing will be vital to the new landscape of building safety. The introduction of an electronic portal—I might refer to the Minister’s previous profession and experience in IT—will result in greater systems efficiency, but will require some investment in hardware, systems, development and training. Could the Minister touch on that?

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I will keep my comments brief, to keep in line with the culture across the Committee so far. To complement what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said, I had hoped to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Minister’s point about consistency of process. The portal in clause 52 is welcome, but the back-office processes required to ensure that that is usable and feasible will clearly be important. We have been discussing this duty to share information throughout the Bill, but it is particularly highlighted by clauses 51 and 52. Clearly, for that to succeed, we must be able to ensure that it can be done in the way that we would require.

The point that I really want to press on my right hon. Friend the Minister is that we should ensure that we have that consistency of approach. Perhaps he could reassure us that his Department will work with local authorities to ensure that, in respect of these clauses, we can get that consistency? As hon. Members have said, operational delivery is the one thing that this might fall down on. I am also heartened to hear what he said on the funding point, but, as this progresses, it may need a somewhat flexible approach.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I certainly do not want to prescribe how a portal might be built. That is not for a Government Minister to do—certainly not for one who is a former IT consultant. To respond to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, we will work closely with the Building Safety Regulator to determine how a national portal will be established and maintained. We will bring forward further information in due course; we are working closely with the shadow regulator, and will inform the House when we have more information about how the portal will operate.

Clause 53 - Functions under Part 3 of Building Act 1984

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Again, this is a little technical, but it bears some description. The clause provides powers for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to allocate responsibilities for functions provided to local authorities in part III of the Building Act 1984 between the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities. Part III of the Act places a number of functions on local authorities in relation to buildings, including the ability to issue a notice to the building owner to require work to be undertaken on the building on matters such as drainage, sanitary conveniences, provision of food storage and means of escape—a variety of requirements.

Part III of the Act also provides functions for local authorities in relation to demolitions of buildings, but there is a potential overlap for the Bill in respect of in-scope buildings. This is between some of the functions placed on local authorities under part III and the regulator’s role for in-scope buildings, both in occupation and as a building control authority, under part I of the Act. To avoid any confusion and any potential duplication of the regulations, we will be able to allocate formally to the regulator functions under part III for in-scope buildings, using regulations under the clause.

Alternatively, those functions may continue to rest with the local authority or be available to both the regulator and the local authority. It will be important that where the local authority retains responsibility for certain matters under part III, it informs the regulator if it intends to exercise the relevant functions, so that there is effective co-ordination between the two. The clause provides for regulations to require a local authority to notify the Building Safety Regulator if it intends to exercise one of the part III functions, and vice versa.

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

rose—

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I see the hon. Lady is on her feet, so I shall give way.

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am interested in part III of the Building Act 1984, which talks about means of escape. How will personal emergency evacuation plans be co-ordinated under this measure? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain further on that point.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the hon. Lady, and that is something that we will work through with the Health and Safety Executive and BSR as they work together to build up their specific competencies and responsibilities. That will become increasingly clear as the BSR beds in and builds out.

We will consult local authorities in developing any regulations. As they are subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will of course have to approve them.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I was not sure when it was best to ask this question, so I will ask it now. It is a genuine question that I do not know the answer to. The hon. Member for North Devon rightly raised the concern of small districts. “Saddled” is the wrong word, but they will have increased responsibilities, require increased technical knowledge, and have a wider range of responsibilities. There is also the crossover with their other responsibilities mentioned in the clause. Many authorities, particularly small ones, share functions, departments and teams across more than one authority. Does the Bill take account of that—for instance, where an authority does not have its own building control team or one of the other safety teams, but shares it with another authority? Has the Bill taken this issue into account?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the hon. Lady. Yes, I believe it has. As we know, local authorities share services and a variety of functions, some of which are statutory. They are able to share those functions across geographies and still execute their statutory responsibilities, and I do not foresee any issue here. She is quite right to say that smaller authorities often have challenges with resources that do a multiplicity of things. One of the reasons why we want in the Bill to see the development of multidisciplinary teams—the Building Safety Regulator and its functions, fire and rescue services, local authorities —is to ensure that even smaller authorities that have in-scope buildings are able to use those multidisciplinary teams to do the work that the Building Safety Regulator will require of them.

I hope that Members will agree that these regulations serve an important purpose and will support the clause. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I have just one brief question—and a plea. Again, they refer to personal emergency evacuation plans, or PEEPs, and a submission from the Leaseholder Disability Action Group, or Clad Dag, which I know the Minister is familiar with. In earlier clauses that we have considered, we spoke about the importance of residents’ panels in shaping the current landscape, and of ensuring that disabled people are a key voice on those panels. So I would be interested to hear the Minister’s observations on that point, briefly.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we heard in evidence from the Health and Safety Executive that the shadow regulator is already doing work to—using that awful phrase—reach out to various communities and groups, to make sure that the residents’ panel, when it is fully constituted, is also fully representative.

With respect to people with disabilities, I do not believe that anything in the Bill cuts across or undermines disability rights or legislation.

With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 54 - Minor and Consequential Amendments

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 22, 35 and 38.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Government amendments 20 and 21.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

As these are Government amendments, I should probably speak to them, at least briefly.

These amendments provide Welsh Ministers with the power to commence certain provisions of the Bill in relation to Wales, as well as transferring to Welsh Ministers the power to commence certain uncommenced provisions of the Building Act 1984.

In broad terms, amendment 20 amends the commencement power in clause 146 of the Bill to ensure that only Welsh Ministers have the power to commence provisions that apply only in Wales; only the Secretary of State has the power to commence provisions that apply only in England; that Welsh Ministers have the power to commence in relation to Wales provisions that apply in England and Wales, with some minor exceptions; that the Secretary of State has the power to commence in relation to England provisions that apply in England and Wales; and that the Secretary of State retains the power to commence provisions that apply in England and Wales but which we consider are not within the legislative competence of the Senedd.

Amendment 22 ensures that in relation to buildings in Wales where enforcement action has been taken under section 36 of the 1984 Act, there is clarification that the power to seek an injunction for rectification or removal of work in breach of the building relations is not prejudiced, and it applies to the Counsel General. It is a technical amendment; it does not transfer or confer any new powers on the Counsel General. It is merely a clarification.

I turn very briefly to schedule 5. As well as the substantive changes to the 1984 Act set out in clauses in part 3 of the Bill, a number of minor and consequential amendments to the Act are set out in schedule 5. These changes include those needed to reflect the new terminology used in part 3, such as building control authorities or applications for building control approval. They also include changes to reflect the fact that certain functions previously exercised by the Secretary of State will now be exercised by the Building Safety Regulator.

These are all necessary changes to ensure that the Building Act 1984, and other pieces of legislation, fully reflect the changes made in the Bill, enabling the legislation to work effectively. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Schedule 5 - MINOR CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH PART 3

Clause 55 - Appeals

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Briefly, clause 55 relates to changes to appeals under the Building Act 1984. We propose to move certain appeals, which are currently heard by the Secretary of State, to the regulator. These appeals relate to the use of certain materials, the refusal to relax building regulations, and a registered building control approver’s refusal to give a plans certificate. The regulator will oversee the performance of building control bodies in England, so it follows that appeals of local authorities and registered building control approver decisions will now sit with the Building Safety Regulator.

Clause 55 also moves appeals of various building matters from the magistrates court to the property first-tier tribunal. We believe this will create a high level of expertise within the first-tier tribunal, and we intend to establish a specialist unit within it. Cases on important matters, such as the use of products and fire and safety risk assessments, will be heard by that first-tier tribunal specialist unit. Over time, a body of case law and precedent will emerge, leading to increasingly informed and rapid rulings. The full details of this clause are found in schedule 6.

Schedule 6 contains amendments to the Building Act 1984 that relate to appeals and other determinations. I have previously mentioned that appeals and determinations under the Act in England will now be undertaken by the Building Safety Regulator or first-tier tribunal. We want to align the appeals procedure for all building control decisions in England to sit ultimately with that tribunal, and to accommodate the Building Safety Regulator’s position as a new building control authority with oversight of building control bodies.

Paragraphs 2 to 8 move appeals on the use of certain materials, refusal of relaxation of building regulations and refusal by a registered building control approver to give a plan certificate from the Secretary of State to the regulator. Paragraphs 9 to 28 transfer functions from the magistrates court to the tribunal in England, along with minor and consequential related amendments. Finally, paragraph 30 creates new provisions for appeals where it is disputed whether proposed work is higher-risk building work. That is to say that a person who intends to carry out the work can appeal a local authority’s view that their building is in the scope of the higher-risk regime. These are, again, technical but important items, and I commend them to the Committee.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I will keep my comments brief. I appreciate that this is a technical clause, as my right hon. Friend has articulated well, but I will make a few brief points. Broadly speaking, I support the clause. It is right that we have people with the expertise to determine appeals. We must ensure that that is done in a way that provides public confidence, so people know that appeals have had due process.

As someone who has interacted with these systems in the past, may I make a plea to my right hon. Friend? It is all well and good setting up systems such as this, but can we please ensure the process works? It may be hindered if we put things into new bodies and new units in the judicial system, and then people have the frustration of going through the rigmarole of processes that do not work or dealing with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service systems that may not function to the best of their ability. We want to ensure public and industry confidence that when an appeal is made, it will be dealt with in an appropriate, timely and cost-effective manner, and the rules and regulations will be followed.

I concur with my right hon. Friend when he says that he hopes a body of precedent and case law will build up in this area. Clearly, there is existing precedent, which I hope judges who are learned in this area will pick up on. He has had a shopping list of requests from me today, but I ask him to ensure that there is appropriate guidance and real engagement between the Department, the Ministry of Justice and the judges who will sit within this tribunal. It is important that there is consistency in the process, and that it ultimately instils confidence.

Whenever we set up an appeals process such as this one, it is vital that we ensure that it can work. The clause has my full support. It is right to ensure that these technical appeals are dealt with by people who have the right skillset and knowledge, but let us ensure that the process works so that the really good intentions behind clause 55 are realised as we would expect.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

My hon. Friend has provided me and my officials with not so much a shopping basket as a shopping trolley of requests. Perhaps an Ocado delivery will arrive at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities very soon.

I will clarify my remarks to help my hon. Friend, because he is quite right. When I said that over time a body of case law and precedent would emerge, I should have said that over time a further body of case law and further precedent, built upon what already exists, will emerge, and that will lead to increasingly informed rulings. Having listened to you and your rulings, Mr Efford, I now commend this clause to the Committee.

Clause 56 - Fees and charges

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I will try to ensure that I keep my teeth in as I whistle through the s’s in clause 56.

We are committed to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator receives the funding required to enable it to deliver. Members of the Committee have made that point in discussion of the previous clauses. Dame Judith’s 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 safety regulator should pay more. The Bill needs to enable the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees, both to implement the recommendation of the independent review and to put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing. The power could also be used to charge for other Building Safety Regulator functions under the Building Act, such as registering building inspectors and building control approvals.

In a previous debate on clause 27 on the power to charge regulator fees, the Committee was rightly interested in any effects on leaseholders. We expect that the power under clause 56 would be used to charge fees for building control during the design and construction of new high-rise residential buildings, just as building control is charged for currently. Leaseholders will not directly bear the cost of such fees. However, the purchase price for a new home may reflect the costs of construction, including any regulatory costs, as is the case now. We do not intend that the leaseholder bear directly the costs of these particular fees.

For building control during refurbishments, the position remains as it is now. Building control fees can be passed on only if the terms of the lease allow—of course, different leases have different terms. This is a complicated area, and I remind the Committee that although the position on building control fees is broadly unchanged from current practice, we are introducing a new regulatory regime in occupation under part 4, for which the regulator may charge fees under clause 27.

For costs under part 4, there are specific provisions that deal with the effects on leaseholders under the building safety charter. The charge includes the costs of delivering a defined set of safety measures, to ensure that leaseholders and residents feel safe in their homes. The charge includes regulator fees specifically associated with the activities covered by the building safety charge, such as checks on the safety case to ensure the building is being managed safely. The building safety charge provisions also contain strong safeguards for leaseholders that prevent fees resulting from enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person being passed on to leaseholders.

This clause also provides powers for regulations to extend the scope of current local authority building control charging schemes. Currently, local authorities can charge for specified building control activities, as set out in the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010, namely checking plans, inspecting work, dealing with building notices, dealing with reversions from approved inspectors and dealing with requests for regularisations. Local authorities can also charge for advice given in relation to any of those activities. However, local authorities carry out a number of other functions under the Building Act that are not in the scope of the current charges regulations.

We want to give local authorities the opportunity to recover more of their costs. Therefore, clause 56 provides wider powers for regulations to set fees and charges in relation to any local authority function under the Building Act. It enables the regulations to prescribe what fees should be set and that local authorities can set out their charges in schemes established in accordance with principles set out in the regulations. This is in line with the approach in the current regulations, which enable local authorities to set out charging schemes and principles that those schemes must follow. The clause also enables Welsh Ministers to charge for their functions under part 2A of the Building Act in Wales.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

After how many days will the building safety charge be payable, and how much will it be? That is vital, obviously, to resident leaseholders. On the finer detail of the scope, will the charge be levied on buildings from 11 to 18 metres, and on those that are18 metres-plus?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

With respect to the last point, the charge will be levied on buildings in the scope of this Bill—this regime. We have said that the charges will not be more than a certain amount, but clearly, charges can change over time, so it would not be appropriate for me to say what a specific building safety charge ought to be. On how long it will take to pay, that is certainly something that we will want to work through with the Building Safety Regulator and we will specify in secondary legislation.

Clause 57 - Levy on applications for building control approval in respect of higher-risk buildings

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 57, page 78, line 12, at end insert—

“(4A) The regulations must exempt applications or specified descriptions of relevant applications made by or on behalf of registered social landlords for the provision of social housing as defined by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”

This amendment would seek to remove the levy as introduced by Clause 57 from social housing.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

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

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

It is appropriate that I mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I welcome the opportunity to move this amendment. The Minister will recognise my deep interest in housing and in ensuring that everyone can live in a good-quality, secure, safe home that they can afford to live in. The amendment would place in the Bill, rather than in regulations, an exemption for social housing from the levy introduced by the clause.

The levy is designed to meet building safety expenditure. That expenditure is not the ongoing cost of the new building safety regime, which is met through the building safety charge; it is designed to cover the cost of Government support for the remediation of unsafe cladding. That support is provided to leaseholders in buildings with unsafe cladding systems, either through the Building Safety Fund or through a system of low-cost loans for buildings under 18 metres, the details of which are yet to be announced.

For the most part, that support is not available to social landlords, other than to alleviate costs that they may otherwise have to pass on to leaseholders. With the exception of buildings with aluminium composite material cladding, social landlords have been denied access to those funds. For councils, remediation costs therefore fall on the housing revenue account and must be recouped either through rent increases or by diverting funds away from improvements to council housing or the provision of new council housing.

In contrast to many private developers and freeholders, social and council housing providers were the quickest to react post Grenfell. Analysis has shown that housing associations have paid six times more than developers to remediate dangerous cladding. According to G15, the group of London’s largest housing associations, overall, associations have set aside nearly £3 billion for historical remediation costs, far more than the half a billion pounds that the private sector has provided.

Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

My hon. Friend is making really powerful points. I have a number of blocks in my constituency managed by housing associations, but they were generally built by volume house builders, and the housing associations are having to deal with the costs that she mentions. Ultimately, as she says, those costs are falling on leaseholders, many of whom are shared owners and people on fixed incomes, and on the future social tenants of the housing association, because the costs impact the association’s capital programme. Does she agree that that means a slowdown in what is already a very slow social housing new build programme, and concerns about other repairs and capital works to existing social rent homes in the portfolios of the housing associations?

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

I thank my hon. Friend for making those key points so well. I will reiterate them: the Local Government Association and housing associations have warned that building safety costs will put at risk their ability to build much more affordable housing, as she pointed out. The required subsidy per affordable home currently sits at approximately £50,000; £3 million spent on remediation costs would mean 58,000 fewer homes over the next 10 years. Shelter also estimates that we need 90,000 new social homes a year to fix our housing crisis, and that does not go into what is needed to get social homes to a decent standard or reach our net zero targets, which the Minister will know we discussed in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee earlier this week.

The Local Government Association—or should I say the Conservative-led Local Government Association—stated in its written evidence:

“Imposing the developer levy on councils would leave council tenants paying for the failings of private developers. If the Levy is imposed on social providers, their ability to deliver the improvements and additions to the housing stock that the Government requires will be put at risk.”

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

Has the hon. Lady received any estimates of the cost of the levy for social providers? If not, does she agree that it might be helpful if the Minister could tell us what estimates the Government have made?

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

I thank the hon. Lady for her important contributions. There are different levels, because this is such a complex area, but research that the LGA commissioned, which just looked at the total cost to deliver compliance with the high safety standards, the installation of sprinklers and compartmentation across the entire housing revenue account council housing stock, would be more than £8 billion over a 10-year period, with the majority of the investment taking place in the first five years.

There is so much at stake here that will have an impact on social housing and the likelihood of being able to build good social housing. The conclusion is that the levy, if imposed on councils and social landlords, will increase the cost of building or refurbishing social housing, or increase the rents, yet the benefits to funds will not be available to the tenants who would otherwise have benefited from lower rents or better housing.

Finally, imposing the levy on councils means council tenants will be subsidising the failings of private developers and paying the costs of both remediating council housing and private housing. I am pleased to move this amendment; I hope the Minister will accept it, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment. In parenthesis, let me say that the Government are committed to increasing affordable housing and socially rented homes as a component of that. She will know, as an articulate and committed member of the HCLG Committee, that we have made available in the present 2021 to 2026 cycle more than £12 billion, £11.5 billion of which is new money, to build some 180,000 new homes, economic conditions permitting, of which 32,000, or double the number in the present cycle, will be for social rent. We have also made it easier for councils and local authorities to build social homes if they wish, but I will not go into the detail of that, because it is a separate matter and does not apply to this clause.

I had a conversation only last night with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on our approach to the levy and exemptions, and I am pleased to inform the hon. Member for Luton South that we have already proposed —not as a direct result of that conversation, but more broadly—an exemption from the levy for affordable housing as a whole. That includes social housing, as well as housing for rent or sale at least 20% below market value, shared ownership and rent to buy. We recognise that applying a levy to affordable housing, which includes social housing, would increase the cost of developing affordable housing and is likely to be a disincentive to supply.

We presently have a public consultation in flight, seeking views and evidence on how the exemption would work in practice. The consultation will conclude on 15 October. We would not want to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, although I think the hon. Member for Luton South can see the way our thoughts are progressing, but neither do we want to write such a matter on to the face of the Bill, because we think that it is more appropriate in secondary legislation. We are consulting on it and we do want to ensure that the exemption applies, so I hope that she will agree that her amendment is unnecessary and therefore withdraw it.

Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

It is really good to hear the Minister talk about social housing, because when the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has taken evidence on this we have heard only about affordable housing; we could not get the social housing element drawn out. Just to clarify, will social housing associations be exempt from the charge?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Our proposal is that social housing be exempted from the levy. We are consulting on how to do it, but that is our proposal, so the Committee can see the flight trajectory that the Government are on. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Luton South, when she has an opportunity to make her views plain, will withdraw her amendment.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I very much concur with the sentiment behind the amendment, as someone who is very passionate about social housing, as my right hon. Friend knows. Will he ensure that the consultation is as broad as possible, because social housing providers, as I am sure we all know, come in many different forms—it is a complex landscape? Can he reassure me that we will see the broadest possible consultation, to ensure that this works as effectively as possible?

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We consult a wide variety of statutory stakeholders, but we do not include only the usual suspects in Government consultations, so it is possible for anybody to respond. We usually expect a wide variety of inputs, in order that we may reach a sensible conclusion. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Luton South will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Mr Efford, is it your wish that I should speak to clause 57 itself before we decide on the amendment?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Yes.

Christopher Pincher (Conservative, Tamworth)

Then I shall do so.

Clause 57 introduces powers to create a levy on developers who seek regulatory permission to build certain high-rise residential buildings at the gateway 2 stage of the new building safety regime. This building safety levy will be used for the purposes of meeting the Government’s building safety expenditure, such as providing assistance for the purpose of removing unsafe cladding. Residential developers who construct new high-rise buildings will gain from the restoration of confidence in the housing market, so it is right that they should help fund the significant costs associated with fixing buildings when they are unsafe.

The Government have already set up a £1 billion safety fund, with grants to help leaseholders pay for the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding on their high-rise buildings. That is in addition to the £600 million for replacement of ACM cladding, bringing the total remediation funding to £1.6 billion. An additional £3.5 billion was announced in February 2021, so we are now providing over £5 billion, plus a waking watch fund, to support in-scope high-rise buildings to be remediated.

Our funding will protect leaseholders from the costs of the highest risks. However, the levy funding does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure that their buildings are safe. They should consider all routes to meet costs, protecting leaseholders wherever they can—for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work. Some developers are already taking steps to remediate historical building safety defects. Of course, some are not, and we say that they should do so.

Taylor Wimpey has set aside £165 million for remediation purposes, Barratts has set aside £82 million, and Persimmon £75 million. Bellway is reported to have provided over £130 million for remediation of historical building defects. We continue to encourage developers to step up and ensure that the costs of remediation do not fall on leaseholders, because they did not cause the problems. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Luton South earlier, we have launched a consultation on the design of the levy, which will help shape secondary legislation on the rate and how the levy is calculated.

I will not speak to the developer tax, because that is not part of the Bill. It is a Treasury matter and is presently being consulted on, but we reckon that it will raise £2 billion over 10 years. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, and I welcome the direction of travel, which demonstrates how this place can work most effectively for the good of the affordable housing sector as a whole.

On clause 57, the principle of the levy is most welcome. Campaigners up and down the country have been pushing for a levy—sometimes under the polluter pays principle. There is a history of failure and deregulation in the construction industry, and resident leaseholders are certainly not responsible for the mess. Then we get to some of the details. The principle of polluter pays is a good thing. Looking at the evidence from the Select Committee—we have colleagues present who are key members of that—the cost of remediation is estimated to be some £15 billion. The Minister referred to conversations with his good friends in the Treasury, who are referring to a levy of £2 billion—a fraction of that.

On the scope of the levy, I understand some of the practicalities of gateway 2, but to whom will that money be directed to provide support? Will it be by way of grants? I notice another reference in clause 57 to the provision of loans, but loans to who? The principle is good and we welcome a levy, but it is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the building safety scandal, which is exactly what it is. We urge the Minister to look again at the size and scope of that with his good friends in the Treasury. Of course, voices outside this place will continue over and over and get louder and louder until justice is done.

On other potential exclusions, looking at the Department—I am not on top of its new name, by the way, so excuse me—

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)

It just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? According to the Government’s own figures, 274 hospitals of 18 metres and above are in scope at the moment, as well as 10 care homes. For the hospitals, that will affect capital spending in other Departments. I am sure that we all have ambitions to get renewed hospital facilities in our constituencies via capital spending. Drawing on the previous amendment, I am sure that that is something that Ministers are strongly considering. Of course, the Opposition—or Members across the piece, actually—would urge them to look at those exclusions.

Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)

I am really pleased to speak both to the clause and to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Luton South. As someone who probably would not be here were it not for social housing, I completely agree with the sentiment behind her amendment and with most, if not all, of what she said about the need to build more social housing, and in particular, her point about improving the quality of existing stock. I am sure that the biggest issue we both deal with is the quality of the existing stock in which people currently live. I do not disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment, which seeks to enable social housing providers to retain their limited resources—I am sure she would agree that they need more—to improve their stock.

I am heartened to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister about the positivity that appears to be coming from Her Majesty’s Treasury on this matter. It is fantastic to hear that those deliberations and conversations have been positive. I will probably not articulate it very well—apologies, this is a bit personal for me—but I am really pleased to hear that. It is important, and I was probably struggling with the issue a bit given my background and experiences. I am glad to hear that the Treasury have heard that point, and I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment.

The clause is the right move in respect of developers and the levy. As Dame Judith Hackitt pointed out, we will ultimately ensure that our system works and is financially robust. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out in his contribution, the regulations will be the meat of the legislation. I note the exemptions listed. I listened with real interest to the point the hon. Gentleman made about hospitals and care homes. Many of us, across the piece, can have discussions about that and perhaps work on it. We have talked about unintended consequences all day, and what we do not want to see is any sort of inhibition of the Government’s agenda of building more hospitals, improving social care, and doing what we know needs to be done in our communities. The hon. Gentleman made an important point. I do not necessarily expect an answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister today; I appreciate that the conversations are ongoing, and I am sure he agrees that they are important.

We have heard some well-articulated speeches, and it is always a bit of a nightmare speaking after them because we tend to say what everyone else has said. To keep my comments as brief and to the point as possible, the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment is absolutely spot on, and I am really heartened to hear the response from my right hon. Friend the Minister. The levy is right, but we will need to scrutinise the accompanying regulations, particularly on exemptions, which I will consider with interest. The principle underpinning clause 57 is right and has my wholehearted support.

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. On the basis of his assurances about the outcome of the consultation, the direction of travel that he indicated, and the fact that we will keep a close eye on the progress of that consultation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Written evidence reported to the House